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.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Open Thread -- Part Ten

Time to make room for more comments . . .

267 comments:

  1. So...nice weather we're having.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not sure if this has been brought up but from my knowledge of this case JBR's panties and tights were soaked in urine (which occurs immediately after death). Correct me if I am wrong here but she could not have been redressed in the morning and must have been redressed prior to her death ? C.J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A couple points.

      First of all, it's not clear exactly when she died. As I understand it, this could have been anywhere from late the previous night up to 6 AM or later, i.e., after the police were called. We apparently have no way of knowing when the "garotte" was applied -- could have been after Patsy's 911 call, as a last-minute attempt at staging. My guess is that it probably happened much earlier, but this possibility can't be completely discounted.

      Secondly, as I understand it, the report just said "urine stains," not "urine soaked." If anyone is in a position to check on that please correct me if I'm wrong. If the fresh panties were put on while her crotch was still soaked with urine, then they could have gotten stained prior to her death.

      Delete
    2. I was under the impression that while exact time of death was not known exactly that JBR was killed much closer to 10 pm (most likely around 1am) than around 5am. I thought this was close to fact due to her state of decomposition ? You are correct that in the autopsy it does say "stained". Somewhere else I had just read that they were "soaked". Ill post where I got that here altho I have read that wording in more than 1 place. You are correct Doc that in the autopsy It does say "stained" panties, tights and legs which I would think that would lead 1 to believe that those are most likely those were the clothes she soiled at her time of death. If she were redressed only a few minutes after death would be the only other possible way that could podsibly occur no matter what the time of death was. 1 of my points was I think that this would eliminate the possibility of J.R. redressing her after the police arrived as a last ditch effort at hiding evidence. If they had gotten stained prior to her murder then you are suggesting that she was redressed prior to her death ?

      Delete
    3. The pathologist attended the residence at 6 pm and did a cursory examination of JonBenet’s body before removing her to the morgue. She was dressed in a white nightie and white panties with white tights overtop. The panties and tights were soaked in urine. Postmortem changes were advanced with rigor mortis already passing and early decomposition presenting. - See more at: http://dyingwords.net/who-really-killed-jonbenet-ramsey/#sthash.3D2AQXDx.hmfJrl8j.dpuf

      Delete
    4. Also, since her body was wiped down I think it would be safe to infer that she was not wiped down and then redressed but had to be wiped down in the clothes she was discovered in. Had she been wiped down and then redressed there would be no urine stains. Thus maybe she was never even redressed at all post murder ? C.J.

      Delete
    5. "The panties and tights were soaked in urine."

      Yes, that's what your source says, in the link you provided. To me that's yet another example of how easy it is to make assumptions. Let me quote the autopsy verbatim:

      "There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words [sic] "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."

      Note that the phrase used is "urine stained," NOT "urine soaked." Note also that nowhere does he literally say that the panties with the word "Wednesday" on them (i.e., the oversized pair) are stained. (Not clear whether "underwear" in the following sentence refers to the long underwear previously mentioned, or the oversized panties. An unfortunate ambiguity.)

      There was, apparently, at least one blood stain found on her panties, as this was the source of the mixed DNA sample that became so controversial early on.

      Delete
    6. "Also, since her body was wiped down I think it would be safe to infer that she was not wiped down and then redressed but had to be wiped down in the clothes she was discovered in. Had she been wiped down and then redressed there would be no urine stains. Thus maybe she was never even redressed at all post murder ?"

      You make a really excellent point, C.J. I see no reason for him to redress her in fresh panties for fear of semen stains on the original pair, and then pull off those fresh panties to wipe her down afterwards. That makes no sense.

      So must we assume he wiped her down before redressing her? In that case, however, we wouldn't expect to find urine stains OR blood stains on the fresh pair of panties (i.e., the oversized pair). And yet, a blood stain was in fact found on the panties.

      On the other hand, dried and "semifluid" blood WAS found by the M.E. in the vaginal area of her body, so the wiping down doesn't seem to have been all that thorough.

      We're left with two possibilities, as I now see it. Either she was never redressed by her attacker, but put the oversized pair on herself, earlier that night. Or John was in such a panic that he failed to wipe her body down thoroughly enough, which might explain the urine and/or blood staining on the oversized pair.

      I seriously doubt he'd have bothered to redress her prior to the 911 call, as the original pair could have been easily discarded if he'd been able to carry out his initial plan. But if he redressed her after the 911 call, then we have to account for the urine and/or blood stains on the oversized pair.

      An intruder would have had no reason to redress her as he could simply have taken the original panties with him. Patsy would have had no reason to redress her, since women don't produce semen (duh!).

      Finally, I see no reason for JonBenet to want to redress herself in these very uncomfortable oversized panties in the middle of the night.

      At this point my best guess would be that John most likely redressed her, and that would most likely have happened after the 911 call. Any inconsistencies could be explained by his being in a panic and not thinking systematically, which might explain why he could have redressed her first, and then wiped her down.

      On the other hand, we can't completely discount the possibility that she redressed herself that night, prior to the attack, as unlikely as that might seem.

      Delete
    7. Great analysis Doc. If he had redressed her after the 911 call though, I would think the most likely scenario would be that the blood and urine would have long since dried up and there would be no stain transference whatsoever ? Urine and blood still wet probably at least a good 5-6 hrs later ?However I think it makes more sense if those were the clothes she went to bed in the first place, changed into herself or by someone ? She then she was assaulted and murdered in those SAME clothes she originally had on and then John wipes the body down after the 911 call. That seems to fit best. If John had indeed sexually assaulted her it seems extremely risky on his end to do such a shoddy cleanup job and leave the same clothes on her that he assaulted her in. How would he know what dna of his was there and what was not ? I know I read somewhere long ago that PR had bought those oversized underwear as a gift for someone else but JBR was so fond of them that she let her keep them. I am not sure if this is true or not as I read it many years ago and have not seen it since. C.J.

      Delete
    8. "Finally, I see no reason for JonBenet to want to redress herself in these very uncomfortable oversized panties in the middle of the night."

      You're making some assumptions here. Let's work backwards. We don't know when the panties were put on her. It could have been shortly after she was put to bed. We don't really even know she was put to bed, as we have only the two Ramsey adults statements to go on. Burke says she walked into the house under her own power.

      Uncomfortable oversized panties. You have no idea whether or not JBR found the oversized panties uncomfortable. People are highly individual when it comes to clothing fit/comfort.

      At this point my best guess would be that John most likely redressed her, and that would most likely have happened after the 911 call. Any inconsistencies could be explained by his being in a panic and not thinking systematically, which might explain why he could have redressed her first, and then wiped her down.

      I find no reason for JBR to redress herself. And yet, she's in oversized panties. There would be no reason for JR to redress her in oversized panties (a point I'll come back to) so one guess is as good as another. Her putting them on herself is consistent with Patsy's statements, but not with the fact that there were no size 12s in the dresser drawer. So, it might be something we simply can't know.


      "At this point my best guess would be that John most likely redressed her, and that would most likely have happened after the 911 call. Any inconsistencies could be explained by his being in a panic and not thinking systematically, which might explain why he could have redressed her first, and then wiped her down."

      There would be no reason for John to put oversized panties on her after the 911 call. If the call was unplanned (by John) then he'd have had to assume the body would be found in a short time which in turn would cause the police to seal the house and search it thoroughly (if SOP were followed and JR could not have banked on procedure not being followed) Since she was wearing longjohns there is no reason that she also needed panties, and no reason for the police to wonder about the "missing" pair. IOWs the absence of panties under longjohns does not immediately indicate that a pair of panties are "missing". JR's number one priority after the 911 call would be hiding/destroying the original panties if they had semen on them. Any redressing will be blamed on the "intruder" so there is no need for JR to account for a "missing" pair anyway. As long as no semen stained panties are found, JR has nothing to worry about, with regard to panties. The "intruder" cold have taken them for a souvenir is all JR would need to say.

      Delete
    9. This post strikes me as a bit incoherent and I have a hard time following your reasoning. You don't use quotation marks half the time, you repeat yourself, and you say some things that make little sense.

      It should be obvious by now that my thoughts regarding the oversized panties are speculative so much of what you say is redundant in any case.

      "There would be no reason for John to put oversized panties on her after the 911 call. If the call was unplanned (by John) then he'd have had to assume the body would be found in a short time which in turn would cause the police to seal the house and search it thoroughly . . ."

      Huh? How long have you been reading here? If the call was not part of John's plan then, as I see it, he'd have had a full day and night to get rid of the body. It would not have been part of his plan to let the police find the body in the house. And once the 911 call had been made, he'd know it was just a matter of time before the police found her IN the house. And if her panties had been missing then yes, the Ramseys could have argued that they'd been taken by "the kidnapper." Only kidnappers are in the habit of kidnapping people, not panties. That would have been very lame indeed. So yes, the police would have searched the house looking for the missing panties.

      Sorry but I find your post incoherent.

      Delete
  3. How do we know forsure she was redressed ? How do we know patsy just didnt remember right? What if pr got confused and stated she was in diffrent clothes was she wasnt . Where are the original clothes that she was wearing then ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She had to be undressed, at least partially, to be assaulted. Assuming she was dressed before the assault it follows she had to be redressed after. The question is, did any clothing get changed, or discarded. We simply don't know the answer. We can guess, but it's nothing more than a guess.

      Delete
  4. We do not know that she was redressed was my point. It seems to be some kind of fact that she was redressed but the way I see it is there is no evidence of this, in fact it is almost impossible that she was. If she were redressed it had to be very shortly after the murder because if it were not then the blood and urine would dry and there would be no transference from body to clothing C.J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like your thinking, C.J. It's logical and does make sense.

      However, I happen to like the redressing scenario because it provides us with a great clue. And of course, points straight to John, as only a clueless husband would have 1. known where to look for panties and 2. been dumb enough to confuse the oversized pair with a pair of the proper size.

      Patsy would certainly have noticed if JonBenet had been put to bed wearing the oversized pair, and she had no reason to lie about that, so as I see it, it's almost certain she was not wearing them when put to bed. We have no way of knowing whether JBR herself changed into them herself that night, but I still find that very unlikely. Sure, she liked them and was probably interested in wearing them some day when she had chance to grow into them. But I find it really hard to imagine her deliberately changing into panties that would have been so uncomfortable, making it almost impossible to move around.

      I still like the redressing scenario, despite all the very reasonable obstacles you've presented. It's not essential to my theory, but it still seems to me the most logical interpretation of the evidence.

      The ME refused to even estimate time of death, and other sources have estimated a very wide range, from anywhere around 10 PM to 6AM, based on the condition of the corpse when it was (finally) examined. The attack took place in two stages, the head blow which according to most of the forensics people, came first, and then the strangulation, which has been estimated as taking place at least 45 minutes after the head blow, and possibly much longer.

      It was the strangulation that killed her, not the head blow. And by the way, we don't know when her vagina was penetrated, which could have been at any time that night or even in the morning. It's not impossible that the strangulation could have taken place shortly before he ran upstairs and took his shower. If this is what killed her, then she could have urinated at that time, and the urine would still be fresh enough to stain the panties when he changed them after the 911 call.

      ALL very speculative I admit. And I could certainly be wrong. But, in the immortal words of Mr. Monk (remember him?): "I don't think so."

      Delete
  5. C.J. makes a very good point. But if the molestation occurred first, and then the blow to the head (maybe to silence her), she could've been redressed while unconscious and the urinating occurred later when she was being strangled. That could explain the (new) panty being urine stained.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree Amek. So we all agree that what J.B.R. was wearing was most likely what she was wearing at her time of death, whatever time that was. Why would John want to redress her at all though if he was going to dump the body as that would be completely counterproductive for him ? Ahhh there is always some roadblocks to every theory in this case that just make no sense! The clothes Patsy said JBR went to bed in were found balled up in JBR's bathroom correct ? I think I read about this long ago but were the clothes she originally went to bed in ever tested ? I have never read anything about if they were or not and it seems like they would likely hold some important evidence in them. I can not find anything about that online. If anyone has a link or info about this please post it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When jr brought jb upstairs wouldnt pr notice right away im sure some moments after the shock of what just happened... wouldnt she have found it odd right away that she wasnt in the clothes she was put to sleep in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy was a bereaved mother, in shock over the death of her child. I doubt she even noticed the difference. But even if she did, so what? Obviously something significant had happened that night, so why would it be surprising if she'd been redressed?

      Delete
    2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only "clothes" that were possibly changed, were the panties. That would not have been obvious, unless she'd been undressed. There is the issue of the red polo neck shirt, but I don't think there is any evidence that she ever wore that to bed.

      Delete
    3. There is the red polo neck shirt. And I agree that as far as we know there is no evidence she ever wore it to bed. There is also the pink nightgown found in the WC. If I'm not mistaken that nightgown had a blood stain on it. So, imo, it's not clear that the only clothes that were possibly changed were the panties.

      One thing that is clear is this; if PR was innocent and if she had put JBR to bed as she states, then she'd know if JBR was "found" wearing something different than when she went to bed. She'd also have to ask herself why an intruder murderer would have bothered to redress the body and hide it in the WC.

      I agree with you that her panties, whatever size, would not have been obvious unless she was undressed.

      Delete
  8. What's up with John going to the airport for 2 hours Christmas Day? I've always found this detail extremely odd, and suspicious. Seems to me like the perfect time to write the note. Something nefarious went on there, even if it was merely planning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too find that suspicious. For some of my thoughts on this possibility, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/09/premeditation-revisited.html

      See also the many comments after this post.

      Delete
    2. Fascinating stuff. I must say that your proposal gets a little sensational with the potential drugging, and computer tracing, but even then it's a possibility.

      What's the purpose of John throwing packing peanuts on the train room floor? Is it as simple as him trying to give his window story more credibility? That the months of weathering through the exposed hole in the window caused it?

      Delete
    3. Yes, my speculations can admittedly sound rather convoluted. But as I see it that's going to be true of any scenario capable of accounting for all the ins and outs of this very complex case.

      I think John scooped a bunch of packing peanuts from the window well to give the impression they were accidentally dragged from the well to the floor as the intruder climbed in. I can't be sure why he didn't do more in the way of staging, but perhaps he just got distracted or ran out of time and decided to complete his staging on the following night.

      They would not have gotten in via the hole in the broken window as that hole was in one of the upper panes, fairly high up above the well.

      Delete
    4. Okay so the infamous window area consists of a removable grate from the outside that drops to a crawl space where there's a three-pane window. There's something I'm not getting clearly. Why would there be packing peanuts on a window well? In a box on a shelf, sure, but not there.

      Delete
    5. I have no idea how they got there. But they were in that window well, no question. Lots of them, apparently.

      And there were four panes in that window, not three. Three windows, four panes each.

      Delete
  9. Hi, Doc. Love your blog. Other than the obvious frailty and the unlikelihood of an intruder, do you have other reasons to discount Bill McReynolds as the murderer? He is a remarkably suspicious character. - HL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there had not been a "ransom note," and that note had not been written on a notepad from the Ramsey home, then we'd be free to pick and choose among a great many "likely" suspects, and we'd have no way of telling which of them did it, because there was never any evidence linking any of them directly to the assault. McReynolds was a rather eccentric old guy with a strong interest in little kids, and he would certainly have been on my suspect list, if this were your typical pedophile attack. But it was far from typical and NO intruder scenario makes any sense, so as far as I'm concerned we can rule him out, along with all the others, no matter how suspicious they might seem.

      Delete
    2. I'll add that John's many lies and half-truths, including but not limited to his testimony regarding the broken window, in themselves make it impossible to pin this brutal crime on any intruder.

      Delete
    3. I have never been able to find much information on Bill McReynolds. Other than him being cleared by police and in no state of health to commit this crime he sounds like a great suspect. I have always found the story Bill's wife wrote and what happened to their daughter to be well beyond the oddest and strangest of "coincidences" EVER. That being said my belief is the killer was home in the house that night.

      Delete
    4. I wonder if John had ever read that story that Bill's wife wrote? His awareness of the story could have fueled his imagination.

      Delete
    5. There are several "great suspects." Each has his or her advocates and if you concentrate only on that one person (or persons) then yes, you can manage to convince yourself that this MUST be the one. This is why I decided to concentrate on the facts of the case and not assumptions based on profiling, psychology, past criminal records, and all sorts of other possibilities. That's all they are: possibilities. But in view of the FACTS, no intruder theory makes sense and there has never been any trace of evidence linking any of these people to the crime.

      Delete
    6. I agree with Doc about facts only. Good point as well though anonymous. That being said do you 2 find that story and what happened to the McReynold's daughter to be far to strange and exact to be a coincidence Doc ? In the realm of coincidences and anomilies I find this to be THE most uncanny I have ever seen. Not only 1 coincidence but 2. If you could apply mathematics to this the odds have to be beyond astronomical. Like winning the lottery 3 times astronomical.

      Delete
    7. It's not a question of coincidence per se, but whether it's a meaningful coincidence. In this case the coincidence seems totally meaningless. In other words, it's JUST a coincidence, nothing more.

      Delete
    8. I agree with you on the coincidence it just seems like a veru one in a million coincidence. I have not found much to read about the McReynolds but maybe 1 of the Ramseys read that story ?

      Delete
  10. I was JDI and in agreement with most of Doc's theory. However after reading all of PR's original interrogation transcripts the past couple of days it is very clear that she got caught lying during those interrogations about a few things other than 911 call and the window. Things that she could not have been gaslit or manipulated by JR about. Including trying to manufacture intruder evidence with JR's paegant bear and lying about the Hi-Tec boots. This throws a real monkey wrench into my thought process of JDI. C.J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you be more specific? What did she say about the bear or the Hi-Tec boots that struck you as a lie?

      Delete
    2. PR tried to imply that an intruder had left that stuffed bear in JBRs room and got lying red handed by L.E. in her interview. She also told L.E. that no one in her family had ever owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots, which was another lie she got caught in. I know that you have read the transcripts Doc or no ? I just discovered them the other day myself. C.J.

      Delete
    3. I just reread the police interviews where the "Santa bear" is mentioned, and also did a bit of Google-based research on this item, which was in the news for a while several years ago and then all but forgotten. It's one of a great many inconclusive pieces of the Ramsey case puzzle that will probably never be resolved.

      You're right that Patsy denied knowledge of that bear and there followed an effort by the police to identify its source. I find it hard to believe Patsy lied, because, if she lied about that item, she was in a position to lie about all sorts of other items that she could claim did not belong in the house. In an article dealing with this issue, Charlie Brennan suggests it could have been a recent gift from one of their many house guests over the last few days and that Patsy might not have been aware of it. It's also possible that this was a gift from John on the night of the murder. As "intruder evidence" it's pretty lame anyhow, especially since it's the sort of thing one would expect to find in a little girl's bedroom.

      As for the Hi-Tec boots, Patsy claimed no one in the family owned any -- so did John, by the way -- but a few years later, when Burke was being questioned, he mentioned that yes, he had in fact owned Hi-Tec boots. I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe Patsy would lie about something like that. It's much more likely that she didn't keep track of every item owned by Burke and never noticed anything different or unusual about any of his footwear. He was a big boy and could take his shoes on and off all by himself.

      Delete
    4. I was shocked as well when reading the transcripts Doc. I can also tell by your statement that you have not seen the original transcripts or possibly you saw only the 97 and 98 transcripts and not the 2000 transcripts ? That bear was certainly not a gift from anywhere but her "award" perse that was presented to her by winning the little Miss Christmas pageant just days before her murder. Patsy of course took JBR and there is no way that she could not have known that her daughter won a Christmas bear at a Christmas pageant that her daughter won and was presented with for becoming "Little Miss Christmas." PR took her to this and JR showed up late after the show. The way I have to look at this she thought she could could get away with this and it would be perfect "intruder evidence" because A) it was new so she could claim she didnt remember it if she had to and b) she never thought L.E. would be able to figure out where it was from. I will post the exchange as L.E made it very clear that they had caught her lying and she no other resource other than to play dumb. As far as the Hi-Tek boot goes, PR being the stay at home mom that she was and being the who did all of her children's clothes shopping does she not know her son has a pair of boots that have compasses built into them ? I cant believe that either, Burke badly wanted these boots and the way I see it is after LE found the evidence of an intruder from the footprint in the cellar the Ramsey's hit the jackpot and decided to just go with the free intruder evidence. Most likely they threw out Burke's Hi Tek boots which were by the way, ironically never found. That "intruder evidence" was just handed to the Ramsey's so they took it. Who do you think he would be asking to buy him these unique shoes and how does a stay at home mom not notice her son wearing boots with compasses built into them ? Now keep in my mind that back when this case was in its first couple of years of investigation both of these were very crucial pieces of evidence to LE.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for your very thorough review of the "Santa Bear" issue. And you are right, I went over the 1997 and 1998 interviews, but not the 2000 interview, where the (apparent) source of the Santa Bear was revealed. I'd forgotten all about that history, so thanks for jogging my memory.

      If in fact this stuffed animal was awarded to JonBenet a few days before her murder, then obviously Patsy either didn't recognize it, got confused, or deliberately lied. When questioned in 2000, Patsy stated that it was her impression that JonBenet was given a different stuffed animal, not a Santa Bear. Was this simply a dodge? Or could there have been some confusion on the other end, by LE or by the person who presented the awards?

      To me, this whole episode is an example of how important it is to consider each piece of evidence in relation to all the other evidence, and the overall logic of the case. Too often people tend to draw conclusions based on only one element, ignoring how it might fit into the big picture.

      The problem here is as follows: if in fact Patsy were guilty, then lying about that bear would have done her no good at all. As the defendant in a murder trial, any such claim on her part would be meaningless. An eye witness report by a defendant is clearly not going to carry much weight. It's certainly not going to convince anyone that an intruder was present, based solely on the testimony of the defendant.

      On the other hand, if an intruder was in fact present, as Patsy no doubt believed, then that Santa Bear might be useful in tracking him down. This to me is the most sensible explanation for why team Ramsey made such a fuss over that bear. Not as intruder evidence, but as a possible clue to the identity of "the intruder."

      We must also consider why Patsy would have wanted to lie about this item if she knew full well where it came from. Why lie when you know ahead of time that your lie is likely to be exposed?

      As far as the Hi-Tec boots are concerned, the same considerations apply. Denial on the part of the Ramseys would mean nothing in a court of law where they're the defendants and anything they say would be greeted with skepticism. And if Patsy knew the truth about Burke's boots then she'd have known that her lie was eventually going to be exposed. I find it ridiculous to assume that Patsy would have had perfect recall of every single item ever worn by her son or every single toy owned by her daughter. If you ask anyone enough questions, you are almost sure to get some answers that might sound evasive or suspicious. That's an old legal tactic, used to discredit witnesses or produce false confessions.

      It seems clear to me that Patsy's responses in both cases were the result of either a faulty memory or simple confusion. Proof of guilt? Hardly.








      Delete
    6. She stated JBR got a different stuffed animal AFTER she was caught by L.E. as an "out".

      Delete
    7. Patsy did not have to remember every piece of clothing her children ever wore. She would have no choice but to remember only one , the boots that her daughter's killer wore the night of her murder. How could she possibly forget that? Her statement was made about no one in her family having those boots not very long after her daughter's murder which is very telling. I do not see her not recognizing that bear even as a possibility. I have to agree with anonymous on this. These are direct attempts to stage and mislead the investigation and sadly it worked. Why would an innocent person who had thought that an intruder had raped and killed her daughter not want to find the killer and mislead them by giving them false evidence and leads to follow ? Only someone with knowledge and guilt would want to do that. I found what she could "not remember" in this interview and how little her lawyer let her speak and just ruined the interview purposely to be very telling as well. I still believe JDI but have no doubt that PR was involved in some way, which way that is I am not sure. C.J.

      Delete
  11. The boots are a fascinating clue. Of course Patsy would remember them, and the only reason to say not was to shift focus onto an intruder. It's funny that with all the exposure the boots got Burke didn't mention them sooner, but it shows that he wasn't "into" the case - and by later mentioning them clearly shows innocence on his part.

    I've looked at this a long time and now figure it had to be a perverse John, and Patsy going along so as not to more destroy what they had left. John's "innocent" actions that people have always considered due to stress were clearly not so innocent when looked at in a different light.

    RIP JBR!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Jack but I am not sure what actions of John's you are speaking of. I was in almost complete agreement with Doc's theory just a few days ago but after reading alot the last few days and forgetting some things from long ago that I now caught up on I am not so sure. Doc I had forgotten many of these things I read years ago as well . That 2000 interview was a complete disaster for Patsy. You believe that Patsy does not remember the Christmas Bear that she had just been presented with less than 2 weeks before Patsy made her initial statements ? Also had Patsy had no clue what shoes her children were wesring then she would not have stated that no one in her family had ever had hitek boots to LE and in the Ramsey's book. I do believe that when looking at the evidence as a whole as you say that we now have PR lying about the 4 biggest pieces of evidence that there are in this case. The window, 911 call, Christmas Bear, HiTek boots and Burke being awake during 911 call. I personally am sure of more lies than that as well as keeping up with this case even now is a job in itself. After rereading I as well recalled about the window that because of the spiderwebs being there it is very possible that it was broken long before. Do not get me wrong I believe that John was going to stage there but I do believe it may have been broken long before becaude spiders are dormant in December in Boulder. When looking at this as a whole 1 person ilhas been caught lying alot more than the other 1 has and that is a fact. You can only excuse so much and then you have to step back and take a new and objective view.

      Delete
    2. Patsy Ramsey's 2000 interview with L.E. http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

      Delete
    3. "Of course"? Really? Do you know how many pieces of footwear Burke might have owned during that period? Are you absolutely sure that Patsy would have purchased every single shoe or boot ever worn by him? Is it possible they were purchased by John? Or given to him as a gift by some friend? Do you know how often Burke wore those boots, or even if he ever wore them at all?

      ". . . the only reason to say not was to shift focus onto an intruder."

      I can think of at least one other reason. To shield her son from the prying eyes of the authorities and the media.

      As I've said many times, it's all too easy to make unwarranted assumptions on the basis of one or two aspects of the case, ignoring the overall context and the logic. It's simply not logical to see Patsy's failure to identify those boots as a sign of guilt. Sure, she was eager to hit on anything that might suggest the presence of an intruder, why wouldn't she be? But I see no reason for her to lie, knowing very well that her lie would sooner or later be exposed. How on Earth would that have helped her case? That goes for the Santa Bear as well.

      Delete
    4. "You can only excuse so much and then you have to step back and take a new and objective view."

      Excuse what? Why would Patsy want to lie knowing that her lie was going to be exposed? This is exactly why I decided to stress the facts and logic of the case, and avoid making assumptions. If you try to solve this case on a piecemeal basis, assuming this and assuming that then you'll get nowhere, because assumptions of that sort can be made regarding just about anyone who's ever been suspected in this case, from Helgoth, to Wolf, to Fleet White, to Linda Hoffman, to Bill McReynolds, to John Mark Karr and so on endlessly.

      If you grill anyone long enough then sooner or later you are going to find responses that can be made to seem suspicious. Imagine yourself in Patsy's place and how you would feel knowing that any lapse of memory or any confusion on your part could be seen as evidence of guilt.

      Sure, there are a whole lot of people who've convinced themselves of Patsy's guilt on the basis of this sort of pseudo evidence. If you reread the first three posts on this blog, you'll see very clearly why she has to be innocent -- based on facts, not assumptions, logic, not bias.

      Delete
    5. "After rereading I as well recalled about the window that because of the spiderwebs being there it is very possible that it was broken long before."

      Sorry, but I fail to understand your logic. How would the presence of spiderwebs tell us the window had been broken long before? The two undisturbed webs tell us that no one could have passed through that window on the night of the murder. They tell us nothing about when it was broken. Broken remnants of an old web can be found on the broken glass itself. But again that tells us nothing about when it was broken. Spiders don't weave broken webs.

      Delete
    6. If I am not mistaken (and I could be it has been awhile) part of the web was attached to a broken part of glass on the window. I will go back and look at transcripts and photos later to make sure . You tell me how that can happen then if it was a fresh break ?

      Delete
    7. You are mistaken. Two intact webs were found, one connecting the window grate with the lawn and the other inside the window well. Neither was connected in any way with the broken window pane. Remnants of a broken web were found on that pane, but that's no reason to believe it was an old break. The web was probably sitting intact on the window prior to it's being broken, which could have been at any time.

      Delete
  12. From Steve Thomas's book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation:

    "Smit slowly leafed through notebooks filled with evidence pictures, asking Ramsey if he noticed anything different, unusual, or out of place. The common theme was that plenty of things were strange. A box of tissues did not belong there, a pillow missing here, dust and dirt disturbed elsewhere. To Ramsey it looked as though the Tupperware container in JonBenét’s bedroom had something in it (the same thing Lou Smit believed). Ramsey’s testimony seemed very well rehearsed. Ramsey almost seemed to know the answers before the questions were asked. A cigar box was out of place, as was his golf bag. He pointed out marks on a keyhole and noted that an Easter basket had been moved." (p. 324)

    On the other hand, here's what Thomas has to say about Patsy:

    "Unlike her husband, Patsy saw very little out of place as she went through the photographs."

    Of course, this was in 1997, prior to her comments the following year, regarding the SantaBear. Now if Patsy were so eager to lie about intruder evidence, why wouldn't she, like her husband, point to all sorts of things that were out of place or didn't belong?

    I see no basis for the assumption that she was deliberately lying to point away from her own involvement in this crime. If that were her intention she'd have been sure to lie, as did John, about things that could never be checked. If she'd recalled the origin of that stuffed animal then she'd have known very well that it could be traced and her lie revealed. And if she were so eager to lie regarding intruder evidence then she, like John, would have pointed to all sorts of things that were out of place, not just that one item.

    This case is so complex and convoluted you can find all sorts of "evidence" pointing to just about anyone you like. And since so many "like" Patsy, then anything she ever said or did that could be questioned has been seen as evidence of her guilt. If it were all that simple she'd have been tried and convicted years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course"? Really? Do you know how many pieces of footwear Burke might have owned during that period? Are you absolutely sure that Patsy would have purchased every single shoe or boot ever worn by him? Is it possible they were purchased by John? Or given to him as a gift by some friend? Do you know how often Burke wore those boots, or even if he ever wore them at all? Some of this is just plain commom logic but I will break it down for you since you are in a state of denial. Patsy did all of the shopping for the kids, does that mean it is "impossible" that John got them for BR ? No surely it does not mean that it is impossible. Is it possible that PR could have have never heard of or been asked by Burke to get these unique boots with compasses on them for him that he badly wanted ? Sure maybe he never asked PR. Is it possible that he did not wear the HiTek boots often or is it possible that PR just never noticed him wearing his boots with compasses built in them ? Of course it is POSSIBLE. Is it logical ? No the obvious LOGICAL answer to any of these is yes she did. For ALL of these things to occur would be darn near impossible. So just because YOU think it makes no sense for her to lie about this or that or always having some excuse or "reason" for WHY she is lied does not change the "FACT" that she did LIE. It always has to make sense to you why she would lie about this or that. Its called a MISTAKE or thinking she would NOT be found out. She lied and included linda in her story about the window. Does that make sense ? Of course it doesnt but she did it. Does it make sense that she would lie about Burke being awake during the 911 call ? No it doesnt but she did it. Does it make sense that she lied about whose idea it was to make the 911 call ? In context changing her own story thus making a liar out of herself ? Of course that makes no sense either so these are the EXACT same things that PR has a history of doing during this case. The EXACT SAME MISTAKES that have been already documented even here yet you act so shocked. There are plenty more lies that she has told as well but I am not going to get into that now. You trying to point out that PR is just "cherry picked" to death with everyone just trying to "pick her apart" is ludicrous. This is a woman who has LIED about the top 5 pieces of evidence in her daughter's murder and you call that "cherry picking" ? You do not have to look hard at all to find PR a very very good suspect whether she is guilty or not.

      Delete
    2. If Patsy lied about any aspect of this case one has to ask "why." If you can't explain why she would have lied, i.e., what her lies would have accomplished for her, then you have no right to insist she lied. People have memory lapses all the time, people get confused all the time. That goes double for someone in a stressful situation, as, for example, when being questioned as a possible suspect in a murder case.

      As I've argued: if Patsy were guilty, then lying about the bear or the boots would have done her no good. First, because her "lies" concerned items that could have been, and were, easily checked. Second, because, as a suspect, her word regarding any aspect of the case would have counted for very little.

      That's what I mean when I talk about the logic of the case. It makes no sense to assume she lied about these items, because there was no motive for her to lie about them and her "lies," when revealed, would have done her more harm than good.

      The reason this case has never been resolved is because people are continually letting themselves get caught up in a host of inconclusive details of just this sort, what I've called the "morass." Oh yes, it was Patsy's pad, it was Patsy's pen, it was Patsy's paintbrush, it was Patsy's fibers, she wore the same dress the next day, her handwriting is "just like" that on the note, she lied about the oversized panties, she lied about the santa bear, she lied about the hi-tec boots, she peeked at a policeman through her fingers, on and on and it's all just nonsense because it's possible to demonstrate very clearly, based on FACTS, not assumptions, that she could not have been involved.

      Please, folks, just read the first three posts on this blog, or if you prefer, the previous post, titled "Why John?," that goes over the same territory more concisely, and you'll see what I mean. Yes, if you must have Patsy you can find all sorts of miscellaneous, unconnected and unconfirmed reasons to suspect her. If resolving the case is more important to you then you'll forget about the morass and base your thinking on facts and logic.

      Delete
    3. I urge you also to read my post titled "Patsy's Role" for still more evidence in support of her innocence: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/09/patsys-role.html

      Delete
    4. How do you consider PR lying an assumption and not a fact ? Especially when they substantiated by LE ? These are tactics police use all the time. Do you know why they do that Doc? You consider John lying about the window a fact yet that is not even proven. I am sorry but I do not have to know what she lied about or what it would have accomplished for her. I am not in her head. That being said I will explain to you what she was doing once again. The same thing many many others have done many many times in many similar cases. She is trying to produce evidence of an intruder obviously. Its called look I didnt do it or look no one in my family did it. I dont think it is that complex ? Sending LE off on a wild goose chases takes the heat off other places (the ramseys). It is a common everyday human nature reaction. You know that Patsy lie about the 911 call. Now you feel free tell me how that benefitted PR ?

      Delete
    5. Patsy failed to recognize a stuffed animal from a photo taken in her daughter's room. And incidentally, according to one source (http://www.acandyrose.com/s-santa-bear-mystery.htm), Linda Hoffmann failed to recognize it as well. Naturally Patsy assumed it must have been given to JonBenet by "the intruder," and as a result it was investigated. Thanks to the investigation, the source of the item was established. Since it was Patsy's testimony that prompted that investigation I see no reason to conclude she'd been lying. Why prompt an investigation that's bound to reveal that you were lying?

      If you still want to see that as a lie, then fine: prove it. Prove she lied. Otherwise it's nothing more than speculation. You can rant about it till you're blue in the face but failure to recognize something is not the equivalent of lying about it.

      Delete
    6. And as far as the 911 call is concerned, Patsy lied about it to support John's version of what happened. If she'd directly challenged John, that would have made both of them look suspicious and undermined their mutual defense. That constitutes an excellent motive to lie. There was no motive to lie about the santa bear or the hi-tec boots, as I've very patiently explained several times already. My patience is starting to run out.

      Delete
    7. It is because she did not think she would be caught, that is why. It is that simple. Just as she thought she could just change her 911 call story and many other things. Those things make no sense either do they ???? I think she had no idea how far the scope of the investigation would reach and how deep it would go. If it were not such a publicized case with some of this countries best experts and detectives later assigned to it and such a media driven circus with lawsuits going on left and right I am pretty confident that most of these things would have never been found out. It is really easy to say after the fact that was really stupid and made no sense but the truth is most people who commit murders get caught because of stupid lies they tell and mistakes they make. I do not see why this is so hard to undertand ? As far as Linda not knowing about the bear that JBR won, this is obvious, of course she didnt, she probably had never seen it or heard of it. JBR just won it days before her death and Linda Hoffman was not the pageant obsessed mother who took her. PR WAS and "WAS THERE JUST DAYS BEFORE" JBR's death when she won and was presented with the Christmas bear. The neighbors next door and other close friends probably did not know about it either. It was new and not many people had ever seen it in the house thus why it was perfect to say oh look an intruder must have left it. L.E. interrogators sure thought it to be a pointed lie and even gave her the chance to change her statement. You could easily say that JR just couldnt recall or was just under stress or pressure and couldnt remember properly over time so thus his words slightly change and his story "evolves." He is just being "cherry picked" but then again his stories and lies are nowhere near as pointed and obvious as PR's. Her saying she thought it was an angel was "the only out" that she had. My guess is that interview had her as close to being arrested as anyone has been in this case. If she had no clue what shoes anyone in her family was wearing than I guess it would she shouldnt run around proclaiming to L.E. and the world that no one in her family has ever had HiTek boots and that they must have been an intruder's HiTek boots.

      Delete
    8. You've done a good job of explaining why YOU think she was lying. That doesn't make it so, sorry.

      Delete
  13. "This case is so complex and convoluted you can find all sorts of "evidence" pointing to just about anyone you like." On this we can agree Doc. What we can not find though is someone being caught up in as many lies as PR. If you disagree feel free to find me 4 verified lies by anyone else in this case. Not even JR has been caught in even close to that many. Even if you open up 100 other cases where someone is being investigated, I highly doubt that you would be able to find anyone being investigated in any of those cases who has told that many lies and is NOT behind bars even if they were innocent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I see it, she "lied" twice -- both times to support her husband's version of what happened. (I put "lied" in quotes because as I see it her statements regarding the broken glass in the basement weren't really lies in the usual sense but untruths prompted by either manipulation or gaslighting.) As for the rest, I can't agree that these are lies (see my comments above). For a listing of John's many lies and misdirections I refer you to the chapter in James Kolar's book titled, "The Evolution of John Ramsey's Statements." For more such evidence see the following: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-case-against-john-ramsey.html

      Delete
  14. DocG, for me, where your logic fails, is that murder is not logical for "normal" people like you & me. We all agree that this crime was not committed by a calculated serial killer. We're talking about a first time event. The killer(s) (& accomplices) must've been in a complete state of panic, with limited time & resources to hide their tracks! Panic stations all round!!! Picture yourself in that situation and see how "logical" you think & do things! (The closest comparison I can personally compare it with is oversleeping & trying to do a million things at once & actually accomplishing nothing.) I think whoever did this was panicking big time & just winging it, saying and doing the first thing that came into their heads. Their only saving grace was the complete & utter incompetence of the police officers first on the scene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, one needs to distinguish between the logic, or lack of logic, on the part of the perpetrator(s) and the logic required of a meaningful analysis of the case as a whole. People who commit crimes can act in very illogical ways, granted. But we still need to be logical when trying to solve such crimes.

      Secondly, the Ramsey "ransom" note is a very carefully thought out, very logical document. It was not written by someone "just winging it" or "doing the first thing" that came into his/her head. The note was, very clearly, a ransom note. And, assuming no intruder, then we have to see it as the staging of a phony kidnapping by someone on the inside of that house.

      Given the above, it's only logical to conclude that whoever wrote that note would not have wanted the police called in while the body of the victim was still in the house. The Ramseys were not drugged out hippies, and I see no reason to assume they'd be willing to totally destroy the effect of their ransom note by doing exactly what the note told them not to do. Nor do I see any reason why Patsy would want, for no good reason, to hand over a note written in her own hand that could be used as evidence against her.

      I can understand Patsy calling 911 in a panic, yes. But I don't see signs of panic in the ransom note, no. That was written by someone in complete control of his emotions.

      Delete
    2. I have to disagree, that ransom note is hardly well thought out, it is spur of the moment gibberish that just keeps running on with more gibberish. Without that ransom note being written L.E. NEVER looks at a single person outside of that house, EVER. So it did EXACTLY what it was meant to do. Without that note it is very possible that 1 or more of Ramsey's first step out of that house is straight to jail.

      Delete
    3. You are wrong. Once the body was found in the house, the ransom note focused attention on the Ramseys. While every effort was made to look into other suspects, almost everyone investigating the case became convinced this was an inside job, precisely because that note made no sense.

      The only reason John got away with it was because he was "ruled out" as writer of that note. And the only reason so many focused their attention on Patsy was because she was not ruled out. According to some, it's "obvious" she wrote it. Well, if it were so obvious then why would she have wanted to hand it over to the authorities?

      Of all the evidence in this case, there is only ONE item that's been so widely seen as evidence of an inside job, and that's the ransom note.

      If they were in this together, and didn't want to remove the body from the house, they would never have attempted to stage a kidnapping. They'd have reported it as a home invasion. It's really that simple.

      Nowhere in the history of crime has there ever been a ransom note left in the victim's home without the removal of the victim. Obviously the killer was staging a kidnapping, and obviously something went wrong. What went wrong was Patsy's 911 call. Again: it's that simple.

      Delete
    4. I agree with you that it has never happened before with the body in the house. That does not mean that it couldnt have happened here. I agree with you also that a short time after the murder occured the ransom note was just 1 more reason LE looked at the family. However they would have been the main suspects whether there was a note or not though. That being said on the 26th if that note was not there 1 of the Ramsey's would have been arrested immediately. That ransom note gave the small possibility that it could have been an intruder. Without that note LE would have NEVER even considered the possibility that it could have been anyone outside of that house. PR and JR would have both been forced straight down to the station and interrogated extensively before they ever set 1 foot outside of that house. In the end what that note ended up doing was buying the Ramseys time and probably kept at least 1 of them out of prison. It gave time to muddy up the crime scene. No note and the body is found immediately, there are no friends in that house trampling over the crime scene and there is no Ramsey destroying evidence on JBR's body. There is no John doing what he was doing when he disappeared and most of all lack of intruder evidence becomes very clear immediately. There are no steps taken out of that house by a Ramsey other than straight to the police station. In essence the note is what saved 1 at least of the Ramseys from going to prison.

      Delete
    5. "I agree with you that it has never happened before with the body in the house. That does not mean that it couldnt have happened here."

      Well, anything is possible. But as far as the authorities were concerned the fact that this had never happened before strongly suggested staging rather than a genuine kidnapping. Do you actually believe the police would have been so naive as to take this "ransom" note at face value once they'd discovered that no kidnapping had taken place after all?

      A real kidnapper would have kidnapped. And if something had gone wrong, he certainly would not have left a meaningless note behind, a hand printed note that could be used as evidence against him.

      So how exactly did that note help the Ramseys? The reason they were not taken into custody immediately had nothing to do with the note. The DA was faced with the problem of having two suspects on his hands, one of which was probably the guilty party and the other either an accomplice or totally innocent. If John Ramsey had been alone in the house that night, he would probably have been taken into custody immediatly, yes. And there is no way that note would have helped him, because a ransom note is meaningless unless a kidnapping has taken place. It would have been seen as what it was: a crude attempt at staging.

      The DA could not pursue a prosecution without knowing who did what. You can't prosecute two people for the same crime, you need to decide which one actually murdered the victim. And that was never clear. I have it on good authority, by the way, that John was initially the leading suspect, not Patsy. But after he was ruled out, there was no basis for holding him. And since there was no good reason to accuse Patsy of murdering the child she had so obviously been doting upon, the DA had no choice but to back off.

      Delete
  15. Yes, John didn't finish the staging, he assumed too much - he thought the note would completely control Pasty, he found himself having to make up a story about the window on the fly, he found himself unable to get out of the house to make the ransom call once Patsy called 911 too soon, he found himself having to be the one who discovered JB so that he could control that event once a full house search was in play, I think he had to scramble to get his golf clubs (where the panties in there?). So yes, he was winging it on the 26th. The best thing that happened to John was that the house wasn't completely searched right away, you are right. The 2nd best thing was having the circumstance of Pasty being so distraught that she was medicated for many days after.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank you. When we pull back to see the big picture, all the pieces fall into place. When we insist on nit picking over every detail, then we fall back into the morass -- the same morass that's prevented this case from being resolved after almost 20 years.

      Delete
  16. I think a lot of people forget that shortly before John found JonBenet's body, the police had just obtained a warrant to thoroughly search the house. John couldn't let that happen because the panties, broken glass, tape, etc. would be found by investigators. His only choice was to find the body himself and hopefully come back later for the hidden evidence. He was extremely lucky that Pam Paugh was able to retrieve it for him or else he would have a lot of explaining to do.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did Pam Paugh retrieve for John?

      Delete
    2. I think you're a bit confused, Gumshoe. John was told by Det. Arndt to thoroughly search the house, so he had no choice at that point, but to "find" the body. This had nothing to do with any warrant.

      And whatever Aunt Pam took would have been inspected pretty thoroughly by the BPD before giving it to her. The notion that she somehow got hold of John's golf bag before the police had a chance to inspect is a myth.

      John's opportunity to get rid of evidence came prior to his discovery of the body, when he went AWOL on Arndt for a period of roughly one hour. Once the body had been found, it would have been too late.

      Delete
  17. What if someone who was at their xmas party they took note pad and pen home with them .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's one version of the intruder theory -- that someone took the pad from the house, wrote the note using paper from that pad, and then returned with the note and the pad, with the intention of framing the Ramseys.

      Two problems: first, how would they know the paper from the note would be traced to that pad? Someone from forensics happened to discover that, but it could easily have been overlooked.

      Second, the only way such a note could be used to frame the Ramseys would be if it were forged to look like John or Patsy's writing. Only it wasn't. John was "ruled out" and the same "experts" that ruled him out found it "unlikely" that Patsy wrote it. Despite close examination by a great many forensics professionals, no one has ever suggested it could be a forgery.

      Delete
    2. After reading PR's 2000 interview Patsy can not make up her mind up what Jonbenet went to sleep wearing thus ending up saying that Jonbenet was already wearing the oversized panties when she went to sleep. Either Patsy is lying or she had the same underwear on throughout that day and through her assault and murder.Thus meaning there was no redressing. Patsy is very inconsistent with her prior statements in this interview to say the least. I do tend to agree that without the ransom note one of the Ramsey family is leaving that house in handcuffs. C.J.

      Delete
    3. Thanks to your comment, I went over much of the 2000 interview once again. The questioners badger Patsy continually, asking essentially the same questions and getting the same vague answers over and over again. Lin Wood makes things even worse by constantly interrupting with pointless objections and arguing continually with the questioners. That whole portion of the interview is a joke.

      Patsy's responses are sometimes precise, sometimes vague, sometimes she can't remember, and other times it seems to me as though she is feeling intimidated (for good reason) and just stops being cooperative.

      After line after line of beating around the bush, finally Harmer comes to the point and asks the question that should have been asked at the start:

      12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
      13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
      14 And I am not saying --

      This is Patsy's response:

      15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
      16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
      17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
      18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
      19 help herself to whatever is in there.

      That is NOT the same as Patsy "saying that Jonbenet was already wearing the oversized panties when she went to sleep." Not at all. After continual badgering and being asked variations of the same questions over and over, she is clearly confused and, when finally asked a very specific question, gives the best answer she can -- i.e. she can't be sure.

      But Harmer isn't satisfied. She pursues the issue even after Patsy informs her that she does not know, she wasn't paying attention. At that point Wood should have asked them to stop badgering his client and get on with other matters. But he's a terrible lawyer, more interested in quibbling over trivia than shielding his client from obvious intimidation.

      Looks to me like the questioners are eager to see Patsy slip up, so they can catch her in a lie -- but that never happens. Clearly she has no reason to lie about those panties. If you can think of a reason, please share.

      After more of the same hectoring, we find the following dialogue:

      8 Q. And you noticed that she had
      9 panties on in that process?
      10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
      11 Q. You have to answer yes or no.
      12 A. Well, I noticed -- I mean,
      13 nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't
      14 had panties on, it would have been unusual.
      15 So --
      16 Q. So there was nothing unusual
      17 there?
      18 A. Correct.

      Nothing unusual. Well, if JonBenet were wearing panties far too large for her that would have been unusual, no? So when Patsy reports nothing unusual that implies she was not wearing the oversized pair. Or else Patsy was lying. But once again: why would she lie about a thing like that? What could she possibly be hiding?

      Another pertinent question (after many lines of nonsense):

      4 Q. But did you change -- did you put
      5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point
      6 when you were getting her ready for bed?
      7 A. No.

      No, she saw nothing unusual. No, she did not change her panties. No evidence that she is lying, no reason for her to lie. Looks to me like she was put to bed in the panties she'd been wearing that day and clearly if they were two sizes too large she'd have been extremely uncomfortable and someone would have noticed.

      Delete
    4. Of course they were trying to get PR to slip up, that is their job. By this point in the investigation PR had been caught in many lies that she had become the main suspect due to her lying and behavior. As far as Lin Wood goes he did an excellent job, albeit the guy is a complete snake he had the interviewers so frustrated that they quit the interview ! He muddied and ruined the whole interview with his interjections and ramblimg on about meaningless garbage. Any time any meaningful question was asked Patsy got her usual "amnesia" followed by Wood's taking over of the interview.

      Delete
    5. Lin Wood wont even let her answer questions that were asked prior and wants to let her see every previous statement made and every document pertaining to every question yet does not throw such a fuss when John is interview. PR's 2000 interview is a complete travesty of justice ! C.J.

      Delete
    6. "PR had been caught in many lies that she had become the main suspect due to her lying and behavior."

      I'm sorry but I thought we'd already been through the "lying" business. You are free to interpret those statements as lies, but that does not make it so. As I see it, someone's failure to recognize a stuffed toy in a photo isn't a lie, not even close. You are a victim of confirmation bias.

      No one lies for no reason. Her failure to recognize that toy would NOT have been regarded as intruder evidence, much as Patsy might have wanted to see it that way. It would just have been another inconclusive clue. And if she knew how JonBenet was presented with that item she certainly would not have lied about it, knowing her lie would soon be revealed.

      I'm tired of repeating myself on this matter.

      As far as Lin Wood is concerned, I completely agree. He did Patsy no favor by literally taking over the interview and refusing to allow her to answer very simple straightforward questions. On the other hand, the interviewers were extremely clumsy, never leaving any issue alone but continually going over the same old same old issues long after Patsy had responded.

      They remind me of some of those posting here, who refuse to let go of certain matters even after I've explained my position over and over again. You don't have to agree with me folks, OK. But when I've made my point, that should be enough.

      Delete
    7. The interviewers did exectly what they were supposed to do. You act as if PR was in some heated interrogation. Due to the Ramsey law machine she never got interrogated properly and neither did JR. Why you have this poor PR syndrome I dont know. Whether she was guilty or innocent she was a great suspect, I think even you would have to admit. You seem to be 1 of the only people who does not see the any of the reasons she was a great suspect. She was a great suspect without even taking the RN into consideration. It was not that PR did not recognize a toy from a photo, it was that she insinuated that an intruder had left the bear there thus leading LE on another of many Ramsey wild goose chases. Until LE tracked it down and caught her lying. A bear that was presented to her daughter just days before her death and the bear that matches the title of the pageant. If you have a good reason someone can forget something like that days later and after there daughter was killed and then "forget" every single piece of solid evidence that was presented to her feel free to go ahead and explain it. Dementia ? Amnesia ? She does this exact same thing she did here with just about every key piece of evidence in the case. Im sorry that you cant see any of it and that must be due to your confirmation bias or lack of being able to objectively view anything outside of your theory.

      Delete
    8. I personally am not vested in any 1 person did this or any 1 hypothesis in this case thus I have no bias whatsoever. You are extremely vested in who did it and your theory thus why you have bias and can not view anything even close to objectively.

      Delete
    9. "No one lies for no reason". It is very possible that PR had a good reason for lying, just because YOU do not know what reason it is and I do not know what reason it is does not mean she did not have a reason. Secondly as I have repeated before and you skip over it by just saying I am bias and it makes no sense etc etc, In this investigation PR has a history of changing her statements, adding to her statements and amnesia when convenient and for every key piece of evidence. Was there a good reason she changed her story about the 911 call ? No there surely is not. Is there a reason she included Linda in the broken glass story ? No there is not. But she did it ! So why isnit so shocking to you that she could possibly make the same "mistake" again ? As far as the gaslighting and manipulation by JR not buying it sorry. PR had the best lawyers money can buy, many of them. Do you really think they would let her just change her statements because JR manipulated her ???? No they surely would not. These lawyers are too dollar and go meticulously prepping JR and PR long before every interview. They would never let her contradict her prior statements on such important issues just because JR tried to implant memories or manipulate her. Also it is very obvious that the Ramsey's lawyers and (especially PR's) main concern was getting copies of transcripts of prior interviews so that their clients (PR and JR) would not slip up by deviating from their there previous statements.

      Delete
    10. You really can't let go of this, can you? I noticed years ago that for a great many following this case, the certainty of Patsy's guilt has become an article of faith and more, a part of their identity, which is threatened whenever an attempt is made to defend her. No matter what anyone says, they simply can't let go and no argument will ever persuade them.

      I was well aware of this strange syndrome when I started this blog and have never been surprised when encountering individuals such as yourself. There are a great many who feel as you do, admittedly. I am not only in the minority, but, until I started this blog and began to change some people's minds, I was practically the only one defending Patsy and at the same time arguing that John did this crime on his own. Unlike you, or any of Patsy's other devoted "fans," I've presented my argument in the form of facts, not assumptions, logic, not gut reactions, the big picture, not inconclusive and irrelevant details.

      There is nothing new in any of the arguments you've presented. I've heard it all a thousand times. But when one analyzes each and every one of Patsy's "lies," each and every instance where she supposedly gave herself away, none of it holds up, it's all just an absurd fantasy.

      That's it as far as I'm concerned. You are entitled to your opinion and can continue to post as much as you like but I'm done. You are free to repeat yourself endlessly but I see no reason to follow suit, sorry.

      Delete
    11. Before leaving this topic I feel the need to make one more point, in the hope that maybe it will help some fence-sitters reading here to put things in perspective. Whenever I read all the many reasons for suspecting Patsy, all the "mountains of evidence" linking her to the crime, all the "lies," etc., I'm reminded of all the many arguments I've seen over the years in defense of the intruder theory.

      For example, here's a quote from "Anonymous"'s last comment: "It is very possible that PR had a good reason for lying, just because YOU do not know what reason it is and I do not know what reason it is does not mean she did not have a reason."

      Tweak this just a bit and you'll see an argument very commonly made for the intruder theory: "It is very possible that the intruder had a good reason for writing his ransom note while in the house, just because YOU do not know what reason it is and I do not know what reason it is does not mean he did not have a reason."

      There is no way to answer such an argument because after all, anything is possible. So why not just toss all logic aside, flip a coin and decide who's guilty on that basis? In dealing with a case such as this, we have to weigh the evidence, ALL the evidence, and decide on the basis of what is reasonable, not simply what is possible -- because, theoretically, anything is possible.

      So many times we see arguments such as this:

      It HAD to be an intruder, because of all those unsourced fibers, dog hairs, etc. How do we know for sure this wasn't left by an intruder?

      If this was an inside job, then what happened to the rest of the duct tape and cord? Obviously, the intruder must have taken it with him.

      The same unsourced DNA was found on three different places on JonBenet's clothing -- this HAS to be the DNA of her attacker. Isn't it OBVIOUS?

      Yes, all these things seem "obvious" if you refuse to examine such evidence critically, asking yourself things like: Why couldn't the unsourced fibers have originated with house guests? Why would an intruder bother to take bulky rolls of tape and cord with him as he left? Why couldn't the unsourced DNA have been transferred from some innocent source and then transmitted to all three places via JonBenet's hands?

      So when I hear stories about how Patsy OBVIOUSLY lied, despite the fact that she had no reason to lie, and nothing to gain by lying, I just shrug. Sure, anything is possible. But I'm sorry, that's no basis for determining the difference between innocence and guilt.

      Delete
    12. "I've presented my argument in the form of facts, not assumptions, logic, not gut reactions, the big picture, not inconclusive and irrelevant details." Your theory that because someone called 911 with the body in the house that makes them innocent is not a fact despite that IN YOUR HEAD AND OPINION IT IS. It is what your whole theory is built on and around. It is NOT even evidence. It is nothing more than YOUR opinion. Your opinions are not facts. The story that you have to build to make it work is sometimes laughable. JR was going to call in a disguised voice to PR or go to a payphone and call the answering machine, gaslighting and whatever else you like to call "logical" to make your story fit. Not dumping the body on Christmas night which would be the best night of the year to do so in favor of holding it until the next night. Logical ? All of the experts are wrong about the note and you are right. When someone changes their story or gets amnesia about key evidence in any case it is a red flag let alone when they do it about EVERY key piece of evidence. PR has done exactly that and that is a fact yet you call it fantasy ? I explained to you that PR was trying to produce evidence of an intruder. This is VERY common with guilty suspects in murder cases as you SHOULD well know. You ignore all other evidence and find excuses (sometimes ridiculously) for anything that does or does not fit your theory. You also have a very odd perspective than most on what IS and what IS NOT fact. Lastly I never said I thought or am an advocate that PR committed this murder. I just follow the evidence unbiasedly unlike you. I believe she was part of the cover up, I do not know about the murder as neither do you no matter how arrogantly you try and pretend and convince that you do. A lie by someone is generally a lie by someone. A logical inference to someone lying is not coming up with ridiculous excuses for why that person lied and then making so that it fits your theory. Gaslighting, mind control, alien abduction, amnesia are NOT logical no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself about using facts and logic.

      Delete
    13. "Your theory that because someone called 911 with the body in the house that makes them innocent is not a fact"

      Learn to read. I never said it was. It's a fact that the note is a ransom note. It's a fact that Patsy is the one who called 911. Patsy's innocence can be inferred logically from these facts, since someone who had written a phony ransom note to stage a kidnapping would not have called the police knowing that the body of the victim is in the house. That makes no sense because the call completely undercut the whole point of the note.

      That's pretty straightforward. It's a logical inference. It's also common sense. But you act as though this is some theory I've cooked up based on my opinion that Patsy has to be innocent. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You can't read and you can't tell the difference between a logical analysis and an opinion.

      Delete
    14. "Patsy's innocence can be inferred logically from these facts, since someone who had written a phony ransom note to stage a kidnapping would not have called the police knowing that the body of the victim is in the house." Ok let me rephrase then, that^^^^ is not a logical inference it is an opinion and that opinion is based on the opinion that the body was ever meant to leave the house. There is nothing for you to base this on because others have called 911 with the body in the house. Surely if it were as simple as that then someone in L.E. would have figured it out. You are entitled to dismiss and make irrational assumptions in order to look past 27 other pieces of evidence and build your case around what your "logical inferences." I could say the only way any scenario makes sense is if both JR and PR were covering for BR and that would be just as valid of a logical inference. Either way you are entitled to believe what you believe as am I. Hopefully 1 day we will find out who is responsible.

      Delete
  18. Doc,

    There were pieces of evidence used in the crime that were never found correct? Piece of rope, the broken glass, and duct tape I believe. Your theory suggests that during John's hour plus long disappearance he was able to finish some staging, and get rid of said content. But how? He surely didn't leave the house without witnesses to dispose in a neighbors trash can. (Though Kolar makes a good point that John was focused on an alley where John saw a supposedly suspicious van but never brought it up until a couple years later when the intruder theory was formulated. That he was probably spying through binoculars to make sure nobody went close to the trash can.) So how did he discard them? Surely he didn't hide them in the residence to dispose of later since the house would be on lock down from that point on. He could flush glass down the toilet, but throwing implicating panties into the hamper would be a big risk though it's possible for LE to overlook it. So what about the duct tape? How could John get rid of everything.

    Curious to read your thoughts on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Admittedly we don't know what went on in that house the night of the murder or the following day. So all we can do is speculate. But our speculations need to be consistent with the basic outlines of the case, the facts, the logic and, of course, the evidence. When forced to speculate I have to admit in advance that I could be wrong -- but I'll insist that my speculations are consistent with the facts, and that they do provide us with reasonable explanations of what could have happened. Could it have happened some other way? Yes, of course. But as I see it, there are only a few scenarios that make sense.

      For example, to me it makes little sense to assume that an intruder would have bothered to stuff rolls of duct tape and cord into his pockets before taking off, so the absence of such rolls can't really be regarded as intruder evidence. What seems likely is that both the duct tape and the cord came from detritus already in the house, possibly left by workmen or possibly from left over gift wrapping. My guess is that they probably were completely used up by John, in his efforts to stage an intruder assault, so there would have been no need to get rid of any excess. To me that makes the most sense, but possibly there is some other explanation, who knows?

      As for the glass, he could have initially swept as much of it as he could find into a paper or plastic bag and just left it temporarily in an obscure corner of the basement where no one was likely to notice. Then, later, when he went AWOL on Arndt, he'd have had time to get rid of it permanently.

      If it had been me, I'd have stomped on that bag over and over until all the glass had been reduced to tiny fragments. I'd have then continued stomping until the fragments had been reduced to dustlike particles. I would then have flushed it down the toilet. It's also possible that John left the house for a while and found a handy garbage can or possibly dumped it in a storm drain.

      As for the panties, we've already gone over the various scenarios ad nauseum, so I won't repeat myself here.

      Delete
  19. Doc...I just read about Gary Oliva who a guy names Michael Vail believes did it. I know your theory of course, but are you familiar with that name?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am. This is nothing new. He's one of a long long list of "likely" suspects who emerged many years ago. As I've said many times, if you look into the background of any of these people you can easily convince yourself that this HAS to be "the one." No question!!!!!

      If this had been your ordinary breaking and entering intruder assault, then there'd be no way to tell who did it and any of these people could be "the one."

      The only problem is that pesky ransom note. Once we realize it was written on a pad from the Ramsey house, then we are forced to the conclusion that this could not have been an intruder. ANY intruder.

      As I've repeated more than once: a pedophile would have had no reason to write a note, least of all a ransom note; a kidnapper would have prepared his note in advance; someone deciding to kidnap at the last minute would not have written a 2 1/2 page note, with every i dotted, every t crossed, adhering closely to the printed margin, spacing the distance between each word with remarkable consistency, etc. And someone intending to frame one of the Ramseys would not have written the note in his own hand, disguised or not. Moreover if this had been a kidnapping gone wrong, then a ransom note would not have been left for no reason. Nor would the body have been hidden in the most remote room in the house.

      We can add to the above John's story about breaking in months earlier, which, as I've demonstrated, is clearly a fabrication, designed to misdirect away from his breaking of that window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder breakin.

      Delete
  20. "pesky" ransom note. Shoutout to Keith Morrison? :-)

    Im with you, I believe John did it, but was curious about this Gary guy. I heard they might do a JBR mini series like they did with OJ, so curious who they paint as the killer

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, from what I hear a couple mini series on the Ramsey case could be in the works. Stay tuned.

      Delete
  21. hi DocG, i am new to this case but i think your blog is the most coherent thing i have ever read about it -- super well-reasoned, clear, and it makes everything click!

    as one small thing, i might suggest that if you don't want to respond to the rambling questions of people who haven't read your blog thoroughly, you should just not respond to those questions, instead of getting into an argument. in general i really admire your objective, courteous persona on this blog and i think you should keep that up instead of letting yourself get bogged down by some oddball commenters. :)

    i guess my biggest question is why on earth Patsy stayed with John for a decade after the case when she probably had some sneaking suspicions that he was guilty!! (let me know if you've already addressed this somewhere)

    Big fan of your work!

    -- LG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the kind words, LG, and the good advice. And yes, maybe you are right, maybe I should just ignore certain comments by people who repeat the same arguments over and over, even after I've responded.

      My reasons for doing this are a bit complicated. On the one hand, I welcome such comments because they force me to think more precisely and also because they give me an opportunity to explain my thinking and my methods in more detail. On the other hand, I must admit that often I just feel sucked in by the dynamics of the blog itself, and feel obligated to respond in some detail, even when I could easily just ignore the comment or point the person to one of my earlier blog posts. It's a kind of compulsion, admittedly -- maybe I need a shrink. :-)

      I'm especially sensitive to accusations that I'm just expressing my own opinion, or that certain speculations of mine are just desperate attempts to defend "my theory" at all costs. That sort of thing always give me pause because admittedly it's often hard to tell the difference between a reasonable explanation and an unreasonable rationalization. Such accusations force me to think more deeply about the case and my own analysis of it, and that can be very useful.

      Delete
    2. "i guess my biggest question is why on earth Patsy stayed with John for a decade after the case when she probably had some sneaking suspicions that he was guilty!!"

      If we turn that question around we'll find the answer: The fact that Patsy stayed with John for so long tells us that she probably did NOT have any such suspicions.

      People tend to see what they want to see and will often ignore certain clear signs when it's in their best interest to ignore them. That's what makes things like gaslighting possible. But we don't have to invoke gaslighting to see why Patsy would have had neither a motive nor a reason to suspect John.

      What we see in the defense strategy of "the Ramseys" is one prevailing theme: they are "in it together." Patsy obviously saw things that way, and so did the BPD, the DA and basically everyone else following the case. In most people's minds it's either "the intruder" or "the Ramseys" who did it. If Patsy were to blow the whistle on John based on anything she knew that might be cause for suspicion, their mutual defense would have been shattered and she'd have been far more vulnerable than before.

      More important, however, is the effect of the fateful decision to "rule out" John as writer of the note, which NO ONE involved in the case ever questioned -- so why should she? Many still suspect "the Ramseys" because they assume Patsy must have written the note.
      But she would obviously have seen things very differently. If she didn't write the note, and John didn't write the note, then it could only have been written by "the intruder." So as far as she was concerned, John would have been completely off the hook, regardless of anything he ever did or said that might have seemed suspicious.

      I see no sign that Patsy ever suspected John, even after all those years, and it's not difficult to see why, given the above-mentioned circumstances.

      Delete
  22. makes sense! --LG

    ReplyDelete
  23. Another thing I am dying to know (which you probably don't know, but I would love to hear thoughts): in the search warrant data made available on ACandyRose, there is one "Blacked Out Item" listed in the materials taken from the Wine Cellar. Is this Burke's knife? Or is it something else? I wonder why it was blacked out? And when, if ever, will it be revealed? -- LG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have any idea what was blacked out. But I do think I know why. Investigators like to keep certain details to themselves in case someone confesses, since only the person who committed the crime would know what that item was.

      Delete
  24. Yes doc I Also admire your work . I check your blog daily . The first time i stumbled upon it I Felt like i couldnt sleep for a few days . The way you put evidence together makes me really clicked for me as well. I do feel like you have solved the case. Your amazing! Wish a network would pick your theory up! It really gets people thinking and might be a step in solving this case .jb deserves justice my heart breaks for her _ nicole

    ReplyDelete
  25. Doc, do you know how conclusive the evidence was that the semen discovered on the blanket belonged to John Andrew and not John? Is it possible that their semen was so closely alike due to being father and son that the decision to label it as John Andrew's had more to do with the suitcase being his instead of John's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One's DNA is a mix of DNA from the father and DNA from the mother. Since John Sr.'s mother was not the same as John Jr.'s mother, the DNA found in their sperm would NOT be closely alike -- in fact the two samples would be quite different. This would be particularly true for their mitochondrial DNA, since mitochondria are passed down exclusively on the female line. I'd think it would have been very easy for the genetics experts to distinguish between them.

      Delete
  26. After reviewing all of PR's handwriting samples before the murder Patsy uses mostly manuscript As, yet in all of her exemplars after the murder she completely deletes using the manuscript A completely, I can not find 1 manuscript A in any of her exemplars post murder. That must have taken a conscious effort on her part? Just curious what your take on this is Doc ? - You can see them all here next to each other. C. J. http://blabbieville.tripod.com/index.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve Thomas came up with the same accusation, which was seconded by James Kolar. Both were wrong.

      For example, I count 7 manuscript "a"s in Patsy's right hand sample and 9 in her London Letter. These were both penned after the murder. And on the second page you can find a Parade Application, penned before the murder. I can't find a single manuscript "a" in that document.

      You claim you can't find one single manuscript A, and yet I just found 16, in the same set of documents you've pointed us to.

      So maybe you are the one who's lying?

      Delete
  27. I agree that John did this but what is your take on John Andrew? Supposedly he was obsessed with JB, he could have taken the private plane back to his mother's that evening when unaccounted for for the few hours, the briefcase under the window was his ? Very interesting .. But going with john an Patsy's covering up and lies it doesn't make sense. Also I was reading on Acandyrose john had admitted to finding JB at 11 that morning, being the time he disappeared in the house

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Andrew apparently has a rock solid alibi. And no, I don't think John AND Patsy covered up -- just John. Read the first two posts on this blog and you'll learn why.

      As for John's "admission" that he found JB at 11AM, it looks to me as though there was just some confusion over different time zones or some other confusion or possibly John was misquoted or misunderstood. I can't imagine him making such a "confession."

      Delete
  28. Sorry if this has been discussed before. DocG, why do you think there is only that one example of JR's handwriting available? Why has his samples submitted to BPD never been seen? Were his lawyers that good? Or was there really that little interest in him as a suspect that no-one cared?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a really good question. It gives us an idea of how thoroughly the decision to rule him out has affected the case. It's not just that this decision was accepted, but the decision has been taken as gospel from on high, as though it could not possibly be wrong. So no one in the media seems ever to have expressed any interest in seeing the writing samples he submitted. It's just been assumed they're totally different from the note.

      I'm also a bit suspicious of the manner in which Patsy's samples were obtained by the media. Apparently they were "leaked." But by whom? Whoever leaked them decided not to leak John's samples and I wonder why.

      I've never been a conspiracy theorist, but in this case I have to wonder.

      Delete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. How legitimate is the prior sexual abuse angle? I know there have been numerous experts that have confirmed these allegations, but I've also seen opposing thoughts that they're not true. I feel like if they're not true, then my whole JDI theory falls apart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what Steve Thomas reported:

      "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation— that JonBenét had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed.

      There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries “consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse” … “There was chronic abuse” … “Past violation of the vagina” … “Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.” In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before." (Thomas, Steve; Davis, Donald A.. JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (p. 227))

      (This was also the opinion of one of the world's top forensic pathologists, Cyril Wecht.)

      Then, incredibly, Thomas goes on to completely ignore the possibility that John Ramsey might have been responsible for the abuse -- because, hey: he's given John "a pass." Why? Well I have no idea why, but clearly he has his sights on Patsy, so in his mind the abuse must have been "some sort of corporal punishment being meted out as discipline if JonBenét wet or soiled the bed."

      That's not what Wecht thinks. Nor is it likely to have been the conclusion of any professional with any experience of child abuse.

      I've read that, in 99% of cases, sexual assault is perpetrated by males, not females. But in Steve's mind, already made up very early on, John can be conveniently ignored and only Patsy could have been responsible. Go figure.

      Delete
    2. This was very helpful DocG. Thanks. My question: How come these findings weren't extremely damning to the Ramsey's, especially John? How come logic and critical thinking is completely gone when LE investigated this case? Since it's been determined that Jonbenet was being molested, why wouldn't they focus on John? Because they can't prove it? It makes sense that over a period of time the father would be the culprit. So he's ruled out as the author of the ransom note (a note that was meant to deceive!!!) and all the sudden all other clues that point to him are ruled out as well? It's remarkably unfathomable how this case was mishandled. How frustrating...

      Delete
  31. It's my understanding that the panel of experts was convened by the DA's office. Alex Hunter would also have been aware of the courts' dim view of handwriting analysis and the inadmissibility thereof; two good reasons to view John with extreme skepticism - yet he did nothing. He failed JBR again in 1999 when he did not indict based on the two counts of child abuse leading to murder, which is almost unheard of: a prosecutor does not impanel a grand jury and then ignore its findings.

    I'm not excusing the performance of the BPD and their baffling refusal to accept help from other, more experienced LE agencies, but Alex Hunter, to my way of thinking was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct at almost every step, and deserves as much, if not more, criticism than the BPD.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  32. Further, the expert's findings gave Hunter probable cause to apply for - and be granted - an exhumation order in 1997. An exhumation at that time on an embalmed body would have definitively proved prior sexual abuse, and what a different case we would have had then!
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes. Thank you, Zack and CC, for your very reasonable comments. As I see it, Hunter had two huge obstacles to overcome -- and lacked the imagination to see beyond them:

    1. The assumption that BOTH Patsy and John were in it together. If he'd attempted to prosecute on that basis, the defense would have justifiably argued that two people staging a kidnapping would not have called the police to the house while the body of their victim was lying in the basement.

    2. The assumption that John could not have written the "ransom" note -- meaning that Patsy must have written it. But what motive would she have had to cover for a husband who'd been abusing her daughter and then killed her to keep her quiet? And why would she have wanted to give the police her own hand-written "ransom" note for no good reason (since clearly no kidnapping had occurred), an item that could easily be used as evidence against her?

    Given these assumptions, I don't see how Hunter could have successfully prosecuted this case, and can understand why he was unwilling to try. And since the same two (false) assumptions were shared by literally everyone involved in the investigation, I find it hard to single out Hunter for blame.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I see it more as a failure of nerve than imagination.

    1. Eleven renowned forensic pathologists and child abuse specialists of Hunter's choosing agreed there was chronic, prior digital abuse. Hunter could hardly have included Patsy in his list of suspects for what could arguably have been the motive for the murder, and have easily separated "the Ramseys" into individual entities on that basis alone, and pursued him/them accordingly.

    2. The courts, beginning in 1995, found handwriting analysis to be junk science and inadmissible. Trial attorneys keep up with changing case law; this would not have been lost on Hunter. You assume that he - along with the BPD - bought that John was exempt from suspicion because of the handwriting experts exclusion of him. I do not agree. No practicing attorney after 1995 would rely on handwriting analysis, in court or as a valid part of a criminal investigation. Hunter could and should have ruled John in on that basis alone.

    Hunter could have pressed for an exhumation order in 1997, gotten a second autopsy, proved the prior sexual abuse and thereby established a motive and prosecuted the likeliest perpetrator in the Ramsey household. Hunter could have prosecuted both Ramseys, individually, on the grand jury's indictments. Hunter could have chosen not to have inappropriate conversations and divulged investigative findings to the defendants' counsel. Alex Hunter failed at every possible turn in this case, and deserves a great deal of blame.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes, CC. When it comes to failure of nerve, I have to agree. Hunter should have seen the obvious and should have continued to focus on John, regardless of his being ruled out. However, I see no evidence that he ever doubted that verdict or even attempted to understand it. Nor do I see any evidence that he even considered the possibility that one of the Ramseys might be guilty and the other innocent. No one else did.

    An aggressive prosecutor may well have looked more deeply, but that wasn't Hunter's style. Clearly he was outmatched by John's high powered defense. Those defense lawyers should have a lot to answer for, imo. They must have had more than an inkling of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hunter told Jeff Shapiro that he believed Patsy alone was responsible for killing JonBenet and staging the crime scene.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. That's what Steve Thomas thought as well. So why were they at odds so much of the time?

      Delete
  37. Hunter never wanted a case to go to trial, especially one he believed he could not win. Hunter was no dolt. He understood what all of the evidence suggested. The BPD and the FBI painted Patsy as the killer. As much as Hunter prayed and wanted to believe the killer was an intruder, deep down he knew they were right. Telling anyone from LE about his true feelings would be an admittance of cowardice and hypocrisy.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was never a case to be made against Patsy. The person who wrote that note would never have called 911 at that time, knowing the body was still in the house.

      You might not want to accept my reasoning, but a good defense lawyer could have gotten her off on that argument alone. Not to mention the 1. lack of motive; 2. lack of any history of violence; 3. lack of any evidence linking her to the crime -- the fibers don't count because they could easily have been transferred to the crime scene via JonBenet herself -- her being dressed in the same outfit wouldn't count because her lawyer would present that as evidence of her innocence -- her looking at a policeman through splayed fingers, and other "evidence" of that sort wouldn't count because it's utter nonsense and would have been laughed out of court.

      Hunter had no case against her and he knew it. As for John, the teflon suspect: he just refused to go there.

      Delete
    2. Doc, I think we both know there is a lot more evidence that you have conveniently ignored. I will agree that a defense team would make a compelling argument in Patsy's defense, however, the prosecution would have been just as convincing if not more so. Do I fault Hunter for not prosecuting? Yes. Did he make the right decision based on his position? Yes. The results of such a public trial could have potentially uncovered more evidence in the process. Hunter was a coward. He was afraid not so much of losing as he was of damaging his ego and reputation.

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. "Doc, I think we both know there is a lot more evidence that you have conveniently ignored."

      What? That she "lied" about a Santa Bear? That she stopped using manuscript "a" (as I've demonstrated, she didn't)? That someone reported she said "we didn't mean for this to happen," obviously a reference to her participation in those kiddie pageants? That her fingerprints were on a bowl in her own house that she could easily have handled at any time prior to the murder?

      Or are you thinking of the amateurish reports offered by Darnay Hoffman's "experts," hired specifically to "prove" she wrote the ransom note -- "experts" unable to tell the difference between a crooked xerox and margin drift; who accepted a few photo captions and some posters as valid examples of her handwriting, with no confirmation of their authenticity; who found "matches" between letters that looked alike, despite the fact that one was penned in two strokes and the other in three?

      The unbiased professionals hired by LE were unable to link her to the note, despite all the "obvious" similarities noted by complete amateurs posting on Internet forums. As I've demonstrated on this blog, her writing style is totally different from that of the note.

      Hunter's last hope of finding at least one "expert" willing to testify in court that she wrote the note was dashed when the Secret Service guy he hired for that purpose, decided there was no evidence she wrote it (see PMPT). As Hunter well knew, if this guy testified as an expert witness for the defense, the case would be tossed out and he'd be humiliated.

      Donald Foster, who's analysis he'd been counting on turned out to be both an incompetent and a fraud.

      What else is there? Any thoughts, Hercule?

      Delete
  38. Hey Doc, do you know if it's a fact that the Ramseys had a copy of "Mindhunter" before the murder? I can't find a definitive answer for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the Ramsey case Encyclopedia, Lin Wood denied they had a copy prior to the murder. Apparently the book does not appear on any of the evidence lists.

      Delete
    2. And that confuses me because Steve Thomas and Lawrence Schiller both claim that the book was in the master bedroom. Thomas specifically said that Sergeant Tom Wickman found the book. Kolar doesn't mention it. So which is it?

      Delete
    3. The search warrant returns are available on ACandyRose. The three searches of the Boulder home on 12/26, 12/27 and 12/29 do not show any books collected as evidence, which is not to say that Wickman didn't see it - he may have done, such material just wasn't covered in the warrants, and LE can only collect what's authorized. Lin Wood would have nothing but the search warrant returns and John's word to rely on, and did so.
      CC

      Delete
    4. Good point, CC. The book would probably not have been seen as evidence at that time. And you're right, Lin Wood's denial would have come straight from John Ramsey himself.

      Delete
  39. Cc I have a question why couldnt they prove prior molestation with the evidence they had? What would have been the purpose of reexamining the body in 1997 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They could. Getting eleven medical experts to agree, unequivocally, on anything, is unusual, and it's very compelling evidence. It's my belief that Hunter - who was a kind man rather than a hard-charging prosecutor, one who believed in rehabilitation rather than punishment - was shocked by the panel's results, and in some kind of denial; how could an otherwise upstanding, church-going, pillar of the community like John Ramsey be guilty of such a thing? The purpose of the second autopsy would be to soothe his fears, stiffen his spine. It would also have made for more dramatic testimony in court, never a bad thing.
      CC

      Delete
  40. Does anyone have any info about how on the ramseys computer someone looked up incest . Have they ever been questioned about that? Which computer did they find this on . What statements were made about why that was googled on their comp?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was 1996 - I doubt they googled it.

      Delete
    2. No, someone could have done an internet search in 1996. Not via Google but one of its predecessors.

      But your reference to the word "incest" has nothing to do with the Internet or with their computers. It was found in a dictionary that had been dog eared to a page containing that word -- implying that someone in the house had looked it up. Another example of the morass. Might possibly mean something or maybe not. No way to tell for sure. So forget about it, it's no help and there is no point in analyzing it over and over again, as has already been done ad infinitum on the forums and in some of the books. Waste of time, imo.

      Delete
  41. Why would JR tell the police all doors were locked if he did the crime? Wouldn't that be the dumbest thing ever to not give the police any false leads? Its always one of the small parts of this case that bugged me. If he did it (which I think he did) wouldn't it be smarter for him to say one of the doors was unlocked or a window was open?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent question. However, in order to provide a meaningful answer one would need to know the exact sequence of events and the exact timing.

      It seems clear to me that John deliberately broke the basement window as part of an effort to stage an intruder breakin. So it's possible this ruse was still in his mind when he reported on all the doors being locked. This would have been consistent with his window breakin scenario. Then maybe something one of the policemen said or noticed might have made him realize the window breakin wasn't going to fly, but by then it was too late as the police had already double checked the doors and found them all locked.

      Another possibility is that he may never have had a chance to open a door before the police arrived. He could have been busy in the basement, unstaging his previous window staging and the police could already have been knocking at the door while he was still down there. Once they were on the scene it would have been too late for him to open a door without them noticing.

      It's all too easy to assume we know exactly what happened, but actually we don't. This would have been a very confusing sequence of events for John to deal with and he may not have had time to cover all his bases.

      If you prefer to believe that John's broken window story is true and that he reported on the locked doors in all innocence, you are entitled to do so. But then you'll need to explain how and why an intruder would have wanted to write his ransom note while in the house, then leaving it on those steps despite his failure to actually kidnap his victim, then hiding her body in the most remote room in the house, etc., etc., and you'll have to swallow John's fantastic story about losing his keys, breaking in months earlier in his underwear, not knowing whether the window had been repaired, not bothering to check on that for an entire year, etc., etc.

      Delete
  42. Doc,

    What about John telling Arndt that it was an inside job after returning from his hour long disappearance? It's from the Steve Thomas book. I'd hardly consider Arndt a reliable narrator. IMO she's the reason this case is unsolved. If John was supervised that entire morning he would have been caught dead to rights. Side note, I'm not really impressed with this book so far. Kolar's was a lot better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think John was probably referring to Linda and her husband as possible suspects. He certainly was NOT offering a confession, that's for sure.

      I think Arndt did a good job under the circumstances. She'd been left on her own by the BPD and could not keep track of everyone. Her decision to ask John to search the house was based on the assumption that this was a real kidnapping. She had no way of knowing he'd find a dead body.

      Delete
  43. No, I think John is for sure the most likely to have done it. There are just aspects of the case that are so odd and maybe thats because it all happened so fast and he had to react quickly while trying to not wake anybody.

    Why break the window at all when that would have required breaking glass in the middle of the night. An open window or just unlocking a door would have been much easier with fewer complications. Again this is trying to get inside the mind of a guy who just killed his daughter, but breaking the window downstairs makes absolutely zero sense.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The breaking of a window is a time-honored tactic employed by an insider intent on blaming "an intruder" for his own crime. Sure, you could leave a door or window open, but a broken window is a lot more dramatic and looks a lot more convincing -- at least to the many guilty-as-hell people who've tried it over the years. Of course, the police are always skeptical when faced with broken glass, but that hasn't prevented many from trying it anyhow.

      If you hold a towel against the window when you break it, there won't be any noise.

      Delete
  44. Question for DocG. Do you think John was aware of the 911 call before the police arrived?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's a very interesting question. I'd always assumed he was, but it's possible he wasn't. Patsy made the call. We know that for sure. And that's all we know for sure. Food for thought, definitely, thanks.

      Delete
    2. I wondered what your thinking was. If I recall correctly he was at the door with Mrs. Ramsey when the police arrived. Of course we don't know if he was surprised by the ringing door bell (I assume the police rang the bell, maybe they knocked?) or if he knew they were on their way.

      Obviously his knowledge of the call, or lack, gives us a sense of what he did/didn't do prior to the police arriving.

      Delete
  45. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715211/Pageant-princess-JonBenet-Ramsey-s-brother-Burke-Ramsey-reveal-shocking-never-heard-details-sister-s-tragic-murder-bombshell-interview-Dr-Phil-McGraw.html

    What do you guys make of this? This is huge. Burke has never came out publicly before. It's going to be a three part interview. As much as I want him to point the finger at his dad, it's going to be intruder nonsense. Still, pretty cool to hear him talk about the crime for the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Everyone see that Burke is going to speak publicly on Dr.Phil in sept. A 3part series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the heads-up, folks. I hadn't noticed that. I doubt very much that Burke would say anything not approved in advance by the family lawyers, but nevertheless it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

      It would be much better, of course, if he'd have been willing to do a police interview, but obviously the lawyers will never let him get near the BPD. My guess is that most of the questions will be of the "how did that make you feel?" variety.

      Delete
    2. I doubt he'll say anything unscripted, and little of interest. One wonders, though, what his motivation may be. Has anything happened or been published that the Ramsey machine feels compelled to refute this publicly and dramatically?
      CC

      Delete
    3. Daddy's broke (no trust fund) and Burke can't resist the money he'll be paid. It's that simple.

      Delete
    4. My guess: he has a book in the works.

      Delete
    5. I'm sure there is a book in the works, but he might be looking to control the memory of his involvement in the case. I find it interesting that he is doing this now while his dad is alive. It might not be too far off to consider that daddy has been pulling the strings for quite some time and now that he (daddy) is older, it might be in everyone's (ie. BR and JR)interest to formulate BR's voice in the media about the crime instead of waiting until JR is too ill or dead and therefore leaving everything up to BR as far as dealing with the media, when BR has no experience dealing with the media.

      I would also take a guess that BR might be having issues perhaps with a career or romance due to the nature of the unsolved crime, his lack of statement at the time of the murder, the lack of access to him by journalists/police/investigators, resulting in the theories that he might have been the one behind the murder of JBR. Maybe he wants to set "his" record straight publically so that the private questions/whispers stop.

      Delete
  47. Doc, what do you make of the blister found on JonBenet's palm next to the red ink?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a source?

      Delete
  48. CC,

    Burke's thriving in the software engineering industry.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I think Burke just wants to clear his name because certainly by now he knows there are many who still think he killed his sister (Kolar for one). Besides the fact that I don't think he had any involvement in this murder, I also think JR and all the Ramsey attorneys have done a good job of convincing Burke that this was an outside job, just as Patsy was probably convinced.

    What WILL be interesting is how he describes his parents, his relationship with each of them, and their life as a "happy" family, etc. For instance, he may divulge that JR and JonBenet were extremely close (that's a bit of a clue for me). Or he may say absolutely nothing new.

    I am still turned off by Dr. Phil's show after he did a 2-part series on Steven Avery's case. He continually said he was being completely unbiased --- fair to both sides --- and yet the show was completely biased towards Avery's innocence. Kind of like the documentary. So I suspect this interview will revive the old intruder theory once again.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think this is more from JR's persuasion so that he himself doesn't have anything hanging over his head like PR did when she died? Is he using BR to clear his own name?

      Delete
    2. We'll have to wait and see.

      One question I'd like to ask: why is it that over all these years you've never spoken one single word in defense of either your father or your mother?

      Delete
    3. There's definitely an opportunist angle for Burke. New book like you said or something. Not to mention his payday for the interview. He was described as uncaring about JBR's fate when he was younger. Something's fishy about this.

      Delete
  50. I wonder if John hasn't encouraged Burke to do this in an attempt to get out in front of the media attention the 20-year anniversary is likely to bring, some of it adverse to him. Burke's the last big gun he has, the only family member who has not spoken, and a spirited defense by him and promotion of the intruder theory may, in John's mind, ameliorate negative speculation.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  51. "I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a source?"

    I was referring to the crime scene close-up photo of the red "heart" that was drawn on JonBenet's hand. If you look closely in the Thenar region (next to the thumb), you will clearly see a blister. It's easy to miss because most people are focusing on the red ink. Sorry, I forgot to leave my name last time. - Maximus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. The photo I have isn't sharp enough to show a blister, but I'll take your word for it. What it might mean, I have no idea.

      Delete
  52. I think it's a 3 part series, so I'm assuming they will be recapping the case in the 1st episode, but he MUST be saying something new to fill 2 episodes. What's going to be really interesting to hear is if he still is close with JR. Also, since he was probably coached to not say anything, it will be very curious to hear what he has to say about anything since we never really heard anything from him.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  53. All very exciting and I know what I will be doing on these dates! On a different note: I found 2 examples of handwriting that apparently came from a book written by Pam Archuletta. On Forums for Justice it was discussed as both being examples of PR's handwriting, but they are so different that I am convinced the 2nd one must be JR's. The 1st one is signed "Patsy, John & Burke", and the 2nd one "John & Patsy". Unfortunately it's in cursive, so I don't think one can make any comparisons to the ransom note. Here's the link: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10369-Pam-Archuleta%92s-book

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Amek. I was made aware of those notes some time ago and checked them out. And you are right. The second was almost certainly penned by John. Two samples of his signature are available online, e.g. here: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?6969-John-Ramsey-Handwriting-Examples

      And the signature on the second note has features that strongly resemble the second sample. Unfortunately both notes are written in cursive so a comparison with the ransom note would not, I think, be very helpful.

      Delete
  54. Very good point, CC. I forgot that the 20th year anniversary is coming up.

    I just can't get over how odd it is that BR has never spoken publically about the crime. He was whisked away from the very start and kept under lock and key. I'm sure under the guise to "protect" him, but it just seems to have caused more speculation since he was in the house at the time of the murder. He could have given some kind of statement or some kind of insight into the life of JBR the night before she was killed. It is like the parents wanted to glaze over any connection BR had to being in the home. The parents talked over and over about the incidents that occurred the night before and day of JBR's murder, but nothing every from Burke. He was there too! The parents nor Burke mention anything that went on between JBR and BR the night of the murder. They were siblings and it was Christmas - a very special time for siblings to spend time together because there is no school, the excitement of getting presents, holiday parties....ie. they would have been spending a lot of time together. So, what did BR and JBR do leading up to her death? Did they hang out and talk? Watch tv? Look at their presents? None of this is ever really discussed by the parents and since BR has never talked, it has left this big open wound regarding his presence in the case. He is almost 30 years old. That is a long time to have been kept out of the media spotlight, either purposefully or not. The most I ever read about BR is a little blurb about him being in college and having a girlfriend. That was it. It seems a lot must have been done to protect him from the media.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I just read this at another site:

    The Ramsey a Family + Dr Phil share a lawyer - L. Lin Wood. Dr. Phil will not be asking Burke any hard questions.

    The Ramsey family lawyer, L. Lin Wood, whose Atlanta firm specializes in high-profile defamation cases, includes television psychologist Phil McGraw, on whose “Dr. Phil” show Burke will appear on Sept. 12, 13 and 19.
    Last month, Wood filed a $250 million libel suit against the publisher of The National Enquirer and The Star, saying the tabloids had published lies about McGraw and his wife.

    Wood didn’t return calls for comment about Burke Ramsey’s decision to appear on the show.

    Jerry Sharell, spokesman for Dr. Phil at CBS Television Distribution, said he “couldn’t say yet,” if Wood played a part in arranging the interview.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is truly sickening news. Burke, if you are reading here: don't let your father and his lawyer control you like a puppet on a string. You are now an adult. Act like one.

      Delete
  56. The biggest thing I think BR could reveal is that he wasn't sleeping that morning and was told by his parents to say he was. Not sure what that ultimately means other than proof that JR and PR lied.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  57. Really enjoy reading everyones comments and the solid theory provided by Doc. I just read over the documents from the original Boulder County grand jury investigation that were released in 2014 - The complaint and application to show just cause - Fleet and Pricilla White vs. Garnett. Does anyone know the purpose of the White's requesting these documents. Am I missing a point where they were suspects? Thanks for any insight. CS

    ReplyDelete
  58. Doc,

    You know I'm team JDI. Let me entertain the stupidity of the intruder theory. Is there any evidence to discredit the butler door as a point of entry and exit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there is. But we shouldn't overlook the real point of this story, which speaks volumes for the crafty deceitfulness of John Ramsey. John himself reported that he had checked all the ground level doors and found them locked. A policeman double checked and found the same doors locked. Obviously the "butler" door was one of those doors. And obviously it was not overlooked. How could it have been?

      Yet John later claimed the Butler door had been found open, implying that the police lied about this important piece of information as part of their plot to "get him." The story became an important part of Lou Smit's famous Powerpoint presentation, as widely publicized in the media.

      The whole story is summarized in my post titled "The Lou Smit Show," which can be found here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-lou-smit-show.html

      If you go there you'll find the following quote from Frank Coffman, better known in the forums as "Masked Man":

      * Police chief Mark Beckner told me that the northside door (the so-called "butler's pantry door") was opened by a crime scene technician early that morning. The police technicians went to work at the Ramsey house by 6:50 a.m. on Dec. 26, 1996.
      * Lou Smit himself told me a few months ago that he agreed that the "butler's pantry door" was probably left open by a police technician, just as Beckner said.

      I have to admit: at one time, I was taken in by the myth of the "open door" because it was reported in a newspaper story and it was touted by others. Since then, I have learned that there were no open or unlocked doors. Neither the police nor John Ramsey found any open doors. The mistaken notion about an "open door" got started after John Fernie noticed that the northside "butler's pantry door" was ajar. Fernie didn't know that the door was left open by a police technician."

      What's particularly galling is John's insistence on the importance of the "open butler door" despite his claim that he himself had checked all the doors and found them locked. He then used Lou Smit to broadcast his lie far and wide.

      Delete
  59. Is it possible the partinal dna came off the paint brush? Could be the prints of one of pastys painting buddys . To complete the staging he used the paint brush maybe didnt bother to take her pants off and did that while the pants were still on so maybe that could explain how it got on the waist band

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a great many ways that DNA could have gotten onto JonBenet's clothing. And yes, it could have been transferred from Patsy's brush, I suppose. But also from any number of other items or from someone John or JonBenet had been in contact with.

      Delete
  60. The butler door story always confused me. Why would JR insist it was open if he was hoping the police would fall for the intruder through the window story? Was he using the open door theory as a back up in case the window theory didn't fly? As we all know, Lou Smit tried to promote the open window theory as well.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  61. Also, why wouldn't JR just leave a door open to begin with? Wouldn't that be a LOT easier than breaking that basement window? If he left a door open, that would explain the entry by an intruder right away (or someone with a key). Why do you suppose he was so adamant about making it appear the intruder came through the basement??

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've already been over this. Since we don't know the exact timing it's difficult to speculate as to why John said what he is reported to have said. He certainly said nothing about any butler door when the police arrived. That came later. I've suggested that he might not have had time to open any doors if he'd been preoccupied in the basement when the police arrived. Or he may have still been hoping his window staging would fly. There may be some other reason why he didn't leave a door open, but I can guarantee it was NOT because he's innocent.

      It was only later, probably after Lou Smit became an ally, that John started harping on the butler door. He also came up with something even more outrageous, the allegation that seven open doors and windows were found in the house that morning, which may literally be true, but does NOT apply to any possible entry points. By then I think he was simply blowing smoke, trying to confuse people unfamiliar with the evidence, who wanted to believe the intruder theory.

      Both he and Lou Smit ultimately promoted both the basement window and the butler door as possible entry or exit points. By that time I think the strategy was to look for anything that could bolster a reasonable doubt defense.

      Delete
  62. Doc,

    I understand your reasoning for why John said all the doors were locked, but why couldn't he unlock a door just in case his staging wasn't convincing enough? Seems like the smart thing to do to cover all your bases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haven't I already answered that, just above?

      If you prefer to believe Steve Thomas's version, where it was Patsy all along who killed her daughter and wrote the note, and John only figured things out later in the day, then you'll need to ask the same question about Patsy. Why wouldn't SHE have opened a door before the police arrived?

      Or if you prefer to see this as the work of an intruder with a key, then you'll need to explain the broken window, the suitcase under it, the packing peanuts from the window well strewn on the floor, John's ridiculous story about breaking in earlier, and all the other aspects of the intruder theory that make no sense.

      Is there some other possibility?

      Delete
    2. Im on board with your theory. I don't believe Patsy was involved or that a stranger committed this crime. I guess he had no choice but to say all the doors were locked so the break-in was more believable. He could have easily opened a door on his way to the basement during the morning of the initial investigation. I'm sure he was beyond stressed and worried so he was pretty much winging it. It unfortunately worked out for him.

      Delete
    3. One thing is for sure, John had a tremendous amount of luck pulling all this off. When you consider ALL the myriad things that could have gone wrong, it's amazing that he has seemingly got away with it all. In fact, from John's perspective the only thing that really went against his plan was Patsy's early morning call to 911. Outside of that, nearly everything fell into place for him: incompetent BPD, contaminated crime scene, people willing to support his intruder theory etc.

      Delete
    4. Well, JR was the one who contaminated the scene. I think he planned to do that from the very beginning. He was just trying to find the right time during the day.

      Also, the reason others believe the intruder theory is because JR and PR were so collected and adamant about their innocence, which they were able to do because...well there are certain types of people in this world, deemed by the psychology world, that are able to remain as calm as they did. Also, they got people behind them...their friends who they invited over like it was a freaking party the day the moment they "found" the ransom note that included wording about not contacting anyone or else their daughter would die. That sounds rational, doesn't it? On top of that, they had a high level of prestige in their town, so they could ward off a lot of speculation for a while, all while they worked behind the scenes to further cover up the crime.

      But their ability to detach and remain calm for the press was what sealed the deal regarding pulling it off.

      Delete
    5. The reason for saying all the doors were locked, as Zack has now realized, is that if a door were open the "intruder" likely would have found that checking for entry points. The police might not think it plausible that the intruder would make a bee line for the window w/o checking for an easier POE. And if a door were ajar that would tell the "intruder" that the alarm was not set, so why not use the door?

      There is another possibility with respect to the clean up of he glass. Most people, here on this blog, have assumed that JR swept up the glass at one of two times; 1. right after the 911 call, or 2. sometime in the morning when JR wasn't being monitored closely. No sense rehashing all of the details of either of those theories. There is a 3rd possibility. Before I suggest it, please don't worry about the end game, just treat it as an exercise in thinking agility. What if the glass had been swept up prior to the 911 call? What if it had been disposed of in such a way that it was not retrievable, meaning it could not be spread out under the window to suggest a break on the night of the murder? This situation would still require a story about how the window had been broken at some earlier date.

      Don't rush to defend a particular theory of the case, or to draw conclusions. Just consider that if the glass had, for some reason, already been swept up before the 911 call,
      it would be necessary to explain why there's no broken glass under the window.

      Delete
  63. It appears that Paula Woodward's fabled book is finally going to be released. The 20th anniversary of the murder has certainly been a profitable opportunity for some, especially Lin Wood. First, he whets everyone's appetite by having Ollie Gray talk to "reporters" and point his finger at Michael Helgoth AGAIN. Now that the pot has been stirred, the general public who knows very little about this case can watch Burke Ramsey on TV next month and accept his version of the events. Doc, I agree with you on this one. It is truly sickening. The thought of Wood sitting with McGraw on his yacht sipping martinis is nauseating. JonBenet would have been 26 today. Rest in peace.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I think we're going to get an abundance of "intruder theory" crap during the next few months unfortunately. Somehow over the years media influence has drawn people away from the John and/or Patsy as a suspect. It's like any time it comes up in mainstream media it's always about an intruder. It's unfortunate because the facts being what they are it's clear as day that someone in the house committed the murder --moreover, the facts point to John as the killer. I think John and media have sufficiently clouded the case enough over the years though that few people are willing to step back and take a fresh look. They just assume the Ramsey's were "ruled out." So the next thing is an intruder.

      Delete
    2. So what I'm saying is, sadly, John Ramsey and his team have lawyers have had tremendous success in influencing the public and the media with respect to the intruder theory. I'm hoping, but not holding my breath, that some of these specials will re-explore John a suspect -- or at least point of the lack of evidence for an intruder.

      Delete
    3. Well, Hercule, we are certainly on the same side when it comes to the intruder theory. And whether you are right or I am right regarding Patsy and/or John, the deeper truth is that someone in that house murdered JonBenet. And now that Patsy is gone, the focus has to be on John, as I'm sure you will agree. Regardless of whether or not he's the one who actually "pulled the trigger," he was certainly involved in the coverup and at the very least his complicity needs to be revealed for the world to see.

      So many have focused on Patsy as the principal villain, that John's involvement has almost come to seem irrelevant. Clearly it is not, as I presume you will agree.

      Delete
    4. Yes, MarketBoss, John and his "bulldog" Lin Wood have been spectacularly successful in bullying the media into submission. Literally every review of the case for the past several years has included a statement to the effect that both John and Patsy are no longer suspects, as they've been "ruled out by the DNA evidence." And I have no doubt that we'll be hearing this refrain over and over again in the coming months.

      Whether the producers actually believe that or whether they've been intimidated by the fear of a lawsuit, is difficult to say -- but I'd be inclined to believe the latter.

      Delete
  64. Just coming to give my thoughts to Jonbenet. As Hercule said she would be 26. She gets so lost in the media circus that is this case. I wish so badly for her to have justice although it appears unlikely that it will ever happen. She will be in my thoughts today. SM

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hercule, what book are you referring to (Paula Woodward's) ?

    I totally agree with you about how sickening it is that McGraw and Wood have probably met, several times, to go over the questioning of Burke and his responses. As I've said previously, I am NOT a fan of McGraw. His shows are often slanted and do not show all sides to a story. I assume the same thing will happen when he interviews Burke -- more of the same crap that JR has been saying for years regarding an intruder and the DNA found. I will be surprised if Burke is anything but a puppet in this interview. But I will still watch it. His body language will be interesting to watch, if anything.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  66. Paula Woodward, a Ramsey supporter, was an Emmy-award winning investigative reporter for KUSA-TV in Denver. She retired in 2009 and has since aspired to be a true crime author. The original title of her JonBenet book was:

    "Mr. Ramsey, Listen Carefully!: Facts, Fictions, Lies, and Legends in the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey"

    That book was pulled off the presses after it was scheduled to be released in March 2015. It had also been scheduled for publication in August 2014. Of course it would be more profitable to release the book this year. The book now is titled:

    "We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later"

    Another case of someone trying to profit off JonBenet's murder. Supporting the Ramseys only ensures that Paula will not have to face the gallows that Lin Wood constructed to protect his clients.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dr. Phil does not practice psychology and has not since 1990. His license expired in 2006 and has not been renewed. The Dr. Phil show, however, does not require him to have a license because his show is considered to be entertainment. In other words, Phil McGraw is using Burke Ramsey to entertain the general public. This is not journalism nor does it have anything to do with psychology. The questions McGraw will ask are of course scripted and the final product will be thoroughly edited. I can envision Linn Wood sitting at an edit bay shuttling through each clip. A live interview would be the only thing that interests me. In this case, however, any awkward expression or remark made by Burke will be excluded from the broadcast. It is fruitless. When you do watch it, pay close attention to Burke's answers. They will be short and abruptly cut-off. I hope Tug, Jr. remembers Linn Wood's name for the credits: Special Thanks To Linn Wood.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Hercule, for both your replies. You've gotten a lot of criticism on this blog, but I, for one, always appreciate your posts and your perspective in this case.

      I did not know Dr. Phil was no longer licensed to practice. I actually liked him better when he made occasional guest appearances on Oprah. I predict that he will ask very basic, "kind" questions; ones that Burke can easily answer with very little detail. But, like I said, watch his body language. That speaks volumes.

      bb

      Delete
  68. I agree the BR interview will be a farce. It has no chance of being objective. That's unfortunate. I'm sure BR knows SOMETHING. When something that dramatic happens in your life -- even at age 9 -- it produces rather vivid memories. What he truly saw or heard during those critical hours is something we'll probably never get to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Why were JR and Fleet White so intent on searching the house for JBR when the cops were there? If they found a note that stated someone had their daughter and were expecting a ransom, why would the assumption be that JBR was in the home somewhere for them to be looking for her?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was instructed by det. Linda Arndt to search the house thoroughly for clues. Fleet White went with him. Arndt had no idea a body would be found, as she assumed, along with every one else from the BPD, that an actual kidnapping had taken place.

      Delete
    2. But hadn't others been in the house before police arrived (or at least before Det. Arndt arrived)? I thought JR and Fleet White had looked though the house prior to being asked by the detective.

      Delete
  70. They did, but neither knew about each other being in basement till much later

    ReplyDelete
  71. Thats how jr got caught in a lie he said a diffrent statement as to what fw and an officer said about the box being in front of the door or how the window was cracked i forget as to exactally what it was. But fw or the police officer never seen the things that jr did the second time he went down there.
    Keep in mind he didnt kno fw went down there.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Does anyone have any info about the jb portrait containing a lip print on it or any dna evidense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An imprint from JBR's lips was found on the duct tape over her mouth, suggesting the tape was placed there after she was rendered unconscious. As for the DNA, that's a long story. If you do a search for "DNA" on this blog you'll find my take on that evidence.

      Delete