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, August 18, 2016

Media Madness

Early last May I was contacted by a producer at one of the major networks. She'd discovered this blog, was impressed by my knowledge of the case, and wanted to include me in an upcoming JonBenet Ramsey special. Naturally I was interested. Shortly afterward we had a long phone conversation in which I outlined my take on the case, stressing my certainty that John was the long sought-after culprit. She didn't completely agree, but she made it clear that my argument impressed her and that she definitely wanted to interview me for the show. I was impressed by this woman's open mind and her intelligence, as evidenced by her many excellent questions, and looked forward to working with her.


An interview was scheduled, on a date coinciding with a long planned trip to New York to visit with my sister, so there was no inconvenience on my part. But a few days prior to the scheduled interview, it was cancelled. According to the producer she'd been told by higher-ups in the network that she needed more time to prepare before doing any interviews. She did want to meet me, however, so we wound up having lunch together, and once again going over my interpretation of the case, in some detail. Again, I got a very positive vibe, and she kept assuring me that I would definitely be a part of this program.

To make a long story short, another interview was scheduled, and then once again cancelled. Then I heard nothing for a long time -- and was finally informed, a couple weeks ago, that her supervisor was against my participation, apparently because I had no professional credentials, no first-hand knowledge of the case, and was "just a blogger." She said that she was nevertheless fighting for me and was still hopeful that I could be included. I told her, very frankly, that without my participation the show would likely be just another rehash of what's already been done over and over again for years. Well, despite all her efforts on my behalf (and I feel sure she was being sincere), her supervisor didn't budge, and I will not be a participant in this show.

Naturally, I am disappointed. This would have been a great opportunity to present my case before a large television audience, and hopefully, if something I said managed to get through to the right people, make a difference. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the fact that this very intelligent and enterprising producer sought me out and was genuinely interested in what I have to say. Hopefully there will be other opportunities to get the word out via the mass media, but for now it's back to being "just a blogger."

Meanwhile, a lot of attention will be paid to JonBenet and the Ramseys in the coming months. As we know, a CBS Special is scheduled for September, as is an interview with Burke on the Dr. Phil show. Another special is forthcoming from the ID/Discovery network, and also two CNN specials on the case are in the works. Judging from the advance publicity, I get the impression that some new evidence will be revealed, and new forensic technologies employed by newly discovered "experts."

Sigh. Double sigh. As far as I'm concerned, this case will not be solved by new evidence or new methods, or new theories on the part of criminal profilers, handwriting experts or content analysts. All any of them will be interested in will be figuring out new ways to "prove" that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. The door will be open to ridiculous assumptions and cherry picking on a scale never before encountered, and the real mystery of the case will be lost in the fog of delusion.

So once again, I must reiterate: 1. NO intruder theory makes any sense at all. 2. If both John and Patsy were involved, the 911 call would not have been made. 3. Patsy is the one who made that call, telling us she must be innocent. 4. Thanks to Patsy's call, the plan concocted by the writer of the note, who was very clearly staging a fake kidnapping, was foiled. 5. Thanks to a complete lack of imagination and critical thinking on the part of law enforcement, the media and the public generally, the fact that the case hinges on a plan that went wrong was completely missed.

It's really that simple, and I could have explained the essentials in 5 minutes. Maybe another opportunity will present itself, we'll see.




51 comments:

  1. DocG, this is very disappointing but I am also impressed that the producer sought you out and tried to get your story heard. Thanks for sharing your experience!

    G.A.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aw man. When I heard about the CBS special, I was really hoping they would include you because yours is honestly the best analysis I have ever seen of the case. I'm glad they are at least aware of you, but I am disappointed that they decided against it. I wish this lady could at least interview you and then show the material to her supervisor. Maybe the supervisor would like it better if s/he actually saw it. I wonder if you could lobby for that option?

    Plus, you do have at least one professional credential: you are the author of a Kindle book about the case. That makes you more than JUST a blogger. In addition, I have always wondered: does the "Doc" in your name indicate a Ph.D.? If so, then you have another credential as well.

    Hoping you can make it on the CBS thing by hook or by crook.
    --LG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just for the record, I never said it was CBS.
      And unfortunately any interview would require the hiring of a camera crew, which would make it too expensive to be practical.

      Yes, I do have a Ph.D.

      Thanks for the supportive comment.

      Delete
  3. Also, this thread might not be the place for this, but I was wondering if I could run through John's ideal plan to make sure I understand your theory, DocG.

    Here's what I think you're saying his plan is:
    1. Kill JB. Put her body in the basement or the car for storage.
    2. Write ransom note. Begin staging crime (break window).
    3. Patsy finds ransom note, is freaked out, does not call the police. She and Burke leave the house.
    4. JR finishes staging the house to his liking.
    5. JR drives to the bank to get money, with JB's body in his car. He says he's been contacted by the kidnappers for a dropoff.
    6. JR drives to a remote location (Remote Location 1) with JB's body and the ransom money.
    7. JR dumps the body in Remote Location 1.
    8. JR does not leave the ransom money in Remote Location 1, though. There is no reason to leave the ransom money when he doesn't get his daughter back. Right?
    9. JR claims that the kidnappers never showed up. He drives home again with the ransom money (but without the body).
    10. Having failed to encounter the kidnappers, the Ramsey family then involves the cops. JR tells his side of the story: drove to a remote location to meet the kidnappers, but never encountered them. If he's smart, he actually gives them the name of a different remote location, Remote Location 2, so that they don't find the body as fast.
    11. The cops search Remote Location 2 but do not find the body (because it is actually in Remote Location 1).
    12. Eventually the body is found in Remote Location 1. Hopefully by that point the body has decomposed a bit, so that the physical evidence is destroyed. The cops decide that the "kidnappers" left her there dead because something went wrong. They believe JR that these "kidnappers" existed. Because the body has decomposed a bit, they can't figure out much about these "kidnappers". Hopefully (from JR's perspective), they do not figure out that JR was ever in Remote Location 1.
    13. JR and his family maintain that these kidnappers truly existed. The cops agree. JR goes on with his life having successfully killed his daughter and blamed it on nonexistent kidnappers.

    Is this correct? I wonder if it would have worked....

    --LG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, good. I'll try to clarify my thinking by responding to each part of your post:

      1 - 4. Agreed, more or less.
      5 - 7. I don't think JB's body would necessarily be in the car while he's raising the ransom, since he would have wanted to dump the body under cover of darkness.

      6 - 8, etc. I doubt whether he'd have wanted to use two locations, because it would be important for the body to be found close to where he claimed he paid the ransom. That way, if his car had been spotted near where the body was found, he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom. Also I think John would have had no choice but to burn the ransom money and bury the ashes. Hanging onto it would have been too suspicious. I think that's the reason the ransom amount was so low -- losing it wouldn't have put much of a dent in his bank account.

      12. It's hard to say what John would have done with the body. He could have buried it, making it almost impossible to ever find. But his best bet would have been to just dump it and maybe cover it with some leaves. If the body were never found, the investigation would never end and he would not have wanted that. This way the partially decomposed body would suggest that she'd been killed already on the night of the "kidnapping," which would explain why she'd never been returned after the ransom was paid. I have no idea whether he'd have thought it through that carefully, but this could have been his plan.

      13. Agreed.

      Delete
    2. But if he "pays" the ransom, he has to say he encountered the kidnappers, and he has to explain why he paid them money without getting his daughter back. I think it's better to simply say they never showed up?
      And yes, he may not have fully thought this through...
      --LG

      Delete
    3. Ransom payments, as I understand it, are usually drop-offs rather than direct encounters with the kidnappers, who would not want to be identified. He could have claimed he dropped off the ransom at a particular spot in the woods, with the understanding that JonBenet would later be released at some agreed on time and place. And when he went to that place and waited, she was never released.

      Delete
    4. It goes to show how amatuer, poorly concieved and executed, and aimless the ransom note truely was.

      A plethora of pop culture dogma along with an allusion to an attache case and the money but no plan for the actual exchange. The random note instructs on three points; the money, no cops, and wait by the phone. It lacked both purpose and focus. A ransom note requires concisely delivered demands that betray as little extraneous information as possible. This note was the opposite. Intended to confuse and confound.

      Not a ransom note but a prop. A red herring devised by an individual in a state of panic that was never intended to elicit monies in exchange for a little girl. Rather, it was the actualization of someone's idea of what a ransom note should be.

      This note was written by someone who thinks that he or she is quite clever. The kind of annoying person who has found away to, at times, convincingly parrot those who are actually intelligent. He or she remembers and repeats things he likes though may not fully understand. He or she "sounds" smart to him or herself. Egotistical and narcissistic but not quite delusional. We all know people like this. They are often found in middle management or sales. These individuals are rarely challenged by their subordinates allowing their egos to grow unchecked. In the least, he is a borderline sociopathy. He would have to be to think he could get away with a crime of this nature. To fool everyone.

      This is speculative, of course, but I do think it is accurate.

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

      Delete
  4. Hi Doc! Purple Z here

    I tried to post yesterday, but I don’t see it.

    First, “just a blogger” is a lame excuse for not utilizing your knowledge, especially in 2016. The Fug Girls (of Go Fug Yourself), the writers at (now closed) The Toast, and even Nate Silver—who began his illustrious career as a pseudonymed blogger—these and many more show that in today’s world, bloggers can’t be lumped together and discounted wholesale. It would have been valid to introduce you as having one of the most-visited sites on JBR (or whatever is the truth—I don’t know your stats). Now, discounting a blogger whose site no one reads, who doesn’t thoroughly explain their logic, and who doesn’t display the utmost respect for all commenters—that would make sense. But you’re the opposite of that. Industry producers aren’t really known for their ingenuity and perception, though. Maybe you at least convinced your one cheerleader?

    I did think it was VERY interesting that in the CBS promo, we finally see/hear the oft-referenced enhanced audio of a background voice saying, “We’re not speaking to you.” Isn’t the most logical explanation that this is John, continuing the charade that the “kidnappers” said to not call the police, and he didn’t want Patsy to call the police, so when she does, he needs to get in more acting—maybe he was even hoping at that point to stop them from coming over still. Little did he know, he was still going to get away with it.

    Are most people’s blind-spots regarding seeing John as the logical killer really down to the handwriting analysis results? Because any close examination of how those came about shows them to be inadmissible, even in this court of amateurs. It boggles the mind how people can’t “see” John and are still fixated on Patsy. That’s what I love about your very first posts—with Poirot-esque logic, you look at the few things we know are facts, the things that actually matter, and the things that can have a clear conclusion (the purpose of the note—it seems folly to keep debating the handwriting, as it’s so easily faked and so easy to cherry-pick--the fact of the phone call, the weird accumulation of scenes, such as the broken window).

    Every theory besides JDI has to twist into pretzels to explain everything. Whereas with John as the sole criminal, you can pretty much trace it all back to one sentence: he thought Patsy wouldn’t call 911 and he’d have time to stage a complete scene. She did call, and he didn’t. And yet through luck and police bumbling, here we are.

    A couple other points—it gets tiresome to hear people say, “Well, I’ve never seen this or that, or I wouldn’t have acted like that if my child was murdered, so it must be faked.” I have weird handwriting and I do indeed go between the three types of handwritten “a” in one paragraph. Not even on purpose. Once, my brain came up with an idea that I owned something of my housemate’s. I even had a memory of my sister giving it as a birthday present. I didn’t make this up on purpose. My subconscious supplied it without my consent, and that led to a very awkward conversation on move-out day! Which is to say, Patsy’s inconsistencies are completely believable as a combination of false memory, gaslighting from John, and coaching from the lawyers (for whatever “believable” reason John supplied). If Burke is innocent, which he is, there is no reason to think talking to him will reveal anything—either he worships his dad as his dad, or if he had suspicions, he’s been gaslit just as Patsy was. Not to mention the theories of BDI have to twist into the most contortions of all.

    Thanks for all your work on this. It’s too bad bloggers still aren’t seen on a spectrum of credibility.

    -Purple Z

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It would have been valid to introduce you as having one of the most-visited sites on JBR (or whatever is the truth—I don’t know your stats)."

      I use Statcounter to keep track of hits, and to date this blog has accumulated 378,433 -- not counting hits from remote devices such as iphones, since I never bothered to revise the original coding to include them. And as you can see there have been literally thousands of comments.

      "I did think it was VERY interesting that in the CBS promo, we finally see/hear the oft-referenced enhanced audio of a background voice saying, “We’re not speaking to you.” "

      I saw it spelled out onscreen, but I didn't hear it. Hopefully the enhanced version of this recording will finally be made widely available. That's something I'm definitely looking forward to.

      "Are most people’s blind-spots regarding seeing John as the logical killer really down to the handwriting analysis results?" I do think the decision to rule John out had a huge impact on the case, as it forced most of us to focus on Patsy, and produced a band-wagon mentality where anything that might make her look suspicious was uncritically accepted as damning evidence. This also had a huge impact on how her handwriting samples were perceived, even by so-called "experts."

      Thanks so much for your very insightful and supportive comments. I fully agree with your take on the case.

      Delete
  5. Curious on everybody's thoughts......what's is one realistic piece of evidence that could come to light in one of these specials that might really help explain the case better?

    For me....Im curious if BR admits to eating pineapple with JBR when they got home from the party. Also, Im VERY intrigued by what the 911 Operator has to say she heard.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be interesting if they compared John's handwriting to the ransom note, but I have a feeling John's role will be downplayed and all the attention will be on either Patsy or Burke. I can't imagine that Burke would ever admit to having pineapple with JonBenet, even if he actually had (which I feel sure is not the case). In fact it's very hard to imagine what Burke might have to say after all these years of silence.

      Delete
    2. As DocG has pointed out, the window issue could shed a lot of light on John's involvement. Was the break new or old? Is John's story about the window backed up by the evidence?... etc. --LG

      Delete
    3. Why would John break the window to stage an intrusion and then dismiss it as old damage during the initial search of the home?

      I've never understood the logic of this aspect.

      Delete
  6. What would be REALLY great is if BR or somebody verified that the window absolutely wasn't broken prior to that day. If that came out, doesn't it all but prove JR was involved 100%?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that would be great, but it's not gonna happen, because John's story has been accepted by LE as gospel truth and there is no controversy regarding that aspect of the window scene -- believe it or not. I seriously doubt that Dr. Phil or anyone else would think to ask him about that. But hey you never know.

      Delete
  7. DocG,

    My girlfriend and I are big fans of this blog (mostly me haha) and we're very disappointed you weren't granted this opportunity. It would be a refreshing take for the public to see :-(.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Despite all of my disagreements, debates and different views on this case with Doc, I really wish that he would have made it onto a show. If he is in fact correct, I feel that him getting his take on the case out there to the public would have really put some legal eyes and heat on JR could have possibly lead to something legally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. As I see it, even if Patsy is the one who killed her and wrote the note, John would still be in this up to his eyeballs. And since Patsy is now dead and gone, the only one in a position to be tried for this crime is John. So as far as I'm concerned, the more "heat" on John the better -- and I'm assuming you agree.

      Delete
  9. Yes Doc, I could not agree with you more.Maybe she will keep on her producer or whoever she needs to get you on. If not maybe you could use this blog to work for you by letting all of us on here write to or email or in someaay contact her or her producer or even the website to that show ? Im sure many of us would be willing to help with that. Like I said despite our debates I would love people to hear you get your theory out there plus see you on the show. I know there is a way for us to get this done, we just need to figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm new to this blog, but after reading pages and pages of your entries, I don't see how anyone could disagree with your conclusion that the crime was committed by John Ramsey. Great job! Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you crazy? I'm from Minnesota, for crying out loud!

      Delete
    2. I have come to realize something , whatever you read last is who you think killed JB. If you read Kolar last you will believe BR did it, if you read ST last you will believe PR did and if you read here last then you will believe JR did it. I pray it gets solved so I can gain an hour per day back of my life back NOT reading this crazy case C.J.

      Delete
    3. Great comment, C.J.!

      Delete
  11. Of course, as soon as I posted my earlier comment, I began second-guessing my belief as to what happened in the Ramsey home. I mean no disrespect, but I was wondering if it's been addressed anywhere in your blog the possibility of BR awakening JBR, bringing her into the kitchen for pineapple and when returning her to her room, attempting to molest her, as he had probably done in the past. He could have thought that she wouldn't resist since he had gained her favor with the trip to the kitchen. When she cried out for her mother or father, he could have hit her in the head with something to silence her. JR, being the one to come to JBR's aid, could have seen evidence of the abuse, and her condition, and told Burke to get a new pair of underwear from her dresser (thus the ill-fitting panties), tells BR to return to his room, and brings JBR down to the basement. The rest of your scenario, Doc, would remain the same. I believe the reason I suspect BR could have done it is because a dear friend of mine, years ago, was digitally penetrated by her older brother on numerous occasions before finally telling her mother what was happening. Ironically, my friend was six at the time, and her brother was nine. Please tell me your thoughts. Thank you!
    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Young children have committed horrific crimes, no question. And yes, as Kolar demonstrated, 9 year old boys can be sexually active. The problem is that we have no reason to believe that Burke was one of those violent children and certainly no reason to believe he was sexually active. The great majority of 9 year old boys have no interest in girls. When I was in kindergarten I had a mild crush on the teacher, but certainly NOT on any of the girls in my class. Oh no no no, ugh.

      While sibling rivalry can be a powerful motive for mayhem, the evidence just doesn't support a battle between two children. There is no evidence of such a scuffle. She was felled by a single blow that cracked her head wide open. That's not consistent with a childish fight, but with a deliberate, focused effort by an adult strong enough to administer such a blow.

      Moreover, I see no motive for Patsy and John to concoct such a bizarre and risky coverup after finding their little girl unconscious after a fight with her brother. She was still breathing. Her heart was still beating. The head wound was not visible. And there was no bleeding from the scalp. Under such circumstances a call for help to 911 is far more likely than a bizarre, complex and dangerous kidnap staging.

      Delete
    2. DocG, as you stated above,"Young children have committed horrific crimes, no question. And yes, as Kolar demonstrated, 9 year old boys can be sexually active. The problem is that we have no reason to believe that Burke was one of those violent children and certainly no reason to believe he was sexually active. The great majority of 9 year old boys have no interest in girls. When I was in kindergarten I had a mild crush on the teacher, but certainly NOT on any of the girls in my class. Oh no no no, ugh."

      It is true that there is nothing which would indicate sexual activity on the part of Burke, yet we cannot discount the possibility. Two friends that I've had have recounted stories of sexual activity at ages as young as 7 years old. One of these friends copped to a history of victimization prior to experiencing sexual urges while the other did not.

      This following is graphic.

      I've often wondered whether Burke was ever examined for evidence of molestation. Paraphiliacs of prepubescent children don't typically discriminate based on gender. Kids are developementally asexual. Has it ever been noted whether or not an examination of this type ever took place? I have found no citations.

      Perhaps there was an ongoing sexual relationship between Burke and Jonbenet. I perhaps this is why her hymen was still partially intact and not completely missing as would be the case of she were assaulted by a male adult.

      Were DNA tests ever performed on the fecal material found all over Jonbenets room? Was Burkes room ever checked for same?

      We can make logical inferences based on the known facts of what went on in the Ramsey home that night but the truth is there just aren't any. Further complicating matters, two of the four people who arrived home that Christmas night are now dead.

      You make a persuasive argument that made me question my own conclusions. However, it remains an argument.

      Nothing is certain.

      Delete
  12. You're probably right, Doc. I guess the reason I have a hard time accepting JR as a pedophile is because I don't recall reading anywhere that he had demonstrated signs of being one. I read he cheated on his wife, but that's not the same thing. When I was growing up, everyone knew who the "perverts" were, even though there was hardly ever anything done about them. I seem to recall reading about more disturbing behavior from BR, but perhaps, as you said, that was due to his mother's cancer. As far as BR being sexually active, I don't believe an almost 10-year-old boy would need to have a crush on a girl to act our his sexual fantasies. Kindergarten is a long way from an adolescent just entering puberty.

    However, as you said, BR probably wasn't strong enough to administer the blow to JBR's head. I want to point out, thought, that in my scenario, I didn't think PR was involved in the cover-up.

    Thank you for allowing me to bat this back and forth in my head. I'm sure you get very tired of repeatedly saying the same things!

    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  13. When I was about 8 or 9, my cousin who lived downstairs from us in a duplex got so tired of my crap that he too the metal vacuum cleaner wand , planted his feet and swung for the fences, which ended up being the bridge of my nose. I saw stars. Had his weapon of choice been anything heftier than a hollow metal tube I'm sure i would have ended up with a fractured skull if not worse. Nothing evil or nefarious ever went on between us. We were pals. He just had enough of me bossing him around one day and released his frustrations on me in one fell swoop. I deserved it. So Burke makes sense to me for the initial blow - what that whacked out family did after that is anybody's guess

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, especially sibling competitiveness which easily might buiid up frustrations where the younger one is winning awards, gifts, & money, would be something thoughtful parents may have some sensitivities toward managing. I was about 6 and my older brother 10, we were horsing around wrestling on the carpet and he pushed me down and litterly knocked-the-wind out of me. To this day it's a vivid memory b/c I remember thinking "The just air stopped, I can see & hear, but how do I get to breathe again?" Totally unintentional by him and he was looking at me waiting for me to just get up and take another swipe at him. This took place in all of maybe 20-30 sec, very very fast. I seriously doubt BR would've had any actual murderous intentions toward his younger sister. Kids that age are more caught up in the moment than plotting out some nefarious kidnapping w/long winded ransom notes. IMHOO

      Delete
    2. Wow, Chris and JB Z... you two had wild and crazy childhoods! ;) I fought with my brother on a daily basis growing up, but it was more along the lines of hair-pulling and biting. I do think that some people are underestimating what an almost 10-year-old is capable of, whether it be sexual molestation or physical assault. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  14. Oh great, Chris... now you have me questioning myself again. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. I just think that you don't have to have a whole lot of motives or scenarios to imagine that a 9 year old boy could go off and inflict that head wound. The golf club, the flashlight if they were sneaking around in the basement looking at the presents for the older kids they were meeting up with in Michigan.

      Delete
  15. Except, in that case, why wouldn't the parents have just called 911?
    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really have no idea. It would have been the right thing to do. But I do know that my mother would have rather died than let the neighbors know that one of her kids killed their sister. It would have brought "disgrace" to the family. She'd never be able to show her face in public. And she was just an obscure housewife. Not a social butterfly like PR. And if JR had been sexually abusing JBR and PR had suspicions, that would have all come out too. I think PR thought JBR was dead, staged everything else and hoped to blame it on an evil stranger. Just my opinion stemming from a dysfunctional family and knowing a person like PR who thought people would actually believe her fantastical stories because she thought she was so far above everyone else.

      Delete
    2. We must have shared the same mother, Chris. I agree on the "disgrace to the family" idea, but I would substitute JR for PR, since she was the one who called 911 when the body was still in the house.

      Delete
    3. But I think PR WANTED the body found so everyone would see what the "monster " did and feel sorry for PR. JBR was not a person - just an extension of PR. The ransom note is something out of Hollywood. She tells 911"We have a kidnapping" - not "someone has taken my daughter Jonbenet", she doesn't come flying into the room when FW yells "call and ambulance". Doc has all the right answers to all the logical questions. But I have lived with and among these kinds of nut bags and my gut says PR all the way.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, can't agree with you there. That would also be a disgrace to the family. And no ransom note would be needed. She could have just pointed the finger at JR or BR. Sounds like you had a very interesting childhood! I blame my family's unwillingness to cause scandal on their Scandinavian upbringing.

      Delete
    5. what is your best guess on whodunnit?

      Delete
    6. Probably JR, but possibly BR. Don't know why I'm so obsessed with this case. Perhaps it's because I enjoy finding out what makes people tick. Or, maybe because I have too much time on my hands!
      Minnesota Linda (I keep forgetting to add this to my comments)

      Delete
    7. A family affair, bad parental supervision BDI, JR panicked and feared calling 911, as CPS would investigate for child abuse by neglect. JR & PR would suffer a broken family unit, and public humiliation. Why would JAR say "The Killer should be forgiven" in the news 1week later? Why would JR say " We're not angry, we just want to know why this happened"? on national T.V. 1week later? And finally, BR says "I just want to get on with my life" to LE investigators??? Why, oh why these strange responses toward a sick pedophilic baby killer??!

      Delete
  16. I don't find it believable that a 6 yo and a 9 yo would be up that late at night fooling around after a very long and tiring Christmas day. Also knowing they had to get up very early the next morning for another long day.
    Well maybe the consequences of the next day wouldn't register with them but I think they would be too exhausted to want to play around that late that night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR told LE BR did not want to go to bed after coming home from the Whites party and wanted to stay up assembling new parking garage toy he'd gotten Christmas morning, so they stayed up and worked on it. Anybody's guess how long, might have been more mental stimulation to an overtired child. PR was finishing packing for next two big trips planned back to back, seems like a pretty lively evening when they all should've been ready to hit the sack..?

      Delete
  17. I don't know about that. My four kids would become "wired" during the holidays whether it was from the extra sugar or the excitement, or maybe both. They seemed to be able to exist on little or no sleep during that time. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  18. But JBR was already asleep when they got home. Would it be normal for her to get up a few hours later at that late time to play? She was only 6.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Perhaps BR work her up. Just an idea.

    ReplyDelete
  20. WOKE her up. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Just a blogger?" Is she living in 1972?

    It's interesting, I forget what serial killer sent letters to police in code and the police shared the code with the public -- the code was broken by "just a schoolteacher."

    Just a blogger, that's crap. You would have added a lot to the discussion. Maybe they should have a show of amateur sleuths talking JonBenet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well that wasn't the verdict of my producer but one of the higher ups in the network.

      And if they got a bunch of us amateurs together the show would probably have ended in a brawl. Jerry Springer might get interested. ;-)

      Delete