Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Can Anyone Help Me Out on This?

In my blog post, Seeing Is Believing, I refer to a youtube video containing the A&E documentary on the Ramsey case by Michael Tracey -- specifically to a particular scene in that video where Patsy indicates very clearly that calling 911 was her idea:

from the transcript:
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And  I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." 
A few months ago someone emailed to inform me that this video had been taken off the youtube site. And sure enough, when I checked, it was gone. Since then I've tried to find another copy but found myself in a state of confusion, because there is in fact a copy of the documentary still on youtube, but it's completely different from what's in the transcript posted by Jameson, to which I usually refer. And the scene where Patsy explains how she told John she was going to call the police is nowhere to be found.


After doing some digging lately, I learned that Tracey apparently produced at least three different documentaries on this case, and slightly different versions of each exist. None are currently available in DVD format, apparently, as I learned from checking at Amazon.

So I'm wondering whether anyone out there has access to the version containing Patsy's statement regarding the 911 call, or else can direct me to an online version,  either on youtube or anywhere else. According to the intro to the transcript posted by Jameson,
This is a transcript of the documentary shown on Channel nine in Colorado.  Some additional footage from the A&E show, hosted by Bill Kurtis, is in blue. The documentary was called "JonBenét's America" in England. On A&E, it was called "The Case of JonBenét - The Ramseys vs The Media"

If anyone has a DVD of this documentary (you can check by comparing it to Jameson's transcript), or knows of a copy accessible online, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know, either via email or by posting a comment below.

283 comments:

  1. DogG,

    I don't know if you've come across this website in your digging, however, the following link is to David Mills homepage "Mill's Productions." He lists the 4 documentaries he produced on the Jon Benet Ramsey murder. Michael Tracy co-produced "JonBenet's America" with him. For each, there is a script you can read. I've scanned them and can't find anything similar to what you have referenced from Jameson's website. Did Michael Tracy produce something completely separate from these? There is a "contact me" by message tab, perhaps he can give you more insight. Suzs

    http://www.millsproductions.co.uk/projects.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much.

      Very interesting. The first script on that site is very close to the transcription made available by Jameson. But it's a condensed version, with Patsy's description of how she told John she was going to call the police omitted.

      I'm absolutely sure it was there in at least one version of this film, because I did find the scene where she says precisely what's recorded in Jameson's transcription. John was sitting right next to her and didn't blink an eye. I wonder if it was cut because it contradicted their "official" version of what happened.

      I think I will contact Mills and/or Tracey regarding this. Wonder if they'll respond.

      Delete
  2. You're welcome. I agree, the first transcript is close. I believe you about Jameson's copy. I remember watching the link when it was "active" and hearing her say those words.

    If you do contact Mills, I think you should watch this first if you haven't already.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpwzPjhWFDQ

    It's his interview with Abrams on a segment called "Crime and Punishment." He discusses his documentary in length. There are even excerpts from it showing Patsy and John discussing the case, but nothing about her saying she called 911. Mills spent 5 days with them and he completely believes that they are innocent. You might need to strategize your approach when asking him to give you info just a tad, if you know what I mean. :) Suzs


    ReplyDelete
  3. Doc, please explain the point you are trying to make. I do not see anything incriminating that points toward John.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's evidence that John lied when he claimed he was the one who told Patsy to call the police. Or else Patsy lied. But when she presented her version, as documented in Tracey's film, he was sitting right next to her and failed to correct her.

      Regardless of who you choose to believe, they've presented contradictory versions of a key element in the case, the decision to call 911.

      Delete
  4. In either version, Patsy had John's consent to call 911, therefore it does not matter who's idea they said it was. If John had corrected her on a television program it would only serve to make them both look suspicious.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  5. His "consent"? Why would she need, or seek, her husband's consent in such dire circumstances?

    What kind of mysoginistic, paternalistic claptrap are you peddling this time, Herc? Didn't you learn your lesson from the outrage of all the women hereon the last time around with your ridiculous and offensive garbage about hymens?

    And you're utterly missing Doc's point.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, CC. But we need not label Hercule a misogynist to understand his attitude and his confusion. Actually a great many following this case have the same problem. It's all too easy to take the Ramsey version of what happened as gospel truth, a very dangerous assumption, imo.

      Hercule assumes Patsy would have had John's consent to call 911 because he is all too willing to accept their version of what happened. As I see it, and I think you would agree, if we learn anything at all from these two conflicting reports, it's that we have to think for ourselves and not let ourselves get misdirected by what "the Ramseys" have said about any aspect of the case. They were both suspects, and John still is a suspect -- so why take anything they say at face value?

      Imo Patsy's version is much more likely to be true than John's. And even though Patsy implies that John gave her permission to call, what we know about the case strongly suggests otherwise. I don't think either version tells the whole truth. That's something we need to infer from other aspects of the case.

      But what we do know for sure is that we can't accept at face value what either has said about whose idea that call was or whether both agreed to make it. If John wrote the note, as I feel sure he did, then he certainly would not have agreed. But he does seem to have manipulated Patsy into ultimately going along with his version of what happened (as reported in their book).

      Delete
  6. I'm always ready to acknowledge Herc's confusion, Doc, but past performance and your amelioration doesn't convince me it's necessarily benign.

    In any case, of course I agree, up to the point ofJohn having to manipulate Patsy. Under those circumstances and that kind of stress, I doubt she has much independent recollection of who said what and when, and a simple suggestion or "remembrance" by John would likely have sufficed.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  7. CC, do you always have your finger on the trigger when we have a discussion? Perhaps some therapy would take care of some of that unprovoked irritability.

    I was not suggesting that Patsy needed John's permission as if she were subservient to him. If two parents received a legitimate ransom note, don't you think they would both need to be in agreement on what actions to take next? The decision on whether or not to call police with their daughter's life at stake would have been a crucial decision, assuming that both or one of them is innocent. I certainly would not want my spouse to make a life or death decision without discussing it with me first. If that sounds mysoginistic to anyone, then I will assume that you are the type that looks for a reason to be offended by anything I say. I will continue to seek justice for JonBenet while you sit in a corner with your bottom lip rolled out and crying because you chose to be offended. Good luck with that approach.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your version of "seeking justice for Jonbenet" consists solely of promoting your Poopy Pants Theory while making allegations that have no basis in fact.

    I'm not offended, merely amused.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why would John leave anything to chance by taking a shower while Patsy found the note? If he painstakingly wrote this note to deter Patsy from calling 911, he woefully miscalculated how his wife would react. Why wouldn't John make a direct threat on Patsy's life in the note? E.g., "If you call the police John, your daughter and the rest of your family's lives will be in danger." Something to that effect. Then John could reasonably have a justification for asking her not to call 911 out of concern for her and Burke's life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing he got behind schedule on his plan, and hoped he would be showered by the time she got up. He didn't really have a choice on showering since he had to wash any trace evidence off of himself. I'll bet he did assume she would come get him. No criminal plan is perfect, and John was not a career criminal anyway. In fact, she did show him the note and then decided to call 911. He didn't expect that she would go against his advice. To me, he is not the empathetic type who would even realize what a mother's fear will make her do.

      Delete
    2. It seems clear, to me at least, that John felt confident his note would terrify Pasty and thus deter her from calling the cops. The threat to behead her beloved daughter would have been sufficient for a loving mother.

      The bottom line is that we really have no way of knowing for sure what transpired between them. All we know is what they've told us. It's possible they had a battle royal over whether or not to call the police and Patsy may have become alarmed at John's behavior. She said she "ran downstairs" to make the call, which suggests she was running from him. There was a phone on every floor.

      Delete
    3. The threats to JBR in the note were sufficient reason for JR to interfere with the 911 call. There would be no need for threats against other family members. The bigger problem, imo, is that Patsy didn't take the threats seriously. That means she either didn't read carefully, which is certainly possible, or that she knew the note was a fake before she made the call.

      Calling the police in such a situation is the default option and I'd guess that 98% of all people faced with a RN would call the police. There's no way JR didn't anticipate that she'd want to call the police.

      There may have been a battle Royal about calling the police. But if Patsy became suspicious of JR's behavior, imo that suspicion would never really go away. It doesn't make sense to me that she had suspicions but then put them aside later, especially with all the manipulation that would have been required to convince her she picked up glass from the broken window if she never in fact did so.

      It makes no sense that JR would be in the shower when PR found the RN. She might silently call police before JR could make the slightest attempt to dissuade her. If JR didn't want the 911 call made he surely was nearby when she found the RN. Of course we don't know who was where prior to 6am. We only have the R's version of events to go on.

      There is of course no reason for PR to be the one to find the RN. If JR wrote it he could also be the one to find it and read it to Patsy, acting as though he took the warnings seriously and telling her that they must not call the police. He still couldn't prevent a 911 call if she was determined but the idea that he'd leave the RN on the stairs for her to find and react to without his "input" strikes me as very unlikely.

      Delete
    4. As I see it, the 911 call would not have been made at that time if Patsy and John were collaborating and both knew the note was a fake. I've gone over my reasons many times so need not repeat them here. If you agree on that point, then you have no choice but to agree that the note must have been written by one of them without the knowledge of the other.

      And if you can accept my reasoning, then right off the bat we know that their "official" story about both of them agreeing to make that call can't be true. If you want to insist that John would have done it this way or done it that way, no matter. Either Patsy made the call in all innocence, or an innocent John somehow forced her to make the call against her will. Any other alternative seems highly unlikely, since that call completely undermined the staging so clearly outlined in the note.

      Now, as I see it, if John were the innocent party, and he told Patsy to make that call, she would certainly have resisted. And at that point there would have been nothing at all to prevent John from picking up the receiver and making the call himself. He was the CEO of a big and successful company, who was used to making decisions and he certainly must have made phone calls on a regular basis. So what would possibly have prevented him from calling 911 himself if Patsy had insisted such a call would put his daughter in danger and he'd insisted on calling the police anyhow?

      Of course there are many other reasons to suspect John. As Kolar and Thomas both demonstrate, he lied and/or behaved suspiciously on several occasions. It was he who hired the lawyers and it was he who refused to allow a police interview at a time when patsy was a helpless, heavily medicated basket case. And don't forget John's absurd story about losing his keys and breaking in months before. Plus the fact that JonBenet was sexually molested on the night of the crime and most likely on certain occasions prior to that night.

      Delete
  10. I, for one, think most posts from Hercule make complete sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I concur as well that most of Hercules posts make complete sense. What does not make sense is that Patsy completely went against everything in the letter and called police and then is the 1 who called over a congregation of people thus ensuring her daughter being beheaded and had a cleaning party....makes perfect sense for a completely innocent party right? Had she suspected John right from the 911 call then surely her suspicion would have grown well beyond suspicion after his disappearance for an hour on the 26th, saying he found her body at 11am and the window incident but somehow that did not occur..totally disproving Docs theory. C.J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What does not make sense is that Patsy completely went against everything in the letter and called police . . ."

      If she was the one who wrote that letter, then it certainly makes no sense.

      Delete
    2. You continually refer to a " cleaning party", yet I can find no reference to any such thing in any book or interview ever made public, nor did any of Patsy's friends come forward after the fact stating they had helped clean up the crime scene. Please state your source, CJ, for that and for your earlier allegation that Patsy crossed the crine scene tape in JBR's doorway.
      CC

      Delete
  12. So John was so sure nobody was in the train room window for months that he thought he could get away with breaking the window the night of the murder and not face contradicting accounts that it wasn't broken after all? Seems like a huge risk to take. How could he be so sure it would work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He could not be sure any of it would work. He was desperate, he improvised, and after the police were called, was forced to change his plan in midstream. If you have better theory about how that window got broken and why John would want to lie about it, let's hear it.

      Delete
    2. This is exactly what I thought. I wanted to see what everyone here thought.

      Delete
    3. It's not just a huge risk, it's a very stupid one to take. Even if JR is a master persuader he'd have to hesitate at fabricating a story that then requires him to gaslight both his wife and son. John really couldn't have had knowledge as to whether or not Burke or Patricia had been in that room the day before. Therefore he couldn't know what their knowledge of the window's condition was.

      He may have been desperate, but even that wouldn't lead him to manufacture a story that could be undermined by either PR or BR.

      It really doesn't make sense that JR swept up the glass sometime after the police arrived. With police walking around inside the house, and invited guests arriving, he couldn't really be sure who had seen broken glass and when. The notion that JR swept up the glass in response to something he overheard the police saying isn't likely, imo.

      However the evidence was arranged when police arrived is how it remained. Any last minute tampering with the scene was likely done prior to the first police arriving.

      I don't know when/why the window was broken, but I know when something doesn't make sense.

      It's always interested me that Doc originally had a completely different explanation for Patsy's corroboration of JR's window story. No need to go into detail but the original version failed logically because the window was in fact broken before justifying events transpired. Doc then came up with the gaslighting theory to explain Patsy's support for the story. IMO what the gaslighting theory has going for it is that it's logically impossible to disprove. All we can do is say it doesn't seem likely and we are left with a difference of opinion.

      I'm sorry but there is no "science" involved in this. It's pure conjecture and IMO doesn't pass the BS filter.

      Someone else has already offered what I consider a more plausible explanation for Patsy going along with JR's story. She was threatened. Play ball or the police will hang the rap on you. If JR was desperate, and he was, he wouldn't have worried about revealing himself as the killer. Patsy had probably already figured that out in the months preceding the first police interviews. Doc was actually pretty close on his first version, but it was more of a naked threat not a convoluted explanation of why he had to break the window and then sweep up the glass.

      Anyway, that's how I see it Zack. Just in case you wanted another opinion.

      Delete
    4. "I don't know when/why the window was broken, but I know when something doesn't make sense."

      If you can come up with an explanation that does make sense to you I'd be very pleased to read it and respond. Our problem is that we need to come up with a scenario that takes ALL the evidence into account, not just some of it. The fact is that the window was found broken. And when a window is found broken in such a case then the police are going to assume that either an intruder broke it or it was broken by someone inside the house, to stage an intruder breakin. Since there was no sign anyone passed through that window, it would have looked a lot like staging by an insider. And if John had not come up with that window story, he may well have been arrested on the spot, and accused of staging a breakin.

      In the face of the clear evidence that no outsider could have broken it, or even entered the window well (remember the intact spider web linking the grate to the lawn), John would have been hard pressed to find some explanation that would get him off the hook. Under such circumstances it's not difficult to see how he would improvise a story about breaking in earlier, despite the obvious drawbacks you've mentioned. There was no guarantee that either Patsy or Burke would go along with his story, but without such a story he might well have been carted off to jail that very day, put on trial and convicted of Murder One.

      Now if you choose to believe his story, that's another matter. But as I see it, that story makes far less sense than gaslighting, so I'm happy to fall back on gaslighting or some other form of manipulation as the answer. He might not have been sure he could manipulate Patsy and Burke, but under the circumstances he might have felt he had no choice but to take that chance.

      Delete
    5. As far as threats are concerned, to me that's far more risky than manipulation and I seriously doubt that Patsy would have allowed herself to be intimidated if John were so foolish as to confess that he bludgeoned and strangled her beloved daughter after sexually abusing her. Once he confessed I feel sure she'd have run out of the house and phoned the police at the first opportunity.

      But you're entitled to your own opinion. If you feel that threats are more likely than manipulation and/or gaslighting, fine. We can agree to disagree. we'll probably never know for sure anyhow.

      Delete
  13. Doc,

    I've read all your blog posts at this point of time. I'm curious if you'd agree with me that this case will forever be unsolved. I'm camp JDI for sure by the way. I just don't see this case being brought to court, and if it did the circumstantial evidence would be circumvented by Lin Wood with ease. It would take ALOT for the original handwriting experts to question their findings. Especially since they know how litigious John Ramsey is. The DNA - as invalid as I find it - would get him off the hook as well as the lack of "evidence." It's unfortunate, but I truly believe John Ramsey got away with murder and he got lucky enough "evidence" existed to spin the angle of an intruder. Alas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, Lin Wood is a defamation attorney. JR would likely retain Hal Haddon's very fine Denver firm again for legal representation in any criminal proceeding. Secondly, many cases have been brought successfully based upon nothing but circumstantial evidence. Handwriting "experts" are routinely disallowed, as it's widely held to be junk science. If a trial court judge chose to allow it, he would allow dissenting experts for the other side as well, and it would likely be a wash. Touch DNA testing has become so sensitive it has little meaning or practical application in a court of law. And finally, John's litigiousness was confined to defamation lawsuits. It is difficult, if not impossible, to sue a prosecutor absent malicious prosecution, so that is an unlikely bar to bringing a case. There's simply insufficient evidence to make a prosecutable case.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Also, expert witnesses are immune from litigation arising from their testimony unless they've been found to be negligent.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Hah. You had me going there for a while, CC. Until that last snide remark about "insufficient evidence." :-)

      I happen to think there is plenty of evidence, albeit circumstantial. And if a prosecutor was careful enough to select a young jury without preconceived notions about the case I think she (or he) could be successful.

      Moreover. We must recognize that this is a very special case, unlike any other. Even if a prosecutor believed it unlikely to get a conviction for 1st degree murder, I'd think prosecuting John would still be in order because of the potential to finally crack this very troublesome case. All that would be needed would be to demolish the intruder theory in the minds of the jury, which should not be difficult since skepticism on that score has been rampant from the start.

      Once it becomes clear that this had to have been an inside job, John would be forced to either insist on the intruder against all odds, or come clean as to what really happened. Even if John could not be convicted of Murder One, the world might get a chance to peek behind the curtain of secrecy surrounding this case. If he would want to place the blame on Patsy or Burke, this would be his chance to do it. But the jury might well not be willing to buy his story and convict him anyhow. I think it's well worth the chance.

      Delete
    4. Once again, Doc, your notion of what's right and proper butts up against the cold hard reality of the law. A case like this would involve months of prep, weeks of actual trial time, investigators, witnesses and experts, and cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Should the defense prevail, in some jurisdictions the State may be on the hook for the defendant's attorneys' fees and costs as well. It would be irresponsible to bring a case against JR absent stronger evidence merely to solve a twenty year old case or to satisfy the public's curiosity, and I assure you no prosecutor would suggest it. Demolishing the intruder theory still leaves the trier of fact (or the jury, in your pet scenario) with three people in the home who may have committed the crime, no forensics, no smoking gun and plenty of reasonable doubt.

      Further, a defendant has an absolute right to choose a bench trial before a judge rather than a jury trial, and no defense attorney in his right mind would choose a jury trial in Boulder County, Colorado given this case's infamy there. That leaves the prosecution with "just the facts", and those are thin on the ground, ambiguous, and bristling with reasonable doubt.
      CC

      Delete
    5. CC, with all due respect for your expertise as a lawyer and former prosecutor, I can't agree with your take on this case. The notion that John could not be convicted due to reasonable doubt, even after it's been determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that no intruder could have been present, strikes me as unwarranted to say the least.

      As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, reasonable doubt isn't something generally left to jurors to figure out, it's something that defense lawyers are expected to argue for. And since the only basis for reasonable doubt in this case, once an intruder is eliminated, would be the possibility that the defendant's wife or son is the guilty party, the defense would have no choice but to suggest that either Patsy or Burke could have killed JonBenet, rather than her father.

      I can't imagine John's lawyers going down that path, as it would be fatal to John's credibility -- and their own as well, since they've been insisting on Ramsey family innocence for years. So it seems to me that there would in fact be no argument for reasonable doubt on that score, but only an insistence, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, on the lame intruder theory.

      And if the defense wanted to argue that Patsy or Burke could have done it, then that argument would fall totally flat unless they were willing to produce the only witness who could bolster that argument: John himself. Who would then be expected to spill the beans as to what he knows regarding what happened that night. Do you really expect him to do that?

      As I said, this is a very unusual case and the usual standards for prosecuting it may not be very helpful.

      Delete
    6. I'd like to add to the argument I just presented the fact that there remain certain key unknowns in this case that an aggressive prosecutor would be expected to thoroughly investigate before attempting a prosecution. Certainly the handwriting evidence cries out for further investigation. As the comparisons produced by both Brugnatelli and myself reveal some close resemblances between John's writing and that of the note, an effort could be made to locate more of John's exemplars, especially historic exemplars that the original "experts" had never been provided with. Once it's established that John should not be ruled out, then there could be a much closer and more critical examination of the handwriting evidence by a fresh set of eyes.

      A re-examination of the broken window glass, which hopefully has been preserved in sealed plastic containers. If the edges are clean, as I suspect they are, then that would be powerful hard evidence that either John lied about breaking in earlier or that the window had been repaired. In either case, the defense would then need to explain how that window got broken on the night of the crime.

      A more thorough review of the evidence for prior molestation would certainly be in order. As would a review of the evidence linking fibers from John's shirt to the inside of JonBenet's panties.

      Also a detailed review of all of John's misdirections, lies, half-truths, failures to recall, and dubious actions (such as closing the basement window without reporting it to the police) should be conducted.

      And of course John should be aggressively interrogated, not with kid gloves as in the past, but hard nosed, tough questions regarding all the many dubious aspects of his previous testimony.

      Delete
    7. The usual standards for prosecution are all that are available. Only in your mind and the minds of other ardent JBR bloggers is this case worthy of special attention. The increasing tendency in the last 5-10 years has been to plea bargain rather than try cases, in large part because of the staggering cost, enormous use of time and manpower. No prosecutor could bring a complicated 20-year old case without hard evidence in this climate, certainly not in Boulder, embarrassed on the world stage as that community has been by the Ramsey case.

      Again, the handwriting evidence is not legally compelling. It's largely been discredited and found inadmissible, beginning with McVeigh in 1995. Revisiting it in the face of existing case law is pointless.

      There is no way to obtain a more thorough review of the evidence of prior molestation, as there is and was no evidence other than that found by the medicos who submitted reports at or based on the autopsy. Exhumation would have done the trick, but Hunter missed that boat in 1999.

      Neither JR nor anyone else can be compelled to submit to an interrogation, aggressive or otherwise. Not in 1996, not now, not ever.

      Reasonable doubt is in fact left to individual jurors to determine, and their results differ wildly, hence hung juries. You can probably google "jury instructions re reasonable doubt" to get an idea of just how unstructured this concept is.

      JR's shirt fibers are meaningless, as are PR's on the duct tape, as they all lived in the same home.

      The intruder theory may seem lame to you; it does to me as well, but please remember the defense would have Lou Smit, Mary Lacy and the Hi-Tec bootprint to rely on. All they need is the possibility that the crime was committed by any one other than JR, and voila, doubt that may be reasonable to some.

      I'm sorry, Doc, I understand every word you're saying, and wish it were so, but there's just no legal basis for a prosecution of John Ramsey.
      CC

      Delete
    8. I very much appreciate your expert input, CC. However, I must insist that I do see a window of opportunity for an enterprising and aggressive DA. Of course this is purely theoretical, as realistically I don't expect any action from the current Boulder DA, and in that respect I fully agree with you.

      But don't forget. Aside from perhaps the OJ case, this is THE most notorious case of the last 50 years or perhaps the last century. It would be a huge feather in the cap of any prosecutor who took it on and won. Even if he/she lost, if she/he could make a case convincing to the general public, his/her (sorry I refuse to use the singular "they") reputation would be made.

      Lately I've been following some of the network crime shows, such as 20/20 or 48 Hours, something I never used to do until recently. And I must say there have been a great many cases prosecuted on the basis of much more questionable evidence than this one. And yes these cases cost a fortune to pursue and sometimes years of hard investigative work. But nevertheless, dedicated LE people have been persistent enough to see them through, even after 10 years or more of frustration and expense.

      As far as John's being forced to submit to interrogation, yes of course, strictly speaking he could not be compelled to cooperate. But if he's offered the choice (which he should have been offered from the start) of full cooperation or immediate arrest, I have a feeling he'd choose the former. Reading someone his Miranda rights is a sure fire way to get his attention.

      Just because the defense could argue reasonable doubt on the basis of the DNA evidence and John's being "ruled out" does not mean the jury would be compelled to accept it. All depends on how thorough and persuasive the prosecution is. No prosecutor with any degree of pride in his/her capabilities would (or should) fold simply because he's afraid some defense lawyer will argue for reasonable doubt. ALL defense lawyers do that, so what?

      Delete
    9. I think it would be great if some ballsy prosecutor gave it a go, I just don't see it happening, no way, no how. My l-school friends in Boulder tell me the feeling in the legal community is that it will never happen, and the community at large wishes it had never heard the name. But hey, I'm with you in spirit, if not in law.
      CC

      Delete
    10. Well, maybe the best we can hope for is that a smart and aggressive investigative reporter with some clout decides to dig beneath the surface of this case.

      Delete
  14. What I layed out are facts of the case. Facts that can not be explained away ...what Doc is saying and his whole case is based on is a "logical assumption" and one that does NOT explain away any of these "FACTS". In this scenario Doc YOU are following the Morass all based on the presumption that bc Patsy had "nothing to gain" by handing over disguised handwriting to police she could not have had anything to do with it. I think we can agree that whoevers handwriting it was is disguised...that being said it would not be that strange in the least for a criminal/murderer to be narcissistic and think they are smarter than police ??? No it surely would not. Murderers very often have that mentality and I am positive that mentality is much much higher and more prevailant for those with extreme wealth such as the Ramseys. If you would quit getting lost in the morass Doc you might see things a little differently ...@ C.C. I am being a bit of a smart ass with my "cleaning party" comment ...not that it is not true but in the fact that as far as I am concerned Patsys behaviors were sooo strange and odd for a mother whose daughters life hangs in the balance (lets do everything opposite and more that the note says not to) that she called over everyone she knew and they cleaned up the kitchen and cleaned up alot of the crime scene. If I am incorrect on what I consider to be a well known fact of this case let me know and i will delve into finding a source ...Kolars book i believe for 1 source ? C.J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If, as you imply, Patsy and John were in it together, then there'd be no need to invite friends over to "clean up" the crime scene since they could easily have done this themselves before calling 911.

      Delete
    2. They could not have spread foreign DNA all over which is maybe what he/she/they wanted to do ? However if the note was made to make Patsy not call police as Doc and CC claim then I do not see how this such a no brainer decision to do so especially with threats of beheading and threats of not speaking to a stray dog aka "having people over the house" you invite a party of people over...and yes they cleaned per kolars book. It seems out of place as far as im concerned ..you can not have it both ways.

      Delete
    3. Yes, some of the guests apparently tried to clean up, but it was the job of the police (who arrived first) to prevent them from doing anything of that sort. If Patsy wanted her friends to contaminate the crime scene she'd have called them prior to calling the police, who should have kept them in check. She'd have had no reason to assume they wouldn't have, so I don't see her calling her friends for that purpose -- assuming she were guilty (which she is not).

      As far as ignoring the warnings in the note, you can fault her all you like for her heedless behavior, but I don't see that as a sign of guilt. If she'd written the note she would NOT have called the police until the body was out of the house. So her calling them, regardless of the reason, is a sign of innocence.

      And as I said, if they were in it together, they wouldn't have needed anyone from outside to alter the crime scene, they could have done it themselves. And they could also have gotten rid of the notepad, by the way, which was THE key piece of evidence tying them to the note.

      Delete
  15. You're incorrect.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe the pastor made some reference to tidying the kitchen, but judging ftom crime scene photos, it was far from pristine, and the infamous bowl of pineapple was right there, front and center. One would think that and the flashlight would not be on display had there been a genuine effort to tamper with evidence. Barbara Fernie and Priscilla White made no statements about cleaning of which I'm aware.

    You have made a number of false statements in the past and been ubable to substantiate them, so yes, please state your sources for both the "cleaning party" and PR crossing the crime scene tape.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  17. Further, I do not find PR's behavior strange and odd in the least. Innocent people call the authorities when faced with an emergency, it's almost a universal, knee-jerk response.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  18. I still find fw suspicious... just some of his actions seemed werid. What are your thoughts on this ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When White learned that the Ramseys had named him as a possible suspect, he went ballistic. Moreover, as one of the first friends on the scene, he'd had the opportunity to observe John's actions, which certainly would have made him suspicious.

      White opened the door to the windowless room that morning and saw nothing unusual. Yet when John opened it a few hours later, he immediately screamed -- and according to White, he turned the light on AFTER he screamed.

      So White had two very good reasons to be upset with John, first for naming him as a suspect and second his suspicious behavior. Obviously the guy is very emotional so his anger and suspicion have sometimes boiled over into extreme actions. Clearly he suspected John and still suspects him, which is why he and his wife have continually badgered the authorities to look more deeply into possible Ramsey involvement.

      I see nothing suspicious in any of this, only seething anger and resentment, which as I see it is perfectly justifgied.

      Delete
    2. Sorry I forgot to mention Nancy Krebs, who claimed she knew of White's involvement in JonBenet's death and accused him and his father of having abused her as a child. White's efforts to disengage himself from these very bizarre charges as well as the insinuations of the Ramseys regarding JOnBenet's death caused had a powerful effect on him, which is understandable imo and in one instance prompted him to refuse to cooperate with LE regarding a relatively minor matter, that resulted in his imprisonment.

      His behavior has been strange at times but considering the circumstances I feel it's understandable and NOT cause for suspicion.

      Delete
  19. Just seems like he would of had some type of idea of the ramseys time frame, Such a coincidence that at a party later at night he would then feel the need to call 411 about medicine but accidentally call 911, I thought they were good friends why would he bring up incriminating things such as jr screaning before turing the light on etc .. just right after his daughter died . Acesses to the house. Had a general view on how the ramseys may react in such a bad situation... knew they would be sleeping to a certain time to get up for the trip.. I could of sworn they made a statement before to pr how they didbt approve of jb in pagnents... could of used that as a reason why this happened to jb ...

    ReplyDelete
  20. And those conflicting statements about not seeing anything in the room and then john discovering her later ... that just kinda proves someone is lying... how could you not see the body in a white blanket....

    ReplyDelete
  21. Maybe jb figured out it was him ... and thats why the events that occured went down the way they did.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Any other thoughts as why u think hes innocent?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have some, if Doc doesn't mind me stepping in for a moment.

    Fleet White would have had to leave his home the night/early morning of the 25th-26th for several hours in order to commit the crime, write the RN, etc. In addition to a wife and children he had a house full of guests. It seems to me someone would have noticed his absence, heard the car start or return, something.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yeah thats a good point cc but there is no offical time of death for jb for all we know he could of left when everyone was asleep tired from xmas.maybe around the 1 o clock range

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think someone would have noticed. And why the War and Peace of ransom notes? Surely three simple lines would have done the job nicely. No, there's no way that RN served anyone's purpose but John's.

    I think Fleet White is one of the few people who behaved heroically in this whole mess, and was much maligned for his trouble.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  26. He seemed to arrive to the house so quickly how could he get dressed and ready so fast that early in the morning

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If your friend who lived nearby called you with such an emergency, wouldn't you throw on the clothes you had on last night, grab your keys, and go? Do you think you would take a shower, brush your teeth, grab some toast? He got there within 10 minutes or so...I know I could get there that fast if I lived close by and my friends needed me.

      Delete
    2. Yes, thank you CC. White had no motive to attack JonBenet, no reason to kidnap her, certainly no reason to stage the kidnapping of a victim who was never kidnapped. And he had a pretty solid alibi, as his house was filled with family and guests. And if he had done it, why would he want to hang around the house till 5:30 AM?

      Delete
  27. I totally get what your saying but i just cant consider that a soild albi that he was sleeping while other family memebers are alsleep also. How do we know he hung around the house till 530? He could of left sooner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's never been a report of anyone in that house noticing that he was missing. He must have been in his house when Patsy called or else someone would have noticed his absence. And my comment about hanging around till 5:30 was based on your comment that his arriving so soon seemed suspicious.

      Delete
  28. "If she'd written the note she would NOT have called the police until the body was out of the house."

    And how do you propose Patsy could have possibly put herself in a position to remove the body without John knowing about it? Please enlighten me.

    As I see it, Patsy had no choice but to call 911. She put herself in a position so that someone other than herself would find the body. This is a classic tactic murderers use when they kill a family member, friend, or someone close to them.

    How much time did Patsy spend searching for JonBenet? Patsy testified that she checked JonBenet's bedroom and possibly Burke's, but never mentioned checking anywhere else. I have no doubt that Patsy was upset with the terrible choices that she made and the horrific outcome. She used every ounce of that "dramatic dialogue" skill set to convince BPD and her friends that she was innocent. Officer French, however, did not buy it.

    So please, Doc, tell us how Patsy could have disposed of her daughter's body without John's assistance or without anyone seeing her?

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got it backwards, H. I'm agreeing with you. Yes, she could not have disposed of the body without John's assistance. Which is one very good reason I'm convinced of her innocence. If both were conspiring, they would never have agreed to make that call while the body was still in the house. And if she did it all on her own, without John's knowledge, then her note would have done nothing for her, because it put John in charge and he would certainly not have helped her dispose of the body of his beloved daughter.

      So the only explanation for her call that makes any sense is if she made it in complete innocence and knew nothing about who wrote that note and why.

      Delete
    2. Actually, if you want to claim that Patsy had written the note without John's knowledge, you could suggest she'd been planning to dump the body while John was at the bank, raising the ransom money. But that would have required her to dump it in broad daylight, which would have been incredibly risky.

      Nevertheless, whatever you think the plan might have been, by calling 911 first thing in the morning, Patsy would have both undermined her own plan and handed the police evidence against herself in the form of a handwritten note. How foolish would that have been?

      The only scenario that makes any sense is that John wrote the note without Patsy's knowledge and that she called 911 in all innocence. Why is that so hard to see?

      Delete
  29. Doc, you are not answering my question. Despite what you believe, for the sake of argument, pretend that Patsy was responsible for JonBenet's death. How could she create a scenario that would not only make herself appear to be innocent, but also John and Burke? That's why she wrote the ransom note. Patsy had to create a kidnapper and ultimately a murderer for the police to acknowledge. With only the discovery of a body, there is nothing tangible to direct the BPD's attention away from the Ramseys. Patsy had to stage the crime. It was her only hope to convince them that not ONLY was the UNSUB not her, but had to be someone from outside of the family.

    So please tell me, what would have been Patsy's options? Do you honestly think that she would not call the police and instead try to dump the body herself? She had no choice. Tell me a better option for her in this scenario.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  30. You're trying to trap Doc in a logical fallacy. Don't fall for it, Doc.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your opinion, CC is also welcome concerning this topic but only if you answer the question with a straightforward answer. Please do not insult the intelligence of the readers by pretending that what I propose is impossible. Tip-toeing around it will only strengthen my claim that Patsy had to call 911. So. . . Answer the question.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  32. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. Logic and reason do not permit me to view PR as the killer, and so I cannot participate in your fantasy. I do not pretend it's impossible - almost anything is possible; I just don't find it likely, and you've presented no persuasive argument to sway me.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  33. In other words, you cannot give me an answer because there is no other logical alternative. Patsy would had to have called 911. Thank you, CC.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  34. No. I cannot give you an answer because your logic and reasoning are nonsensical. Innocent people, frightened, desperate people, call 911 - there's your logical alternative.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  35. Spoken like a true lawyer. You answer questions the same way you advised your clients. This is not a complicated question. Put away your biased opinion and answer the question. Doc continues to promote his decree that if Patsy had killed JonBenet there is no way that she would call 911 with the body in the house. I insist that she would have because there was no better alternative. Perhaps someone can give me one?

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hercule, assuming Patsy killed JonBenet with a blow to the head, her best bet would have been to call 911 at once and report it as an accident. She could have said she fell in the bathtub or fell down the stairs. And don't forget, the blow did not produce any outward sign of injury, no large bump, no external bleeding, and according to the forensic pathologists who examined the autopsy, her heart would still have been beating. So as far as Patsy (and presumably John as well) knew, it might still be possible to save her life.

      Even if they felt sure she'd been killed, I see no reason why they would not have reported it immediately as an accident. No need to concoct an elaborate kidnapping scenario, no need to finish her off with a garotte, or penetrate her vagina to make it look like a pedophile attack. And certainly no need to produce a long, detailed "ransom note" for no reason, unless they'd been planning on dumping the body -- which they obviously did not do.

      You seem to think the police were fooled into accepting that ransom note as the real thing. That's not the case at all. Just about everyone with law enforcement experience has seen through that note, which is why so many feel sure it was an inside job.

      Writing such a note would have done Patsy no good at all, that's your answer. So even she were guilty of killing her daughter, as you assume, writing a phony ransom note would have been the last thing on her mind.

      Delete
  36. Doc, you are basing your answer on the premise that Patsy would have been completely logical in her thought process; ignoring how a person in Patsy's stressful state of mind would react to such an incident.

    For a mother to make the decision of allowing her daughter to die in order to protect her own reputable facade of perfection would require her mind to be mentally ill. You, however, are assuming that Patsy had no mental instability whatsoever. This conclusion that you assert is based on Patsy's behaviors and actions as described by people that she was trying to impress. Patsy was quite ingenious at keeping up appearances. After all, she had been trained from an early age to be socially affluent.

    Upon closer inspection, there is evidence that Patsy was a much different person in the private sanctity of the Ramsey household. Housekeepers, close friends, and instructors involved in JonBenet's pageant training mentioned Patsy's quick temper and controlling behavior.

    Yes, Doc, a mentally stable mother with a relatively normal upbringing would have called for help. JonBenet was not afforded this luxury.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh rot. Having a strong, assertive personality is not indicative of mental illness. Nor is involving herself in her daughter's pageant prep, nor is being controlling or having a temper. Cite me some symptoms I can find in the DSM-5, from a reliable source that did not contradict herself as did LHP, and you'll have a better argument.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  38. She was raised in the south ... she had that southern sass something you might not know if your not from the south.. There is no way pastsy did it. No one could act that good. She was in hysteric. .. a normal reaction for someone that just lost their daughter.
    _maggie

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why else would she look other than her bedroom if the note said she had been kidnapped . Her actions seemed to reflect that she belived the note was real

    ReplyDelete
  40. That explains why she probably invited people over and cleaned up because she didnt know this was murder she thought her daughter had been kidnapped and she was out of the house. Why would she risk going to burkes room to risk him waking him up ... she would be trying to prepare herself before the cops come to make it seem believable. Her commiting this crime just doesnt make sense. I honestly think jr didnt want her to call the cops but she did . He probably thought it would scare her into not calling thw police and buting him tims but she got hysteric abd did. Obviously she wouldnt say that to the cops would make jr look guilty. _maggie

    ReplyDelete
  41. She wouldnt have called the doc so many times . Obviously docs have records or you calling or going there . Pr calling so many times means she was concerned about jb or suspected something. _MAGGIE

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hercule needs to put the same lens on John that he puts on Patsy. I can theorize all day about the kind of person he is -- namely, a perverted loser with boundary issues, commitment issues, and the need for a wife/father in law to enable him to get Access Graphics off the ground. He was in over his head, career wise. He seems like someone who exploits whoever comes into his life.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "She was raised in the south ... she had that southern sass something you might not know if your not from the south."

    Patsy was not raised in the south. She was born and raised in West Virginia. She grew up in Parkersburg, a five minute drive across the river to Ohio and a mere two hours from Pennsylvania. Patsy did not move to the south until after she graduated from college.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. West Virginia is below the Mason-Dixon Line and within the Census Bureau's Southern Region. Many natives refer to it as the "northernmost southern state".

      DSM-5? Real symptoms of mental illness, from real, verifiable sources?
      CC

      Delete
  44. West Virginia is also classified as a Mid-Atlantic state and is generally not accepted as a southern state by true southerners mainly because it was part of the Union during the Civil War. The structure of the census bureau has no bearing on the cultural background of a family raised in northern West Virginia. People from Parkersburg assuredly do not exude the same kind of "southern sass" that people exhibit from true southern states like: Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's right. I'm from Alabama and I don't know anybody here that will claim WV as a southern state. As far as I'm concerned they will always be a Yankee state to me. From my experience the people I've been around in WV are a different breed and I don't mean that in a good way.

      Delete
    2. I went to college in Alabama, lived in NC, GA, FL. Have traveled extensively in the south, including WV. No state is made up of a breed of women, you must be a Bama fan to believe that :) That said, there are assertive, "sassy" women everywhere. Gosh, if some politician made statements profiling women in this manner, the news programs would be having a field day.

      Delete
    3. Herc, don't forget Florida. We are very southern. Those folks down in Miami, Naples, and West Palm are from somewhere else. Native Floridians consider ourselves to be Southern.

      Delete
    4. Don't forget Florida, Hercule! I wrote a comment earlier about this -- it apparently was deleted. Florida has a lot of non-natives, but native Floridians consider themselves southern.

      Delete
  45. CC, you want me to recite sources and you challenge my credibility despite my opinions which are derived from my own expertise. Yet, you yourself are highly speculative at times without proof or sources, but you seem to think that is acceptable.

    For example, you are convinced that JonBenet was slated to have a speculum examination which prompted John Ramsey to murder her with the intent of covering up the sexual abuse that he inflicted. There is no evidence of any kind to back up your speculative claim. It's your "fantasy".

    Dr. Beuf claimed that the majority of JonBenet's doctor visits were attributed to sinus infections and colds. Patsy told Pam Archuleta that JonBenet had a sore throat the day before the December 6 Christmas parade and to make sure JonBenet wore a coat because of the cold weather. Patsy called the doctor's office three times on the evening of December 17. You assume this call was related to vaginal issues. It's just as likely that the calls were related to a high fever due to a cold or sinus infection. By not wearing a coat, JonBenet's symptoms would have most likely worsened.

    According to Pam Archuleta: "She (JonBenet) said a beauty Queen must always look the part, and not worry about the cold. No matter what I said to her or even 'Mike' she would not budge when it came to a coat."

    Why did Patsy instruct Pam and not her mother, Nedra, concerning the coat? After all, Nedra was responsible for the kids while John and Patsy were in New York. I think Patsy realized that Nedra would rather JonBenet not wear the coat so she could display her pageant dress. This supports my theory that Patsy feared Nedra by going behind her back to ask for assistance from Pam.

    When Patsy was being treated for cancer, Nedra was in charge of the kids. John was either working or accompanied Patsy on some of the treatment trips. I think Nedra's influence on JonBenet during that time was similar to the demanding way she raised Patsy. It was during that time that JonBenet was introduced into the pageant world.

    According to former Ramsey housekeeper Suzanne Savage: "Nedra was different. She was the boss and you were the servant."

    So yes, CC, return the courtesy by allowing me to speculate as you so often do.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My kid's pediatrician said not wearing a coat does not cause colds. Germs (viruses) cause colds. People catch more viruses in cold weather because they're inside more and in closer proximity to spread them. Also, I read that John rarely if ever accompanied Patsy on her cancer treatment trips. And finally, just because John was working and had a job, does not mean that he wasn't present enough to know how Nedra was dealing with JBR. You are making a lot of unnecessary assumptions. None of it adds up to the making of a mommy murderer.

      Delete
  46. By all means, speculate all you please, we all do - just not authoritatively about mental illness without attributable symptoms from the DSM-5.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  47. I cannot officially diagnose Patsy without first obtaining a medical history, physical exam, and conducting thorough psychotherapy sessions, which would serve to eliminate other possible ailments or disorders. I have not been granted this request so I can only assess her condition with the information that I do have to the best of my ability.

    Based on my experience, I think Patsy suffered from a severe case of Brief Psychotic Disorder that originated a few weeks before the murder. The last two months of JonBenet's life contained an inordinate number of events in which Patsy was not only involved, but several in which she was responsible for directing. Reviewing the timeline of events from November to the last week of December will convey the remarkable strain of the Ramsey schedule.

    The following events coincide with the aforementioned timeframe:

    Patsy's painting class at the University of Colorado
    Five pageants
    Patsy's birthday party
    Thanksgiving trip to Atlanta
    Mother-daughter trip to New York
    JonBenet's tap dancing classes
    JonBenet's rock climbing class
    Christmas parade
    John & Patsy's trip to New York (Wall Street, Today Show)
    Access Graphics Billion Dollar Sales Luncheon
    JonBenet's school performance of "Rock Around the Clock"
    Three Christmas parties
    Christmas shopping and gift wrapping
    Planning of trips to Charlevoix and Walt Disney Cruise

    Also consider the painstaking preparation that Patsy would endure to make sure everything was perfect. The stress of one trip or party is enough for some people. The Ramsey schedule was downright brutal, even for an experienced socialite. Combine that with JonBenet's rebellious attitude and Nedra's demanding expectations, it was a perfect storm that developed into tragedy.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm no socialite, but I'm as busy as that woman was, with 2 kids and a full time job in the IT field. Who are you to say a schedule is brutal? Lots of women who have a career, kids, husband, and home to maintain can manage just fine. Sure, we have help. So did Patsy - and she didn't have a full time job either. Geez, I guess I better start worrying about my psychotic break that is sure to happen. LOL

      Delete
    2. I do not find that humorous whatsoever. There are many people who have suffered from this disorder and they deserve a little empathy.

      I hope you never fall prey to this disorder and you probably never will. I am assuming that your mother never put you through the enormous stress that Nedra placed on Patsy. The impossible demands for perfection; being diagnosed with Stage IV cancer as Nedra sunk her claws into JonBenet's life and tried to raise her the same way.

      We are all unique individuals with unique backgrounds. No two people are the same. You cannot compare your life to Patsy's just because you have a busy schedule. That is highly insensitive and extremely ignorant.

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. I'll tell you what's "highly insensitive and extremely ignorant"...YOU HERCULE. No psychologist, psychiatrist or other professional would say something like that ever under any circumstances. YOU ARE A FAKE. You are still insulting everyone who disagrees with you or expresses a different opinion and you have beem doing it for a long time. Going off on CC, who catches you every time you make another stupid statement does not improve your credibility one bit. Really pisses you off that CC is smart, a lawyer and A WOMAN, doesn't it? I am very tired of you and your insults and your stupid opinions with no evidence and I think Doc should put a stop to it.

      Delete
    4. I will add to the above comment, since I am the person who stated "I'm no socialite..." and agree with the above person. Thank you for your comments!

      Hercule, how dare you call me ignorant? You don't know me, just like you really don't know Patsy or Nedra. 1) Who says I don't have empathy for disordered people? The issue here is that you think that Patsy was pushed, or pushed herself, to have this break. 2) You assume I did not have a stressful upbringing. Well, I did. My story will make poor Patsy look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. Have you ever heard the saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger?" 3) The LOL means I'm laughing at YOU, not disordered people. Because all you need to do is follow around a busy corporate mom for one week and you will see that Patsy's busy little life is nothing compared to what working mothers go through day in and day out. This is why I know you're a fake.

      Surely, if you were a real psychologist or whatever it is you claim to be, you have seen enough clients to know about the normal stressors in the lives of many Americans. Your goal seems to be to provoke people here who just want to see justice served for a little girl. Why would you be opposed to police pursuing the angles that Doc has looked at, such as re-examining the handwriting analyses that were done and ruling JR back in, and taking it from there? Putting him on the hot seat to explain himself? And furthermore, why in the world do you think its impossible that JR abused his daughter? Ask victims of incest -- the perps are pillars of the community; deacons in the church, teachers, pastors, professionals of all kinds, including executives. Perversion does not discriminate based on someone's career or social standing. You can argue for Patsy's involvement all day with your theories, but for some reason you give JR a huge pass. Why is that? Why do you defend him at all? Military upbringing? Wow, I grew up in a military town and I can tell ya, the kids of officers can be just as flawed as any other kid. Geez, with the way you're going after Patsy, do you ever worry that if you were ever accused of something like child murder, the same type of logic, i.e. using your upbringing and everything about your personality, would be used to make a case that you're a child murderer?

      Delete
  48. Except for the delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech (incoherence, irrational content), and the disorganized or catatonic behavior(repetitive, senseless movement or adopting one pose for hours, AT LEAST one of which symptoms must manifest, and last for AT LEAST one day, that might be workable. I think someone in Patsy's busy life would have noticed such extremely aberrant behavior.

    But A for effort, Herc.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  49. Congratulations CC! You have successfully eliminated this disorder by researching the internet and coming to a conclusion by comparing symptoms that you know nothing about! Bravo! I am impressed. I think you should be presented with all the required credentials to be a psychologist, psychiatrist, forensic psychologist, hell, whatever you want! Nevermind all the years of basic coursework, MCAT, clinical training, and residency. Let's just skip all of that! There would be no use in spending several years at a prison face-to-face interviewing serial killers, serial rapists, terrorists, and any other offending psychopath that you could imagine. Nah, we have the internet now. No need for that nonsense! There would be no need to fly from one side of the country to the other
    twenty times a year to assess crime scenes and evidence lockers. Completely unnecessary, right?

    CC, are you behaving this way just to amuse yourself or are you really this short-sighted? You cannot download a copy of the latest DSM, scroll through it, and assume you have the ability to discern all the information within it. If you would like to get technical, then by all means let us do that. The disorganized and catatonic behavior "is not sufficient alone to make the diagnosis." But you knew that, right? Sure you do. How do you know that Patsy was not having delusions? Were you there? Reading her mind? I would love to have access to her complete medical history. In particular, the effects that the chemotherapy might have had on her brain. But you have already seen that information, right? An astute psychologist like yourself would have definitely requested that information.

    Once again, try not to insult the intelligence of everyone on this blog, CC. You might have been a slick lawyer once upon a time, but we do not need the wise guy routine in solving this crime.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hercule, this discourse on southern culture (I have lived in various southern states for almost 60 years) has me dying laughing. I gather you are not from the south, and know little to nothing about it. It doesn't matter. You don't know Patsy, and being part of some breed is just laughable. Can it be said that all Yankee women are obnoxious? Of course not! Back to the subject at hand: I've seen no evidence that Patsy was the person you portray her to be. I live in Atlanta and know people who have been around her. Doc has solved this case as far as I'm concerned, and you jump on here to make statements that are based in theory only, and the facts don't support your theory. I much prefer the process of taking the facts and making reasonable inferences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Describing Patsy as having "southern sass" is ridiculous when she grew up in a state that most true southerners recognize as a northern state. Furthermore, it tells us nothing and is useless to the cause of solving this crime.

      Hercule

      Delete
    2. I'm not the person who described her has having southern sass. I don't know what that is. All I know is that you, and others, are profiling women on this site. Would never work in a court of law. Seriously, do you think you can convince anyone that Patsy did this because she was some kind of angry pageant mom?

      Delete
  51. Why the unprovoked hostility and inappropriate personal attacks? I gave you an A for effort. First time in a year of trying you've come up with anything resembling a valid, recognized psychiatric condition, and my praise was sincere.

    The shrink I use as an expert witness was my source, though he did copy the pertinent pages of the DSM -5 for me. He mentioned too that it's an unusual condition, and one usually seen in post-combat or similar PTSD situations, thought it an unusual diagnosis for a housewife a year or two past Stage IV Cancer.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  52. I don't think it matters whether patsy came from the north or the south, or even if she was going through a stressful period.none of it matters unless there is evidence she committed the crime and these things allow us to see a chain of events after proof. What can we make of beckner's comments? He Said it looked like it was staged, he said they believed an accident was possible, with the Ramsey's one or both believing from the head injury she was dead,, on the other hand, the Ramsey's one or both, may have waited too long thinking she would recover, beckner makes these comments, but then adds they believe there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, I wonder what conclusion they really came to.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh yes, your friend the "shrink". What sort of experience does this expert witness have?

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hercule, what are your qualifications? Based on your behavior on this site, I have a really hard time believing you are a professional in the field of psychology. In fact, I think you are John Ramsey.

      Delete
    2. He is not a psych professional just a wannabe. He has not fooled anybody here for a whole year trying, just himself.

      Delete
  54. Unfortunately, tragedies like this do happen. This week, in fact. Some of you prefer to believe that "good mothers" could not possibly kill their own children. Maybe it is time for a reality check.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3631535/Mother-killed-two-young-children-murder-suicide-amid-bitter-custody-battle.html

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  55. "My kid's pediatrician said not wearing a coat does not cause colds."

    That is correct and I never said that. JonBenet already had a sore throat on the night of the parade. Cold weather conditions do not directly cause colds or viruses, however, it does repress the immune system which can then weaken the body's defenses and make it more susceptible to viruses and bacteria. Then people spread it to other people who have also become susceptible. So yes, JonBenet's condition most likely worsened after the parade because her body was placed in a very vulnerable position.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever, Herc. My kids resisted wearing coats all the time because they were too lazy to put them on and didn't like the bulk of them. They never got ill and for goodness sake, no one ever accused me or my husband of putting our kids in a "very vulnerable position." You're being melodramatic.

      Delete
    2. Maybe your kids were blessed with a strong immune system. Good for you. The fact is, JonBenet often struggled with colds and sinus infections. She made several trips to see the doctor because of those particular ailments. Her parents and grandparents were well aware of JonBenet's health issues.

      By the way, I did say that Patsy insisted that JonBenet wear a coat the night of the parade but said this to Pam Archuleta, not to Nedra. I find that fact to be consistent with Nedra's intimidating presence.

      There were, however, instances when Patsy displayed more concern over JonBenet's appearance in contrast to her well being. For example, when JonBenet had Chicken Pox Patsy was heard on the phone asking her doctor if there was something he could prescribe to get rid of the pock marks because JonBenet had a beauty pageant to go to. Nevermind how sick JonBenet felt or if she would be to contagious to the other contestants.

      But once again, you cannot compare your lives to Patsy's, and you are not doing a good job of it anyway.

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. She probably just thought Nedra would forget. My mom is old and forgetful. I ask her to do things when she has my kids. I know she means well, but she forgets. I often ask my sister to make sure things are done when I'm not there, but not because I think my mom is intentionally not doing something important to me. You are speculating about Nedra.

      Delete
    4. I asked my doctor if there was anything to help with the pock marks too. No mother wants the beautiful skin of their children damaged if it could be prevented. My dr. suggested coconut butter to help with the scarring. Her doctor probably said the same, and also advised to watch the child closely for picking off the scabs. Other than that, the only advice to give Patsy re: the pageants was to put makeup over the marks. Gee, you don't have to make her out to be so sinister. I'm sure most parents who's kids get chicken pox ask what to do about the pock marks and scarring.

      Delete
  56. I'm really sick and tired of you over sensitive feminists out there that get butt hurt everytime Hercule gets on here and talks about Patsy. That's just it. He's talking about Patsy. Hercule to my knowledge hasn't ever said anything bad about women in general. So quit taking everything he says as a personal attack towards women. I really think most people these days enjoy complaining and search high and low for something to be offended by. That is what's wrong with this world nowadays. I'm sorry but people are turning into whiny little wusses. I'm a 40 year old mother and soon to be grandmother from the south and I really enjoy this blog. I used to be a BDI but after Hercule started coming on I've changed my mind. I read the Thomas book but it doesn't do a good job of explaining Patsy's thought process. I feel like I understand it now. I really think Patsy had some deep seated problems that she hid from everyone. I think she snapped and lashed out at JonBenet but was too embarrassed to admit it to an EMT or Doctor and was afraid JonBenet would tell everyone what happened. Anybody can snap especially when they are wore out and frustrated with a child that doesn't think they have to mind their mother anymore. JonBenet was growing up too fast and started acting like a teenage brat. Not JonBenet's fault but that's what happens when parents treat their kids like adults. That's my 2 cents. But y'all need to tone it down with all the crying and whining. You are coming off as stupid, weak, and uninformed. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but somebody had to say it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you're not understanding the comments that I or other women have made here. I'm the last person any one who knows me would be called a whiny feminist. I'm a southern, conservative, career woman. I'm a lot older than you, and like you I have a lot of observations about what is wrong with this world today regarding folks who feel entitled to be offended. So let me explain to you: Hercule is drawing very broad conclusions about Patsy based on things he's read that her friends, domestic staff have said. It matters, because we don't know if these people spoke the truth, or were even being quoted correctly. We can't assume that any of these people knew Patsy all that well. We do know that her long time friends in Atlanta and WV don't say these things about her. Would you want to be profiled in such a way, based on comments and observations of people who have probably known you for less than 2 years of your whole life? Or profiled as a being a hysterical woman because you have a busy, hectic life, you can't handle it and it leads to a psychotic break? Look, Hercule is trying to be offensive. We're smart enough to know that he gets off on provoking people. If he can dish it out, he can take it. Women on here who are dishing it right back at him are not necessarily whiny. Whiny women want everyone else to fight their battles for them. As for me, I can stand on my own against the likes of people who insult others just to make a point. THAT is weak and stupid.

      Delete
    2. I frankly don't care what people say about me. I know who I am and that's all I can control. I happen to think that Hercule is sincere about this case. He might come off sounding like a jerk sometimes but so what? So does Doc and some of the other bloggers. I don't care if they do. Hercule is passionate and I respect that. I'm passionate too. I want to see this case solved and that's the bottom line. I enjoy reading what everyone has to say about this case. I find it all interesting until the cry babies and lynch mob show up with a bunch of anger just because they don't like what somebody said or they don't agree with it. Hercule is usually very sincere and respectful until he is patronized or provoked by people like CC or the whinos. Now CC ain't a whiner but he's definitely a wolf in sheep's clothing. Lollll. Don't get me wrong, I like CC a lot and I don't mind at all when there is a heated debate between them two or Doc. In fact, I love it. But for some reason the crying brigade always shows up to throw everything off course. Bring something to the table people. Something about trying to solve this case.

      Delete
    3. The poster above insulting Hercule under the guise that he is insulting by drawing logical inference is an idiot ..straight up ! Most everything on here is speculation and logical inference based on the facts that we have..no one on here is any more correct than the other and that includes Doc ...there is 0 proof that the body was going to be moved and none that there was not arrogance and narcissism when the note was written and handed over to police. Almost everyone has a different view of this case from one end of the world to the other. The above poster who is throwing out personal attacks at Hercule because they do not agree with his opinions and feel theirs are correct are nothing more than an ignorant asses...which if I were Hercule I would have rebutted with a personal attack right back telling you that you are very ignorant indeed...and need to get a touch of common sense.

      Delete
  57. I do not agree. Words matter. There is a right way and a wrong way to make your point and it does not need to involve insulting people or having a temper tantrum when somebody like CC (I like him a lot too esp when he and Doc get going)catches you out. I think Hercule is the one who "shows up with a lot of anger" and if he really was a mental health professional he would know how to handle all that better. I doubt his sincerity I think he just wants to make himself seem important and knowledgable when he only has opinions like everybody else and no better or worse. That is why he rants and abuses people. I do not believe that brings anything to the table at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of us have been on this blog from the beginning, or at least for 2 years, even before Hercule joined in. We are the ones who have read every word on this site. Those of us who find Doc's case very compelling are either playing devil's advocate with some of the logic/details, or are trying to further his argument by adding more supporting points or logic. It cannot be said that the writers here aren't bringing anything to to the table if you don't have knowledge of the sum total of what each person has contributed over the years.

      I personally don't care for some of the weird tangents that people go off on; they usually sound like fantastical ideas to me. But you should know that Hercule's sincerity is very much in question. He only answers questions directed at him if his answer presents him an opportunity to insult someone by calling them ignorant, stupid, naive whatever. If he truly is a psychologist, do you think he talks to patients or even his peers like this?

      Regarding this case, which we all want to be solved, Hercule is starting with a theory about a disturbed, stressed out mom who loses her temper over bedwetting or poopy pants. He then tries to prove this theory with psychobabble. None of that stuff would hold up in court. A judge would laugh at a prosecutor who presented this as a case!

      Hercule does not come across as a professional in the field of psychology - this is the reason his sincerity is in question. Contrast his approach with Doc's version of this case, which is to start with the undisputed facts and draw reasonable inferences where needed, and ONLY where needed to link the facts.

      Now, any one of us contributors have felt provoked at one time or another. Bless Doc's heart, he has been provoked a lot yet he stays calm and answers the questions. He doesn't assume people are ignorant and he doesn't call people names.

      P.S. I love reading CC's comments. I don't now if CC is male or female, but I thoroughly enjoy the intelligent banter.

      Delete
    2. WE ARE NOT IN COURT HERE SO THAT ARGUMENT IS INVALID .....FYI !!!!!!

      Delete
    3. Unsubstantiated claims based on opinions are not permitted in law, in science, or even in high school debate. Murder is very much a legal matter, and the courtroom is where we turn for justice in this country. Makes sense to me to use that as a basis for discussion, but I admit to a certain partiality. What rules or guidelines would you suggest?
      CC

      Delete
  58. Thanks, guys. I think we all bring something to the table; it's fun to watch a comment spark a new train of thought or fresh ideas. Maybe that's all we can hope for right now, that we can keep the case alive and promote Doc's theory by continuing to talk about it.

    For the record, my chromosomes are XX.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're very welcome! From one XX to another, its nice to have a lawyer here to help with our questions. It is interesting that you're local to the Denver area, where you have access to what people there are saying or reporting, and I live in the North Atlanta area, where my social circle is very close to the Ramsey's circle of friends (namely, Patsy's church friends). It provides some perspective on all that is out there in the media.

      Delete
    2. I appreciated your and your fellow Atlantan's observations of Patsy and John at dinner, and the input from her Atlanta friends. Firsthand information is invaluable, and hard to come by in this case.
      CC

      Delete
  59. "Gee, you don't have to make her out to be so sinister. I'm sure most parents who's kids get chicken pox ask what to do about the pock marks and scarring."

    The thoughts I shared came from the housekeeper, Linda Wilcox, who was a witness to Patsy's conversation with the doctor.

    "It was the summer of '95. It was probably two or three weeks before they left for Michigan. JonBenet was 4, getting ready to turn 5 that August, and her and Burke both caught the chicken pox. I was there cleaning in the kitchen. Burke was upstairs itching like mad. He had them all over, he was in bed with the t.v. in his room, playing videos. JonBenet was in the t.v. room, sitting at a small table, in her nightgown, doing something quiet, like coloring. The child had a fever, she's sitting there coloring, Patsy is in the kitchen on the telephone with the doctor. I figured, oh, she's going to call the doctor to find out what to give the kids and the conversation went, "well JonBenet's got chicken pox and she's got these spots on her face and we need to have a photo shoot in about 3 days. Is there anything you can give her to get rid of the spots? This is the child she loved with the whole of her heart?"

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep Herc. She hates her child. You've nailed it. First of all, everyone knows what to give for a fever, so she didn't call for that reason, apparently. Patsy does sound sort of dumb, if she asked for something to get rid of the spots. I think its common knowledge that you just have to treat the itching, prevent scratching off of the scabs, and then use scar healing products after the scabs come off. I do recall asking my doctor what to do to prevent scarring. Why does that mean you don't love your child? Linda Wilcox may not have even quoted her correctly. There are products that dry up scabs and that may have been where Patsy was going with her question. Again, you can't read into this that she doesn't care for her child.

      Delete
    2. I found the entire interview with Linda Wilcox online. It was with someone in the media. I found her remarks about John to be way more indicative of someone with "issues" vs. what she said about Patsy. She made it sound like both were inattentive parents. According to her, John is the one with the hot temper. Hercule, can you find a psychological disorder for people who can't tolerate household noises, get uber wigged out about accidents like flooding in the house, threaten to sue contractors, stuff like that? I doubt either John's flaws of this nature, or Patsy's flaws in general make them into murderers, but you know, see if you can put the same lens on John that have placed on Patsy, just for grins. I think John is a sexual pervert, and he keeps that well-hidden (except for that weirrd lip-licking that he does - ewww).

      Delete
    3. I think Hercules point that some people on here "pretend" to not understand is that Patsys very obvious obsession with Jonbenets pageant life seems to outweigh the care for her health or come before JBs health and I believe that most of the public find that to be odd and very fanatical...that alone could be possible hint of her having a disorder but what is always done on this site is all of the "regular" supporters will always take any odd behavior or probable clues regarding Patsy as illegitimate, make excuses and start a personal attack...I have seen it on this blog many times. If you do not agree with Docs theory than the most obvious of clues are dismissed and personal attacks ensue. CC is the guiltiest of this as he has been into it with probably half of the people who have commented. Things like her pretending to cry and peeking thru her fingers at LE or her wearing the same clothes the next day are somehow regarded as "proof" of her innocence and not fact! I guess if you pretend like these facts about Patsy are all hogwash then it supports Docs theory..so rather than pay attention to these "facts" or even use common sense and call them credible they are dismissed and personal attacks ensue. These things about Patsy are facts and the whole theory about the 911 call is a "fallacy" or maybe a hypothesis at best. Like Doc says follow the facts right ?

      Delete
  60. Now see, some of you people are doing the same things that you are accusing Hercule of. Y'all are making claims about John that he looks guilty because he licks his lips a lot so he must be a pervert. Come on now. Don't be a hypocrite and don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, I didn't say that. You need to take in the whole context. My remark was "ewww" meaning the lip-licking is weird. That said, the point is that Hercule is using things about Patsy that are probably common to a lot of people, to support his theory that she is a murderer. Use the same nit-picking on John, and he could make the same sort of case. Based on the case that Doc lays out, I do believe John killed JBR. I believe he molested her. I believe that people who molest children are perverts. Capeche?

      Delete
  61. Not sure that's all Anonymous was saying, but set the lip-licking aside: Someone molested that child, and statistically it was likeliest an adult family member, and incest is a sexual perversion. And John did go on to marry a woman who designs pageant costumes, which at least suggests the possibility of a continuing, unhealthy preoccupation. I don't think Anon's accusation is that far off the mark. . . and this is discounting the rumors of the affair with the woman he supposedly had dress up in pageant gowns, and the endless possibilities available in Amsterdam's famous red light district.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  62. This blog has grown to into ridiculous commenting ....first off I have read almost every comment in this blog and if anyone insults people on here it is C.C. NOT Hercule and for the stupid posters who claimed Hercule called her ignorant you obviously need to retake an English class ....he said that claim was ignorant. Just because you or someone else has a busy schedule and does not suffer from mental illness surely does not mean that Patsy did not or that someone could not ...just as certain people have every other disorder despite being scheduled the same and living/having the exact same lifestyle as everyone else yet develope whatever disorder they end up with.Thats why its called a disorder duhhh !!!!!I would think that would be common sense but obviously it is not in this forum. What I find most ignorant are the people who are personally attacking and insulting Hercule and trying to pretend as if he personally insulted them by posting his opinion. Whether Hercule is right or wrong and whether or not you agree with his opinion his posts are very well thought out, very knowledgeable posts so lay off with the BS and the fake pretending as if he tried or personally attacked anyone !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you think some folks need an English class, can I please correct you: "develop" (not develope). No offense, I'm guessing it was only a typo. But since you're ragging on me: I did take English, got an A+, have a master's degree. Now, this is not about spelling or reading comprehension, its about logic. How does Hercule conclude that Patsy did have a disorder? To your point, people are alike and different in many ways. But you have missed my point -- her having a busy schedule means nothing relative to a murder. Plenty of mothers have very busy schedules. That was the point! If in fact there was some hard evidence that Patsy killed JBR, then her state of mind could be used to come up with a motive. If you have read this entire blog, surely you understand that Doc started with the scientific method, and Hercule starts with a theory. Doc uses undisputed facts; Hercule takes a theory and fantasizes about what Patsy's state of mind could have been. When people on this blog question Hercule, he insults them. He's very rude and unprofessional. He can dish it out but he can't take it, I guess. I think CC is right on with her comments. He's the one that is writing BS. We are calling him on it. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen :)

      Delete
    2. That was a typo and my point was that you were acting like Hercule insulted someone when he certainly did not and acted as if he called you ignorant when he certainly did not and hence my comment about English and definition and then you began a personal attack. The point is you are saying that bc you have a busy schedule and no disorder that no one else can and that is just not true or even close ...common sense here. No one has any answers to this case but for you or anyone to sit and tell me that Docs theory is scientific and any more factual by basing a whole hypothesis around that no one would call police with the body in the house and/or called police and handed over a note if they had written it and try and tell me that is scientific and a fact is smoking something really good and ill go even further..it is in no way shape or form any more scientific or factual than Hercule having the opinion that Patsy "may" have had a mental illness.

      Delete
    3. what is it that you, personally, want to contribute here about this case? I get that you want to defend Hercule. If you don't buy Doc's analysis, that is fine. Do you know what the scientific method is? This is what Doc has stated that he employed to build his case. So its not his theory that is scientific, it is the approach he uses. The scientific method uses facts versus opinions. I found this on a website, which might be helpful: "An important distinction to make clear when science is an issue is the difference between fact and opinion. "Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality (but still open to scientific inquiry, as opposed to an absolute truth, which is not, and hence not a part of science). Hypotheses and theories are generally based on objective inferences, unlike opinions, which are generally based on subjective influences."

      Delete
  63. OK, everyone has had a chance to vent. It's been interesting and amusing but at this point I don't think there's anything more of any substance to add on this particular topic. And it's getting much too personal, so from now on I'll be deleting posts containing personal attacks and insults. This means YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thanks Doc. I commend you for having, at least in my mind, solved the case. I think some folks take the fair questions, and points being made, too personally. I have never called anyone ignorant, stupid, naive, ueducated, or said they were smoking something - not sure what that does to further this. The topic here was about finding an artifact where Patsy said she went downstairs and called 911. I'm sure I've read that somewhere over the years -- I wish I could find it. So far, I have not. What I am doing is pestering an investigative reporter/friend of mine from college to do an expose that would use your material to pose the question "why was John Ramsey ruled out?" I'll continue to encourage him to finish reading your blog and then decide if he could take this on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. At this point, I think some aggressive investigative reporting is definitely in order.

      Delete
  65. With the partial dna that was found i wonder why they cant maybe do a general sketch as to what this person may look like. Even though I personally dont think the dna is related to this case.

    ReplyDelete
  66. At the end of the day, Burke holds the key to this mystery.

    I still find it amazing that his interview on that fateful morning was expunged. Very suspicious. I also find it strange that the Ramsey’s turned against the White’s (I think Fleet or Priscilla may have heard Burke say something). In fact, getting Burke’s interview expunged also means that the White’s couldn’t talk about this. The White’s KNOW something about the case and this in turn tells us that it was one (or a combination) of John, Patsy and Burke who did this to JB. We know there wasn’t an intruder.

    Burke is a man now and still won’t be interviewed...he FEARS it. He knows that any interview he performs, something might slip out that he doesn’t mean to say.

    Burke did something or knows something and there was certainly no intruder.

    The best hope of this being solved? That Burke had nothing to do with it and he agrees to an interview or to provide some information after John passes away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Expungement means to erase from the record. Why do you think Burke's interviews with CFS were expunged? He was a minor, and afforded the treatment and protection to which a minor is entitled - interviews conducted by CFS rather than the BPD. Portions of those interviews have, in fact, been reported. Expungement has no bearing on the Whites' or anyone's ability to speak out. What has not, and cannot, be reported is Burke's testimony before the GJ. All GJ proceedings are sealed.
      CC

      Delete
  67. Expungement is a legal term meaning to erase the record. Burke's interviews with CFS were not, to the best of my knowledge, expunged; in fact, portions of them have been reported in various books and on websites. Burke was a minor, and afforded the protection of a minor - interviews by CFS rather than the BPD. Expungement, in any case, would have no bearing upon the Whites' or any observers' abililty to discuss Burke or what Burke may know; it carries no such restrictions.

    Grand Jury testimony, on the other hand, is sealed, and Burke reportedly testified before the Grand Jury.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  68. Id say the biggest smoking gun is that in interviews John and Patsy were shown writing samples. One a postcard Patsy had written, the other a polaroid of Jon Benet that Patsy had also written on. Both John and patsy were unable to identify the writing as Patsy's. To me thats the smoking gun. How do you not know your own handwriting?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I agree with the above commente. I do not know what evidence there is against John but from what I know it is little to 0. How you can do a scientific analysis based on 0 evidence and come up with "a concrete case" I dont know but i personally would like to see a list of the facts that this "scientific analysis" was done with. Here is the evidence against Patsy and this doesnt include the lies she told or anything to do with her behavior, straight up factual evidence .Fiber Evidence. Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing that night were found in places key to the crime: the paintbrush caddy she kept her art supplies in, the blanket used to wrap JonBenet's body, on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth, and tied into both knots of the ligature used to strangle JonBenet. Patsy denies she ever went near these places wearing that sweater. In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those."http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682497/Patsy%20Ramsey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sweater fibers shed easily. Patsy was very likely in intimate contact with her daughter that day and that evening. Fibers from her sweater could easily have transferred from her to JonBenet and from JonBenet to her attacker and from her attacker to all these items.

      Fiber evidence from someone living in the same house as the victim can usually be discounted, as indirect transfer is not at all uncommon.

      Delete
  70. In the paint tray and the blanket JB was wrapped in freshly taken out of the washer and dryer ? 4 places total and the garotte yet the attacker leaves nothing ? So your theory is that JB had fibers on her and when John grabbed the paintbrush he dropped fibers on JB from Patsys sweater into the paint tray ? I think the odds would have to be astronomical for this to occur...actually impossible. I think the only viable way to refute this evidence would be if John planted it .

    ReplyDelete
  71. Also since John had carried JB to bed and was wearing a sweater shouldnt there have been more of his fibers on JB rather than Patsys bc he was the most recent and in such contact as carrying her in and upstairs ?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Doc's right. The possibility of third party transfer or innocent deposit and the impossibility of time-stamping them makes fibers meaningless in a shared home.

    Patsy removed JBR's outer clothing when she put the child to bed.

    If you insist on dwelling on the importance of the fibers in spite of this, how do you explain John's shirt fiber found in JBR's underwear?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  73. Doc is right. Third party transfer or innocent deposit of fibers is all too possible in a shared home, making the fiber evidence meaningless.

    Patsy stated that she removed JBR's outer clothing when she put the child to bed.

    If you still insist the fiber evidence is important, how do you explain John's shirt fiber found in JBR's underwear?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  74. This is an excellent question.

    First of all, I don't know of any source of information regarding John wearing a sweater, or whether it was the type of sweater that would easily shed fibers. Secondly, our information regarding Patsy's fibers comes from sources such as Steve Thomas, who were focused on Patsy and not John, and thus possibly inclined to ignore or downplay anything that might point to him. Third, the "fibers" found on the duct tape were not really fibers, but microscopic fragments of fibers, and there were only four of these in all. I'm not sure what was found entwined in the cord, but these might also have been microscopic fragments rather than complete fibers.

    The bottom line is that you're assuming that John's sweater or whatever he was wearing was just as likely to shed as Patsy's and I don't think that sort of information has ever been reported. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Even Steve Thomas has admitted that this fiber evidence is inconclusive.

    Finally, fibers from John's shirt were found inside JonBenet's panties -- and that sort of thing is much harder to account for than the fibers from Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So your theory is that JB had fibers on her and when John grabbed the paintbrush he dropped fibers on JB from Patsys sweater into the paint tray ? I think the odds would have to be astronomical for this to occur...actually impossible."

      That's a huge assumption. If Patsy's sweater shed fibers easily (which is the case with most sweaters), then it's easy to see how those fibers could have transferred to both JonBenet and John -- and from them to any other part of the crime scene, including the paint tote. How is that impossible? As far as what John was supposedly wearing, I'd be curious to learn what you know about that, because I've never seen any reference to it. The only way to confirm your suspicion would be to compare what Patsy was wearing to what John was wearing with regard to how easily the fabric might shed.

      Delete
  75. Kolar:

    "In one instance, a sweater –that Patsy was said to be wearing under the jacket –was delivered that looked like it had just come off the shelf of a retail clothing store. The fold marks were crisp and clearly present, suggesting it had never been worn. Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic, and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey’s Essentials jacket. Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor.

    "Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but Trujillo told me lab technicians didn’t think that this type of transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence."

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some excerpts from Steve Thomas's book:

      "A guttural wail came from Patsy on the far side of the house, and the detective told Ramsey to call 911, then go to his wife. He was back within two minutes, grabbed a blanket from a chair, and tossed it over the body before Arndt could react. It was one of the most damaging things that could have been done and created a forensics nightmare. By covering the body, Ramsey compromised the already despoiled crime scene even more. Now the possibility existed that any fibers left on the blanket by some unknown person’s clothing might have been transferred from the blanket to the body. Arndt compounded the error by adjusting the quilt so the body was covered from the neck down. When someone else spread a gray Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt over the exposed feet a few minutes later, it became virtually impossible to prove the origin of almost any fiber that might be found on the clothing and much of the body. . . .

      The others were coming down the hallway, Patsy Ramsey being held upright by her friends. On reaching the body, she fell across her daughter, substantially adding to the possibility of fiber transfers. The blanket, the sweatshirt, the personal close contact of the parents— all were extraordinarily damaging to the future evidence collection process."

      Also: "John Ramsey had pulled the tape off JonBenét’s mouth when he found the body and left the tape in the basement. . . There were a myriad of distant possible arguments. Had the tape been removed from her mouth during the autopsy, the argument of transference would have been diminished."

      Translation: Since John had pulled the tape off JonBenet's mouth when he found the body, as reported by Thomas, that left all sorts of possibilities for the transfer of fibers having nothing to do with the assault. If the tape had not been removed until the autopsy, then the presence of Patsy's fibers could be considered significant. (But even so, the possibility of transfer via JBR's body itself would still be likely.)





      Delete
  76. And the pendulum swings to PDI again . . .
    (I knew Hercule would jump in on this)

    ReplyDelete
  77. John was wearing an Israeli made sweater from what I had read in the past ...Id have to refind my sources and my point is that is alot of places for such microscopic fibers to be found when the person had not set foot there and 1 would assume that John would have left more fibers than Patsy. I had bever read that it was Johns fiber in JBs panties , only that I believe it was a red fiber resembling his sweater was found. Maybe it os not enough to take to trial on Patsy but maybe this is 1 of the reasons Steve Thomas was so convinced Patsy had done it. Nothing concrete here but surely something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  78. As far as Kolar is concerned, it's important to remember that his theory involves a fatal blow struck by Burke, with Patsy and John then conspiring to cover for him. If Kolar is right, then, assuming the fiber evidence points to Patsy, we are expected to believe that Patsy, after discovering that her son killed her beloved daughter, constructed a garotte-like device to strangle her with -- and in the process fibers from her sweater got into the knots and also the duct tape placed over the victim's mouth.

    I'm sorry but I find it impossible to believe that a loving mother would decide to strangle her own daughter under such circumstances, much less strangle her with such a diabolical device as a garrote. That simply makes no sense, and I wonder how Kolar could have come up with such a bizarre notion, especially since elsewhere in his book he describes both her and John as "good Christians."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Doc,

    Here's a question I'd love an answer to. Do you think Kolar's a hack? I read his book and he's too factual without really seeming like he's trying to capitalize on this case. I'm JDI camp myself, but even with his skewed perspective I find him loyal and authentic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you or anyone call a detective who was on the case as having a skewed perspective ? I am pretty sure he has a much better perspective than we do, and that goes for almost any detective on almost any case ..

      Delete
    2. No. Kolar is not a hack. But his unwillingness to consider either Patsy or John as a murderer, forced him to focus on Burke, as he had correctly ruled out an intruder and there seemed no other alternative. As I see it, once John was "ruled out," the only other possibilities are truly bizarre -- as is BDI, which imo makes little sense.

      Delete
  80. Do not make the mistake of ever thinking that a loving mother( or father) should be discounted because you can not see them doing that. History would prove you wrong time and time again .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please don't misunderstand. I don't think it unlikely that a mother would kill a beloved child. That's happened many times. What I don't see is any reason for a perfectly innocent mother to strangle her daughter in such a disgusting fashion after her SON murdered her.

      Delete
  81. While I would surely agree with you that it would not seem right for an immediate mothers response to be to do that no matter which family member/members you believe are responsible there will be some bizarre and odd twists and behaviors that do not make rational sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And once we start theorizing based on possible irrational acts, we can come up with an infinite number of scenarios. Like all criminal cases, one must start with facts and follow them. For me, the ransom note contents and handwriting, plus the observable behavior of John Ramsey then, and even John Ramsey today, are cause enough to put him on the stand to answer questions. I cannot ignore the handwriting comparison that Doc did. If Steve Thomas believes the fiber evidence points to Patsy, then he also needs to look at the handwriting of John -- his exemplars compared to the ransom note. Also, the block style format of the letter that indicates it could have been traced or even copied from a screen. Like Doc said, John is being ignored, and there is no reason to ignore him. He was in the house, and he could have done this, too. Why is he getting a pass?

      Delete
  82. I surely agree that it is a great injustice that John bought himself a pass and as far as I am concerned Burke should be in the same boat ...the DAs office are the 1s who are accountable here. I am not sure of the law on this but surely they could and should/should have been held for wrongful misdoings. If the law permits I think Alex Hunter to this day should be yanked in and charged if possible.

    ReplyDelete
  83. While some letters of John's look similar the samples of Patsy's handwriting in her deposition looked identical with very unique and identifying marks to them, to ignore this obvious exactness is foolish. It doesnt matter if 1 of her other letters looks her handwriting or not especially since the handwriting in the RN was surely disguised.I am sure that we only got a small glimpse of what L.E. and the experts were seeing and looking at during her depo. and a very good reason why L.E. honed in on her. The same goes for John , we the public only had 1 small sample of Johns handwriting but L.E. and the experts had much more to look at and break down. Just bc L.E. came to the conclusion that the handwriting was not Johns , he was never off the radar and was always thought by alot of L.E. to still be at least involved in the staging and/or cover up so trying to pretend like L.E. just looked right past John is false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you provide a reference that indicates that more than one exemplar of John's was looked at? I have never seen or heard this. Further, I see nothing in the ransom note that looks like Patsy's handwriting - what are these very unique and identifying marks? If there was so much exactness, why didn't they charge her? I believe the whole genesis of this blog created by DocG was based on the fact that John was ruled out prematurely.

      Delete
    2. Here is where Patsy lies and can not identify her own handwriting ...start at around the 24 minute mark https://youtu.be/N969TY1pXyQ . As far as a reference to what documents of John's handwriting were looked at from what I understand those have never been made public. The only document that we have of his to look at was not even a court document but something that someone had personally and made public. Common sense tells me that they did not do professional analysis without any exemplars.

      Delete
    3. As far as her not being charged we all know the obvious answers to that, money, a crooked D.A. , conflicting evidence and a botched investigation are the reasons why. Dont get me wrong I am not letting John off the hook here but for anyone to try and put the perception out there that John was not under the same scrutiny as Patsy bc of his handwriting analysis is almost humorous. L.E and the D.A. publicly stated many times that THE RAMSEYS were under an umbrella of suspicion ...the jury wanted to indite both of them ..talk shows , magazines and everyone else were accusing John every bit as much as Patsy and this all came AFTER his handwriting analysis.

      Delete
  84. We've been down this road with you. Alex Hunter wasn't crooked. Handwriting analysis is entirely subjective. The deposition you are so fond of quoting was taken by Darnay Hoffman, who was admittedly out to get Patsy, and she and John deliberately obfuscated.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  85. You have never been down this road with me? Alex Hunter was friends with the Ramsey's defense team before JBs death and was cozied up with the Ramsey defense team during the investigation, which makes perfect sense and is a fact. If I have to spend time sourcing what we all already know it is a waste of yours, mine and everyones time. It really does not matter what D.A. or prosecutor/questioner it is bc the prosecution is always out to get the defendant. To think they deliberately obscufated is probably 1 of the more ridiculous things that I have ever heard. Lets just put that into perspective for a minute ....while basically on trial for the death of there daughter (civally instead of criminally) they have some need to lie and obfuscate which could have lead them to a criminal case ? As if there any difference in L.E.s or the public's eye and as if they would not try to to throw anyone they possibly could under the bus as they had anytime before if they could have ? If Patsy did not do anything wrong and was not hiding anything then would it not have been in her best interest and the best interest for the investigation of looking for her daughter's killer just to tell the truth ? I am sorry but that statement makes no sense whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ramseys were not "basically on trial for the death of their daughter" and Darnay Hoffman was not a DA or prosecutor. He was a New York attorney who had tried to insert himself in the JBR case four times before. He was pressing a $50M defamation lawsuit on behalf of Chris Wolf when he took those depositions, pursuing notoriety and self-promotion, not truth or justice for JBR.

      Boulder is a small town, the legal community very insular. It was very much Alex Hunter's usual practice to deal with opposing counsel rather than prosecute aggressively. It's not the course I would have taken, but there's nothing to suggest he was corrupt.
      CC

      Delete
    2. The Ramseys were not "basically on trial for the death of their daughter". Darnay Hoffman was not a DA or prosecutor, but a New York attorney who had tried to insert himself in the JBR case four times before finally bringing a $50M defamation lawsuit on behalf of Chris Wolf, during which he took those depositions. Hoffman was intent on notoriety and self-promotion, not the truth or justice for JBR.

      Boulder is a small town, and the legal community very insular. Alex Hunter was well known to prefer dealing with opposing counsel rather than prosecuting aggressively. It's not the course I would have pursued, but there is nothing to suggest he was corrupt.
      CC

      Delete
  86. And as far as handwriting evidence being subjective I would agree. That being said you would think that you could not use that as the main and really only piece of evidence you have to build a whole case around of JDI did it alone then and call it concrete or prosecutable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think what Doc said was this: John was basically ruled out. Once ruled back in, other information in this case starts to make sense. What doesn't make sense is that Patsy called 911.

      Delete
  87. https://youtu.be/yl5Ll3sLFs8 9:45 The handrwriting comparison begins and she can not identify her own letters ...the most obvious reason is that she does not want to admit it is her writing because it is an exact match to the letters on the left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have written differently throughout my entire life. I recently found some old letters at my mother's house and didn't recognize the handwriting as mine. Though in Patsy's case, I think she was not inclined to help out Darnay Hoffman in any way. I watched the depositions on You Tube, too. I probably would have responded the same way unless I was totally sure it was my writing.

      Delete
    2. So what you are telling me is that you wouldnt/couldnt be able to recall your writing in pictures you labeled of your child only 2-3 years later? I find this humorous that this is even a suggestion. I can recognize my brother's , sister's , dads and mother who handwriting and years later let alone not be able to recognize my own . If you cant remember what your own handwriting looks like then I would suggest to you that you seek meds for dementia immediately. This is almost as bad as someone trying to say they cant identify or remember their signature on checks they have written nor can your husband/wife of 15 yrs. Humorous indeed !

      Delete
    3. I am not JDI, BDI or PDI but I will listen to any factual evidence with an open mind, however clearly there is an agenda here by the same 2-3 posters so this is nothing more than a waste of time. If it does not support JDI no matter how clear and factual it is some illogical off the wall excuse will be made by the same posters who have a clear agenda and believe and support a complete fantasy based on 0 facts or evidence and flat out just are not going to deviate from it no matter how obvious it is. She cant remember her own handwriting, she cant recall the window correctly or if John told her to call 911 or that Burke was up, she was gaslit and has no clue what goes on in her house, the same clothes the next day means she is innocent, her fibers just happen to be the only 1s all over the crime scene via transfer, any detective, L.E. official or expert analysis that suspected Patsy is not credible or they are guilty of trying to "frame" Patsy on this site etc etc etc.....or the most obvious logical answer is she is full of it and involved in some way.

      Delete
    4. DocG has a theory that thousands not just 2 or 3 posters believe and have added to. You saying the same things over and over has not changed my mind or probably anybody else's. This is a JDI website and I do not understand your surprise or outrage when your arguments are refuted. If you are so frustrated why don't you go post on websleuths or some place where everybody believes PDI. You are not changing anybody's mind here so far as I can tell and saying the same things over and over really does not add anything to the conversation.

      Delete
  88. https://youtu.be/_hYHDCyuDqU Here is another different comparison. The A, D and E are all extremely unique. This is probably pointless because Doc and all the other JDI did it alone theorists will fail to see any resemblance at all despite the exactness and rarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me direct you to the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html

      You'll find two sets of comparisons between John's writing and that of the note. If you want to insist that the first set isn't convincing, then let me direct you to the second set, where exemplars from both sources are scrambled. If you can sort them out I'd be impressed, because no one has ever been able to do that in the many years since I first posted it.

      As I've made clear, I do not consider these comparisons as any sort of proof, because they too are the result of cherry picking, as are Cina Wong's comparisons. You could play the same game with any pair of documents written in manuscript style. Just keep looking until you find a "match" and then add that to your list, ignoring everything else. A similar set of "matches" was found for Chris Wolf, and posted on Youtube -- unfortunately that's no longer available.

      The "Rainbow Fish Players" example Hoffmann presented to Patsy does not look very much like her other exemplars and may very well have been written by someone else, possibly Burke. It looks to me a bit childlike and not at all like Patsy's very confident and clear hand.

      If you go here -- https://youtu.be/yl5Ll3sLFs8?t=16m1s -- you'll find comparisons of complete words rather than single letters. And to me the differences are obvious. The writing on the ransom note is heavy handed, messy and erratic, while Patsy's hand is light, clear and consistent.

      Delete
    2. While it may be considered cherry picking there is a major difference between trying to cherry pick out a person's writing that I do not know and have never seen before and comparing letters right next to each other. It is ridiculous to think that they were showing Patsy anyone else's writing other than her own. As if they were just going to grab some random handwriting to show and use to compare to her own. They knew exactly whose handwriting it was before it ever even left the house.It surely is NOT Burke's handwriting and that is more than obvious just by the comparisons.

      Delete
    3. Also some of the letter formations such as the E and the D are extremely rare ....they are not just similar they are exact and rare. The e I have never seen made like that before , I think you need to take a look again, if you fail to see the exactness and rarity then you do but it is without a doubt there.

      Delete
  89. The posts with the run-on sentences and thought streams are driving me nuts :) Its hard to buy into a person's points when reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  90. CC tried to enter this comment but for some reason it didn't show up, so here it is:

    The Ramseys were not "basically on trial for the death of their daughter". Darnay Hoffman was not a DA or prosecutor, but a New York attorney who had tried to insert himself in the JBR case four times before finally bringing a $50M defamation lawsuit on behalf of Chris Wolf, during which he took those depositions. Hoffman was intent on notoriety and self-promotion, not the truth or justice for JBR.

    Boulder is a small town, and the legal community very insular. Alex Hunter was well known to prefer dealing with opposing counsel rather than prosecuting aggressively. It's not the course I would have pursued, but there is nothing to suggest he was corrupt.

    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First off Alex Hunter was good friends with the Ramsey's attorneys before and during the investigation. He also went against the P.D. many times. Once giving the Ramsey's their statements back before an interview so they could see what they had initially said and keep their stories straight. This is unheard of. He also leaked information publicly and to the Ramseys defense. Not crooked ?????

      Delete
    2. Alex Hunter was guilty of poor judgment at every turn, IMO. But crooked and corrupt? No, he was not.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Alex Hunter was guilty of poor judgment at almost every turn. He was not, however, corrupt, which implies a payment for services rendered, a charge that has never been leveled against him.
      CC

      Delete
  91. I have to admit that after watching the deposition of Patsy and seeing the handwriting comparisons, I do see major similarities in the writing of those letters under the picture and in the ransom note. But, moreover, I find Patsy's denial that she did not write "Rainbow Fish Players" very, very suspect. We aren't talking about a document that is even 5 years old. In the picture, Jon Benet looks like she is only one, maybe two, years younger than when she was murdered. How could Patsy not know who wrote that? And that writing looks the same as the writing beside the other pictures in the photo album, which I feel certain she also wrote. John knew it too and was just covering for her. I think he knew deep inside that she was responsible for Jon Benet's death. He may have also helped cover it up.

    The style of printing in the ransom note and the style of printing by all these pictures is very, very similar. I can see why so many people are convinced Patsy is guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad someone else on this site is not/does not pretend to be completely oblivious to the obvious.

      Delete
    2. First of all, there is nothing obvious about any aspect of this case, other than the facts I've been pointing to, which have never been disputed. People see what they want to see. And as a result, there's a huge long list of suspects -- not just Patsy, John and Burke, but Santa, Helgoth, Fleet White, Linda Hoffmann, Chris Wolf, Bob Enyart, and many others. Each one has his or her "fans" who will swear they are absolutely positively sure this person must be the one. "Obviously."

      Until recently there was a video online demonstrating some very striking similarities between Chris Wolf's hand and the ransom note. As I've said many times, such methods are highly questionable because cherry picking is a very unreliable method. The similarities found for Wolf are every bit as "convincing" as those found for Patsy.

      Secondly, Patsy didn't deny any of the writing was hers, she just said she couldn't be sure. The "Rainbow Fish Players" writing looks very different from all the others, as far as I can tell. If it looks the same to you, then that's your opinion, but in my opinion there is a significant difference. In either case opinions are very far from proofs. As for the rest, we have no way of knowing for sure whether Patsy wrote those texts or not. My own guess is that she probably did, but they could have been written by Aunt Pam or Patsy's mother or a family friend, we have no way of knowing.

      Also, I see a big difference when we move from letter to letter comparisons and word to word comparisons -- because the style of Patsy's writing is very different from that of the note, as I've already pointed out. If you see it as the same, then fine, that's your prerogative. But don't forget that six handwriting professionals were unable to identify the note as written by Patsy, as much as Hunter was hoping they would. We don't have to take such judgments as gospel -- I certainly don't -- but we do need to at least take them into account, and ask ourselves why they fail to see what to so many amateurs looks "obvious."

      Delete
  92. Many people think Patsy has to be innocent because of the signs of prior sexual abuse. If she was upset enough to smash her daughter's head over a late night bedwetting incident, I think she was emotionally unbalanced enough to have molested her on prior occasions too. It's not unheard of these days. There are crazy people in this world, and although she appeared to be the perfect, loving mother, she may have had a very dark side to her. Hercule may be on to something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many people think its the sum total of these things, which does include the signs of prior sexual abuse, but also, in no particular order: 1. Patsy called 911. 2. It has been said that it took a very strong person to inflict the head wound to JBR. 3. John's shirt fiber in the brand new panties that were placed on her. 4. The ransom note looks like John's printing. 5. Any attempt to copy a word doc version of the ransom note would be more likely John's idea, vs. Patsy's. 6. John's attempt at a clever lie about the window. 7. John disappearing for too long while JBR was still missing. 8. John found JBR. 9. John's unfounded and unnecessary anger at Fleet White. 10. John showing no emotion. 11. Like OJ, John seems to be doing nothing to find the real killer. 12. John had access to JBR while Patsy was sick -- i.e. opportunity. 13. John has a background of being cleverly sneaky while conducting an extra-marital affair. 14. The use of percentages and other references in the ransom note from movies that he was more likely familiar with as a male. 15. He is shifty-eyed in interviews. 16. His lame books, trying to sound like he's some righteous Christian, are really off the mark because of how narcissist and self-serving he is - he never even seems to mourn the life that his little girl could have had. He doesn't sound like a father who is very fond of his daughter. 15. The intent of the note does seem to be buying time, and it seems pretty clever and daring, not something a housewife like Patsy would have dared to pull off. IOW, a very complex note and plan. That's all I can think of for now. And no, I'm not interested in a point by point rebuttal. This is my opinion -- I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just explaining WHY its not just one thing that leads people to JDI vs. PDI.

      Delete
    2. Most of what you just stated and not even close to evidence. If JDIs #1 piece of evidence is that Patsy called 911 so she could not have been involved then my suggestion is that you need to turn the ID channel on for a couple of weeks and go back to the drawing board. It is a false pretense that you are beginning your whole theory with. #2 It is within the realm of possibility that Burke could have been strong enough to inflict the head wound so surely without and doubt Patsy could have. 4# Some letters in the note may resemble Johns but it looks more like Patsy's. #5 I really do not even know where or why you would come up with that. #6 If John lied about the window then so did Patsy. #7 and #8 John disappearing and finding JBR could be nothing but JBR was murdered long before John disappeared or found her so that is 0 evidence of him murdering her. #9 JR was not angry with Fleet White , Fleet White was angry at JR for not cooperating with police (get your facts straight). #11 John hired investigators to find JRs killer which is more than Patsy did. Im not even going to keep going because besides 90% of the list not even close to being evidence.

      Delete
    3. Patsy had a complete meltdown in 1993, there were no other details about it other than that though.

      Delete
    4. If John can murder and stage all night without anyone knowing than he surely could have stopped Patsy from calling 911...either by force or manipulation. There is nothing to suggest that he did either of these things. With the contents and what was stated in the RN it surely would NOT have been very difficult to persuade and manipulate PR into NOT calling L.E. and there is 0 evidence to suggest otherwise.

      Delete
    5. To the writer who responded to my list: did you not read that I stated, up front: "in no particular order?" Also, I never stated that any of this was hard evidence. Obviously, if there was hard evidence, we would not be here discussing this case, and likely there would have been an arrest. Many of us believe this would have to be a circumstantial case, based on what little hard facts are available. I also explained to you that these things are the basis for my beliefs, not that I'm a prosecutor trying to build a case. I do believe that John Ramsey was getting revenge at Fleet White for his role in questioning John's judgement. He allowed both Fleet and his wife to be suggested as culprits, and did nothing to defend his friends. That is sick -- what kind of innocent person would do that to their best friends? As far as hiring lawyers, John hired lawyers for both himself and Patsy (separate lawyers), and Doc has explained at length why Patsy and John needed to present a united front and support the IDI theory. Apparently John did NOT stop Patsy from calling, though we have no way of knowing if he tried and failed, or she just picked up the phone when he was going to check on Burke. I can tell you, if my husband forcefully tried to take a phone away from me, I would react strongly and I would also think that he had lost his mind. Are you suggesting that John would have hurt Patsy or started an altercation over this? We have no idea if they argued about this -- it is very possible that they did. If John found JBR's body, what was he doing with it? He came up with a plan then, on the spot, to cover up for someone in his family? Theories about Patsy have no basis in fact, either. No arrests were made based on her handwriting. As for #5 - I guess you haven't read this blog in its entirety. Doc came up with a very interesting observation about how the RN looks to be copied from a computer font and how its block formatting makes it appear as if it was copied from a screen. As far as Burke's strength - I believe that some expert said the crack in her skull was so severe that it would take the force of a strong man to inflict it - I read this in one of Doc's posts, so he would have to source that for you. Having raised a son, who at age 9 was athletic, strong, and coordinated, I can't imagine that he could have hit his sister that hard unless he threw something very heavy from behind. I saw him try to chop wood in Boy Scouts at that age, and neither he or his friends could come close to breaking up the wood the way their father's could. Regardless, our opinions are different and it has already been demonstrated on this block that if you go cherry picking, you can basically build a case for just about anyone who does not have an alibi. Patsy being made over a wet bed, etc. is not based in fact, and it still continues to amaze me that people here want to hone in on her but give John a pass because he was a smart, successful businessman who surely would not have molested his daughter. The whole point of this blog is to rule John back in, look at what we know from a complete picture, and see that it is possible that he did it. NO ONE here has said they can prove it. What has been said is: bring some charges and force John to answer hard questions. See if he now will point the finger at Patsy, or even Burke. He would not. He would try to stick to his intruder did it theory. I think he would be made to squirm, for sure. This is why I doubt there will ever be justice, but I sure would like to see him squirm, especially over his stupid window story -- the one Patsy was forced to go along with while Steve Thomas was focusing on her.

      Delete
    6. "The whole point of this blog is to rule John back in, look at what we know from a complete picture, and see that it is possible that he did it. NO ONE here has said they can prove it."

      Thank you so much for this eloquent summary of the case I've been trying to make. Just one correction: although I don't believe I can prove beyond doubt that John did it, I am convinced, personally, that he is in fact guilty. Because, for me, no other interpretation of the case makes sense. To arrive at such a conclusion, however, requires a very thorough knowledge of the facts and the evidence. Too many people come to their conclusions far too soon and on the basis of incomplete awareness of the case as a whole.

      People keep insisting on Patsy's involvement based on very dubious evidence and equally dubious "psychological" theories based on little more than sheer speculation. As I see it, if John had not been "ruled out" hardly anyone would have paid much attention to Patsy, especially after the evidence for prior molestation became public.

      Sadly, once people's opinions have been formed, it becomes almost impossible to change their minds.

      Delete
    7. Thank you Doc. You are right, and I should have been more clear by saying no one can prove this case with just the hard evidence. If a preponderance of the evidence can convict John, I would like to see the DA give it a go. I initially had a gut feeling that the father did this to JBR. His behavior alone made me highly suspicious. I never could buy into the bedwetting scenario and the BDI case is one that ignores just about everything that we do know about this case. I'll admit, for a while I believed that Patsy could have been crazed, but your case brought it home for me.

      Additionally, I know people who know Patsy. Some are close friends, others are acquaintances. All of them say they have never, ever seen her lose her temper and they believe her to be a genuine person. They have been radio silent on John. None ever even said "he's a nice man. A good dad. A loving husband."

      Delete
  93. What if Patsy saw Jb getting molested by JR and hit her on the head in a rage ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has been discussed -- many have thought of this. Would Patsy then go along with the staging that included the garrotte strangulation, the other marks on JBR? She would cover up for John, who sexually abused her precious child?

      Delete
  94. Maybe Burke was fingering JB and/or inserting other things into her vagina. I think that is more than possible and it is possible that has nothing to do with the murder at all.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The Chris Wolf lawsuit was a defamation lawsuit but anonymous is correct in that for Mr. Wolf to win the lawsuit he had to prove that the Ramseys killed JB and thus were pointing a finger at him when they in fact had killed JB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not how a libel suit is properly pursued. The accusations against the Ramseys were atypical, and inserted by Darnay Hoffman in pursuit of his vendetta against the Ramseys.
      CC

      Delete