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.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Suggestions for Newcomers

There's been a steep rise in blog hits over the last few days, probably due to all the publicity generated by upcoming media events. And from some recent comments I've been reading it looks like this blog is being accessed by people either new to the case or unfamiliar with certain issues regularly discussed here. As a result, and to save myself the time and effort of answering the same questions or correcting the same errors over and over, I've decided to offer some suggestions to the newcomers among us. This might well apply to some of you old timers as well:


1. Please continue to participate. Your presence here is welcome and your comments will never be deleted or censored, so long as you follow reasonable principles of propriety regarding offensive language or personal attacks.

2. I would urge you to do some research on this blog first, before asking questions, making assumptions, or proposing theories of your own. This blog contains a search engine, located near the upper portion of the right margin. So if, for example, you have a question about, say, the DNA evidence, then just enter DNA into the box and read at least some of what comes up. If you have a question about the basement window, then just enter "basement window," in quotes. If you are still confused or have a problem with what you've read, then by all means convey that in a comment.

3. Please, please, please try to comment always in the comments section of the most recent blog post rather than the post you might be reading when the comment occurs to you. I'm alerted via email regarding all comments, but the rest of those participating here are not, so these people will probably never see what you've posted.

4. Please refrain from personal attacks. When things get too heated here, I start deleting offensive posts. Otherwise feel free to post on any topic relevant to the issue at hand, i.e., the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Thank you. And: Welcome.



258 comments:

  1. So nice to see a blog for Jon Benet, the case is solved and evidence is being processed as we speak. Thank You. Hope everyone continues to MOVE FORWARD with the case and the research to learn and so JUSTICE is served for the Ramsey Family. Jen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my case, it was shortly after this blog supplied me with the revelation that John did it that I saw there'd be yet more media coverage on this case. I had read every post here except those dealing with Amanda Knox (for I don't know a thing about that case) before being bold enough to comment. Despite buying into the errors, I've been well acquainted with the run-arounds about what the hell SBTC could mean and why the oversized panties on websleuths or forumsforjustice or whatever. Being born in '91 and plenty of psychological abuse are probably the roots of my interest in the case.

    That is great if you are getting hits. I do apologize for rule 3 being foreign to me.

    With that out of the way, I had printed out the ransom note for the first time, though of course have read it several times already. What I notice is, following my thinking relayed on the window post, the only thing slightly "foreign faction" like, unless you count the misspellings, are possibly "attaché" (or is that accent from the y above) and beheading.

    Further, "when you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag." So, in his car, at home, when you think he's about to put the body in his car, he has an empty "adequate size attaché". If he just goes out and burns the money, he's got a bag (for her head, perhaps?).

    Some more general comments:
    Unsurprising, but the Y seems to be deliberately disguised, going straight down perhaps 'normally' like in "Ramsey" and "carefully", hooking right "monitor you" and left "from your account".

    Also, do they like him or not? They respect his business, but he's not the only fat cat around and the guys watching your daughter do not particularly like you. Plus "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested," quite sweet for the kidnappers.

    Also beheading seems a lot more exhausting. If a big samsonite suitcase isn't "attache"-like enough (samsonite is the first search hit if you look for "attache case"), then perhaps that was to be explained as the deviation from the instructions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doc, thank you for your continued support and guidance to all of us posters on your blog. I respect your professionalism, your integrity, your patience and kindness, sense of humor, and the incredible research you have done in this case. Aside from your fascination with it, I suspect that you also hope someday there will be justice for JonBenet, or at least a chance to bring JR to trial.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  4. ive finally gotten to this thread starting from the bottom up!
    enjoyed reading all the posts and contributions.
    not really sure where to post this so just going to wing it and docg you can move it hopefully if need so.
    heres my beef. I think this photograph is extremely telling.
    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jonbenetramsay+house&view=detailv2&qpvt=jonbenetramsay+house&id=9EB1AAE9ECD1B5BBB20BA292D196232B3F3AC3CC&selectedindex=449&ccid=%2Bdm7esLG&simid=607995507126698929&thid=OIP.Mf9d9bb7ac2c69275964eb2436986be75o0&mode=overlay&first=1

    the pineapple!!!!
    looking at the evidence pictures to me the bowl of pineapple is abit of an oversight.
    it appears to me there is a lovelydessert bowl filled with what looks like late night snack of pineapple and maybe cream?within it lays a spoon which suggests someone was eating it.
    beside the bowl is an empty glass with a used teabag in it. indicating iced tea I guess.
    SOMEBODY in that house prepared that snack...somebody satdown to eat and drink that snack.
    appears the drink was drank but minimal food was taken.
    theory 1/. the person enjoying the snack was disturbed and walked away from this activity
    theory 2/. the person sitting here takes ONE piece to be polite but isn't actually hungry.....

    the reason I feel this situation is extremely important is it appears to be the last physical proof of activity the night before or during said night.
    which according to the ramsays didn't happen????
    the true signs of incest screams out here I cant fathom why when the stomach contents where diagnosed the dessert on the table wasn't pushed at the ramsays to please explain...and fast. patsys I don't know about any pineapple seemed to suffice??
    not good enough detectives!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htmth excellent thread john ramsays botched interview with smit over pineapple if anyone hasn't seen it.

      Delete
    2. Sorry kim, but I could not access the site from the url you provided.

      Delete
    3. To me, the pineapple evidence is a perfect example of the difference between focusing on the evidence in itself vs. the logic behind it. In this case especially, despite all the mounds of evidence, just about all of it is, in itself, useless -- because no matter which way you turn it, you wind up with the same result: inconclusive. If you lift the lid, however, to take a peek under the surface, you may well find something useful.

      That photo is admittedly quite fascinating. But you can stare at it for hours and it won't tell you anything meaningful about the case, i.e., anything that actually could be used to identify JBR's killer.

      On the other hand, if you pull back to place this evidence in context, then you might just get somewhere.

      To wit: First of all there is no way JonBenet would have sat down to some pineapple in the presence of an intruder, so this is powerful evidence helping to rule out an intruder.

      Secondly, if Patsy and John were in this together then they'd have had no trouble testifying that JonBenet had some pineapple that evening. Nothing suspicious about feeding your child a late night snack.

      This tells us what the 911 call tells us: the two of them could not have been in it together. One of them knew about the pineapple and the other did not. One lied about it and the other told the truth. But since the investigation has consistently focused on "the Ramseys" this logic has been totally ignored and everyone is still to this day staring at that photo trying to figure out what it means.

      Delete
    4. We can reasonably assume, since Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl, that she is the one lying about feeding JonBenet the pineapple. Who is more likely to serve food to the children, Patsy or John? Patsy did not think to wipe away the fingerprints because this event was not part of the murder. The focus of the staging and the cover up would be on items directly related to the crime. Patsy most likely did not consider the importance of the snack or may have completely forgotten about it.

      She had no experience handling a situation of this magnitude and therefore, made a lot of mistakes.

      Patsy could have been honest about feeding JonBenet the pineapple. Why wasn't she? She panicked.

      She could have left Linda Hoffmann-Pugh out of the vacuuming glass story. Why include her knowing Linda would refute it? She panicked. Making Linda look guilty, as she saw it, would serve her right for contradicting Patsy's story.

      Why wear the same clothes? Either she panicked and did not think about being in the photographs at the Christmas party or she wanted any trace fibers from her clothing to have a logical explanation when the time came to embrace JonBenet's body shortly after it was discovered.

      Hercule

      Delete
    5. I'm impressed, Hercule: one unfounded assumption after another. You provide us with a perfect example of how NOT to evaluate evidence.

      Since Patsy was a housewife, it stands to reason that her fingerprints would be found on a great many household items. The bowl in question was very possibly washed and dried by Patsy, who probably placed it in a cupboard as well. So her prints on that bowl mean: nothing. Unless, of course, you already "know" she's the one who fed JonBenet that pineapple snack, in which case it doesn't matter how the prints got there, does it?

      "Why wear the same clothes? Either she panicked and did not think about being in the photographs at the Christmas party or she wanted any trace fibers from her clothing to have a logical explanation when the time came to embrace JonBenet's body shortly after it was discovered."

      Good try, Hercule. But no cigar. Trace fibers from Patsy's clothing would already have been all over JonBenet from the day before.

      Delete
    6. Smit's biggest problem is that the note implies at least 3 people going through the window.

      Delete
    7. Delete the "th" leaving just .htm to access kim's link to "acandyrose", which also does great work on the Casey Anthony case (for somehow, several readers of this blog swallowed the media line there too)

      Delete
    8. "To wit: First of all there is no way JonBenet would have sat down to some pineapple in the presence of an intruder, so this is powerful evidence helping to rule out an intruder."

      To be clear I am not a believer in IDI. That said, you've made a completely unwarranted assumption about what Jonbenet wouldn't do. If there had been an intruder, and he (or she) were known to Jonbenet, she might very well sit down and have pineapple. It could even be a stranger if he were a smooth talker and knew how to build trust between himself and a child.

      Also we don't know that JR and PR were not in it together based on the pineapple. That's because we have absolutely no idea how the pineapple got on the table, when, how long it had been there, how Jonbenet came to eat some, etc. She could have eaten it w/o the knowledge of either parent, in which case even if acting in unison they'd both have to deny any knowledge of Jonbenet having eaten pineapple.

      Delete
    9. "We can reasonably assume, since Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl, that she is the one lying about feeding JonBenet the pineapple. Who is more likely to serve food to the children, Patsy or John? Patsy did not think to wipe away the fingerprints because this event was not part of the murder. The focus of the staging and the cover up would be on items directly related to the crime. Patsy most likely did not consider the importance of the snack or may have completely forgotten about it."

      No we can't reasonably assume Patsy fed her the pineapple based on fingerprints. I would agree that if Jonbenet were hungry she'd more likely go to Mom than Dad, but that's not a hard and fast rule for every family.

      The rest of what you said is quite possible. The pineapple may be completely unrelated to the crime and therefore the killer didn't think of covering it up.

      Delete
    10. Burke was allowed to go off with the neighbors where he could have blabbed what he saw. IMO it's unlikely he saw anything of any substance. He's never publicly defended his parents, but he's never publicly accused them or cast suspicion on them either. This proves absolutely nothing. Rather than being under anyone's thumb it seems to me a reasonable explanation for his silence is that he has been over this with police, as a boy, and has nothing to add.

      Delete
    11. "Burke was allowed to go off with the neighbors where he could have blabbed what he saw. IMO it's unlikely he saw anything of any substance."

      Flawed logic. The fear of Burke being subject to police questioning, however informal, would be much more problematic for the Ramsey's. So, they sent him away.

      Delete
    12. Very good point. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    13. Dear Doc: I still think Burke did it. Mainly from my memory of it being reported that there was concern there about predatory behavior by Burke. I do remember the reports about a book found at the Ramsey's home or the grandparents home on the subject of predatory children...I also feel that the oversized panties found on Jon Benet were Patsy's and containing the DNA of her lover. She may have grabbed some soiled underwear in the laundry next to where they staged her murder; not realizing they were soiled and not yet cleaned. I really think Patsy and John covered up a crime committed by their son.

      Delete
  5. DocG, thank you for this blog. I was an ardent BDI until reading and processing your well constructed arguments. Stepping back from the details and solely looking at each parent after the death of JB, my God, John appears to have ice running through his veins. Patsy reacted as any distraught parent would under those circumstances...heavily medicated and inconsolable. John...ice. Money talks and hindsight is 20/20. I agree the upcoming specials for sweeps will offer more rehashing of the same. I wonder if Burke either lives in fear of John or has not spoken against him as a means of protecting a possible inheritance. I can't buy he lived in the same home and truly knows nothing. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke was an eye witness and I feel sure he knows more than he's ever revealed. If that were not the case, he'd have been more than willing to talk to the police when last approached by them a year or so ago. What's especially intriguing is the fact that -- to my knowledge -- he's never publicly defended his parents. I feel sure he had nothing to do with the murder, but it does seem clear he is and always has been, under the thumb of his father and the lawyers. I can't imagine what he'll find to say when interviewed by Dr. Phil, but I imagine it will mostly be a rehash of what is already known and lots of "how did that make you feel" type questions.

      Delete
  6. Has burke ever stated if his bed room door was open or closed that night?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Apparently Dr Phil will be playing the "missing" Burke interview tapes as well

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a great blog however very near-sighted. I have read much here and am a pretty dedicated follower of this case. I see that the above commenter Hercule is accused of making assumptions yet the whole theory on this blog are even bigger assumptions. If you are going to base your whole case on someone molesting their child then you will have to show some kind of evidence. There is no history of John Ramsey molesting or abusing any of his children or anyone else ever before, after or since. That would be a very odd characteristic of a pedo. I think no history of any type of abuse ever would be evidence would it not ? Secondly you present John as a teflon suspect of which he was not. He was deeply investigated and even deeper into him molesting JB or anyone ever and not a thing was found which would mean the evidence points the other way not where you want it to point. Linda K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I make no assumptions, but base my conclusions strictly on undisputed facts and logical inferences based on those facts. You may call my logic into question, but only if you are able to logically refute it. I don't base my whole case on someone molesting their child, though the evidence of prior molestation supports my case against John. And yes, there is evidence of prior molestation. As I've pointed out many times John's history won't help him because 1. he lied to his first wife systematically over a period of at least a year, while he was having an affair -- so we know he is capable of lying; 2. he was away from home much of the time and little is known of his activities while away.

      John is the teflon suspect because so much of the focus was on Patsy once John was ruled out as writer of the note. So most of the media and internet attention has been directed at Patsy and the possibility of John's involvement tends to be passed over. Even Steve Thomas, who recognized very quickly that there was no intruder, was willing to give John a "pass."

      Delete
    2. But don't pedophiles normally molest those close to them... those they have "groomed"... not some random child they encountered while away from home on a business trip?

      Delete
    3. Sorry. Forgot to add: Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    4. To give you an idea of the sort of thing John might have been up to when away and on his own, I'll quote from an earlier comment of mine on this blog:

      "Kimberly Ballard . . . claimed John asked her to dress up in pageant type costumes, like JonBenet wore. She appeared on several talk shows making these allegations, but then suddenly stopped, and ultimately retracted, saying she had lied. (See e.g., http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05121997kimballardongeraldo.htm)

      The Ramsey lawyers dismissed her as someone trying to extort money from John, but it's hard to imagine why someone would want to make up such stories out of the blue and how they might expect money if the stories were total bullshit. I suspect she shut up because she was paid off, simple as that. But who knows, this whole case is so full of bizarre episodes."

      The Ballard episode is truly bizarre and since she later recanted it's hard to know what to make of her accusations. But they do give us a pretty good picture of the sort of thing John MIGHT have been up to while away. I'm not saying the allegations are true, but they do give us some insight as to the nature of certain possibilities. Bottom line: the fact that John was away from home so much of the time makes it impossible for anyone to claim that he's this perfect person with no history of questionable acts.

      Delete
    5. I'm thinking Kimberly Ballard was just wanting her 15 minutes of fame, but who the hell knows! Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    6. Linda K,

      If you fancy yourself a "dedicated follower" of the case, then you know that there is ample evidence to indicate trauma and a history of abuse. We cannot conclusively state that John Ramsey was the perpetrator, but there is a greater than average chance that it was him.

      If you need citations to support the above, as a "dedicated follower" of the case, you no doubt know where to find them.

      Delete
    7. The thought of John asking Kimberly Ballard to dress up in "pageant-type costumes" (as if that would be a turn-on for him), would be laughable if this wasn't such a tragedy. I've seen pictures of Kimberly, and she sure doesn't resemble what pedophiles are normally interested in.

      Delete
    8. Dammit... that was me again... Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  9. You are misinformed. I would like to know where you are getting your information from ? John was the main suspect for a very long time, he was never given any pass. He had a very very deep investigation done into his past, his comings and goings, interviews with everyone in his family and everyone LE could find who ever knew him dating back to his school days. To begin with the molestation is not a fact as experts have disagreed but even if there was molestation that does not automatically mean that John was the 1 who did it. These are very big assumptions on your part and are in no way even close to facts. As a matter of fact LE found out exactly the opposite. You can not pick and choose which evidence you want to use and then claim you have made a solid case. Linda K.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, John WAS given a pass. By one of the chief investigators, Steve Thomas. You are right that John was initially investigated very thoroughly, based on what limited information was available. When I call him the "teflon suspect" I'm referring to his status since that initial investigation, in the media and in the public eye generally. We NEVER read of any attempt to assess John's handwriting exemplars, while the media and public have been obsessing on Patsy's for years. Neither Thomas nor James Kolar nor in fact just about anyone who's written about the case seems to even consider the possibility that John could have murdered his daughter or even written the ransom note. Everyone writing about the case, either in a book or on the forums, who's convinced this was an inside job focuses on Patsy, not John.

      And no, the prior molestation is not a fact, but there is strong evidence for it. Nevertheless this is not my principal reason for pointing the finger at John. Go back and read the first three posts in this blog. Plus the post on the window scene, where John's totally unbelievable fable about breaking that window months earlier is deconstructed.

      I do not pick and choose evidence. I base my conclusions on facts and logic. And unlike you and so many others, I consider ALL the evidence.

      Delete
    2. ANYBODY who doesn't think JR did it then needs to explain his story/lies regarding the basement window. There is no logical explanation or anything that can explain away that lie.

      Delete
    3. Anon, obviously if the basement window is a lie John is guilty. But Patsy confirmed the story, and thus we can't know if it was a lie. If he just broke the window that night it seems more likely he would have come up with a more recent date and reason for breaking it. His story is crazy...crazy enough to be true.

      Delete
    4. I don't believe John's window story for a second. There's no way there would be a broken window for many months in Colorado. He's rich, the window is a safety hazard, and weathering would be an issue. His story was his on-the-whim alibi when Patsy called the cops and he had to improvise on the fly. He got lucky.

      Delete
    5. @Mark

      If the window story is a lie, and JR is the guilty party with Patsy being innocent and ignorant, then the time of the break had to be (claimed) while Patsy and the kids were away in MI. Patsy can't deny a window got broken while she was gone. The problem, as I see it, is that she also had to believe that she herself, along with Linda, cleaned up the glass after she returned from MI. This is the one extra straw that broke the Camel's back. The event, had it actually happened, would have stood out in her mind because she'd have to have asked herself why the glass wasn't cleaned up prior to her return from her summer trip. What was Linda doing all those weeks (or possibly months) while the glass lay on the floor?

      If JR is a master manipulator then he'd know better than to include Patsy in the clean up when that event never actually took place. Much better for JR to have claimed that the glass had been cleaned up while Patsy was away. Since the glass was gone early the next morning the story is still consistent.

      As you suggest, another possibility is that it really was broken, months prior to the murder.

      Still another possibility is that Patsy supports JR's story because she is in on the coverup (or is the murderer and JR is in on the coverup) She supports it because it keeps alive the illusion of an intruder.

      If they were in collusion, they could have come up with any date they liked, in theory. But remember that there has to be an excuse for JR having to break in. That excuse only really makes sense when Patsy and the kids are away, e.g. during the summer, when they were in MI.

      Delete
    6. Too many times something hinges on expected human behavior, and what every human would have done in a certain situation. But human behavior can be fickle and irrational and hard to predict. He may have broken the window prior to the crime, he may not have. I, and nobody else, has any way of knowing. It's just speculation. And that's why the case remains unsolved. There just happens to be a good theory about what may have happened. It possibly happened that way. We'll never find out for sure. The case is long cold and the police aren't investigating it, aside from running the DNA through CODIS every couple years I guess.

      Delete
    7. "If JR is a master manipulator then he'd know better than to include Patsy in the clean up when that event never actually took place. Much better for JR to have claimed that the glass had been cleaned up while Patsy was away."

      Wouldn't matter. He'd have had to gaslight her in any case, because she could have seen for herself that the window wasn't broken. So since he'd have to plant a false memory anyhow, why not arrange it so she cleans up the glass and "confirms" his story. What he failed to consider was the fact that one false memory can trigger another.

      His story was disputed by Linda, who claimed she knew nothing about any broken window. And there are many other holes in that story. Never happened. And if they were in it together, then they'd have gotten their story straight and Patsy would not have included someone whom she knew would contradict her.

      Delete
    8. John got away with his window story because it was a perfect misdirection. After all, why would he claim he'd broken the window himself if he'd been staging a phony breakin? The investigators lacked the imagination to get past that point, and dropped the ball.

      Delete
  10. I have read much of this blog in the past week. Interesting, although you base your case on assumptions that come off of pick and choose and evidence concept. John was Boulder's main suspect and was crucified by law enforcement and the public for a year and a half AFTER his handwriting analysis despite you claiming otherwise. Child abusers/molesters are rarely, if ever, one and done, it is exactly the same as a disease. John was a millionare who was going to risk all he had and life in prison just to stick a finger in his daughter's vagina ? You call this logical ? As far as the window, we do not know that he was not covering for someone or that he was not possibly telling the truth about breaking it long before as he said. What we do know is that if he did lie then so Patsy. Gaslighting is not logical by the way. You have come up with the simplest answer possible, the problem is some of your claims are not true and the exact same thing you claim was deeply investigated by LE without a single shred of evidence ever found. In fact evidence pointed to the other 2 people in the house more than it did John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just about every piece of evidence in this case is inconclusive. So I don't rely solely on the evidence -- though I certainly don't ignore it either. I rely principally on the facts -- the facts are NOT inconclusive, and they are sufficient to lead us to JonBenet's killer.

      Delete
    2. Sorry but from what I have read you only follow anything that supports someone calling 911 can not be involved, any other fact or evidence is dismissed. That is not how you build a case. I work with people who have been sexually and physically abused and I can guarantee you that it is extremely rare for anyone who sexually abuses another person to only do it once. Secondly it is extremely rare for any adult who sexually abuses a child to only digitally penetrate them. It is always penile penetration when a male sexually abuses a female child. If If Jonbenet had ever been penetrated by a penis then her hymen would have been destroyed and that is not the case here. For both aforementioned things to occur would be unheard of. Plus for someone to kill their daughter just because they had stuck their fingers in her would make no sense. Feel free to look up the stats and information on what I have stated and then you might get a better idea of how unlikely your scenario is. Linda K.

      Delete
    3. It's not just "someone calling 911," it's the total contradiction between the contents of a note clearly staging a kidnapping and the 911 call. No one staging a kidnapping calls the police with the body of his or her victim still in the house.

      As far as the evidence of prior molestation, Steve Thomas reports on a convocation of pediatric experts who unanimously agreed that the damage to JonBenet's vagina and hymen was a sure sign of prior abuse. One of the world's foremost forensic pathologists, Dr. Cyril Wecht, fully agreed and wrote a book based on his findings, in which he clearly implies that John Ramsey was the abuser.

      Delete
    4. Cyril Wecht is not reliable maybe because he was senile. He is also the only expert to swear up and down that the head blow came after the strangulation. I work in this field and I am telling you that the combination of things that your theory supports does not occur. Feel free to do a little investogating of your own if you do not want to take my word. Linda K

      Delete
    5. I'm sorry, Linda, but the fact that you work in this field does not make you an expert. Neither am I, for that matter. According to Thomas, a panel of experts agreed that the evidence pointed to prior abuse. And under such circumstances, the abuser is almost certainly someone in the family.

      I have done some investigating on this matter and what I've learned is that there is always a first time, that this sort of thing can happen in "the best families," and that the perpetrator is often not exposed until after many years, after which everyone that knew him is frequently surprised and shocked, as they had been aware of no prior history.

      JonBenet was no ordinary child, she had been heavily sexualized by her overly enthusiastic mother and as a result her father could have, for the first time, become aroused by a child. Also, as I've repeatedly reminded you, we don't know much about John as he was away from home so often. For all we know he might have abused many children in the past and may still be doing so.

      Delete
    6. A first time or rare occurence is possible. I am saying statistically this just does not happen. It makes me somewhat of an expert and I did not say to take my word for it. Everything you want to know and that I am saying is all available online. I just think that had it been John you would have seen much more than digital penetration, especially to kill ypur daughter. Adult molesters and the pyschology behind what they do and how they think does not let them stop at digital penetration. However, it is possible this is a very rare instance, it is not impossible. Linda K

      Delete
    7. First of all I question whether penile penetration would be possible with a six year old. Secondly, even if it were possible, John would have been a fool to try it, as it would have left clearly visible signs sure to be noticed by her pediatrician, not to mention her mother.

      Delete
    8. There are 2 year olds are molested and penile penetrated. Almost anytime an older male molests a young girl penile penetration is involved. Like I said look it up before coming to conclusions. Linda K

      Delete
    9. It would help if you could supply a reference. I have no idea how to look up such a thing.

      Delete
    10. "Plus for someone to kill their daughter just because they had stuck their fingers in her would make no sense. "

      This certainly is an extreme reaction to the situation. Most molesters don't kill. They con the victim into remaining silent. Often the truth never comes out. If it does it's often decades afterwards.

      Delete
    11. Doc I will find you more specific statistics to the topic we discussed but here are some statistics to browse through. Linda K

      Delete
  11. It wasn't the parents. The police department has dismissed them as suspects. i think given that the Ramsey family participated in a tour of homes over the holiday season, one of the 1,000+ people who had toured their home over the course of the holidays was the killer. How could he have known that John had received 118,000 for a bonus? I don't know...mail? He went through his computer? A bank statement. He clearly went through the house. The garrotte he made was from a broken paintbrush of Patsy's. The sharpie and pad of paper from their study. He hid. He waited and when the police thought the window was an entrance....I think it was an exit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I urge you to read more in this blog. If you have a question about a specific topic, use the search mechanism at the upper right of the page. The Ramseys were never dismissed as suspects. DA Mary Lacy decided they should be exonerated on the basis of her very simple minded interpretation of the "touch" DNA evidence. Hardly anyone in law enforcement agrees with that verdict. And no DA has the right to exonerate any suspect in a murder case. John could certainly be indicted regardless.

      Also no intruder theory makes sense. Read the first three posts on this blog to learn why.

      Delete
  12. The pineapple was given to her to distract her. She was hit in the head from behind while eating it, head bowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. or, perhaps, while drawing the heart on her hand.

      Delete
  13. I was watching the recent promos for the Jonbenet documentaries and there was the part in the phone call when a man says "We're not speaking to you". What could that mean and who could that be directed at?

    Also I look at the evidence and see the ransom note writer is changing his writing style to not get caught, that leads me to believe it is someone that is capable of being caught as in a family member or friend. Also in the note it doesn't seem like a note you write in a panic situation after you just killed your daughter (if it were one of the parents). I just cannot see a parent writing something so extreme after killing their own daughter.

    I do not think it was someone random or a pedophile as they most likely wouldn't care to hide their hand writing. I believe it was someone in close relation with the family.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can see either JR or PR saying "We're not speaking to you" if BR interrupted his parents during the 911 call. Of course, if it was, then I'd want to know why they lied and said BR was sleeping at the time of the 911 call. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have heard the enhanced 911 call done by Aerospace. You can hear a young male say something like what did you find ? Then loud and clear enough to tell whose voice it is you hear JR in a loud and angry voice say, "we are not speaking to you."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, I have heard it as well and that is exactly what is said. It helps not to prove or disprove a single thing, just like every other piece of evidence and everything else in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I still think BDI. I think he was playing with his Christmas gift after everyone else went to sleep. Decided he would abuse his sister the same way he had done in the past. Got her up with the promise of pineapple. Then suggested they go in the basement to check out the wrapped gifts there. Takes the flashlight to avoid waking anyone by turning on the lights. JBR, during the abuse, has had enough and threatens to tell their parents. BR hits her over the head with it. JR, either summoned by BR, or investigating a noise, finds JBR and stages the cover-up exactly how Doc says he did. Has BR run and get a clean pair of underwear, which is why the pair found on her were way too large. I've tried, but I can't stop coming up with scenarios... forgive me. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If BDI then why would he be able to go to his friends house immediately and school shortly after? I don't believe for a second the parent(s) would let Burke be exposed to the outside world without keeping an extremely close eye on him. He didn't know anything, and that's why it was okay for him to go in public. If he knew anything it would be too much of a risk. He could have a meltdown and say everything.

      Delete
    2. Very good points, and perhaps you're right. Of course, his father could have scared him enough with the threat of jail (even though that wouldn't have happened), being taken away from them, etc. that he kept his mouth shut. And his father knew that he wouldn't be able to keep him by his side 24/7. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  18. When I put myself in this scenario, in either Patsy's or JR's shoes, I really, really, think the first thing I would do after finding JonBenet unconscious after being hit with the flashlight would be to call 911 and summons an ambulance. Similar to what I think Patsy would do if she were the one who rendered JonBenet unconscious through some type of accident. I can't accept that they would just immediately think she was beyond help and then decide to fabricate a coverup.

    And even if they knew Jon Benet were already dead and beyond help, I think they would have then called their attorney for advice and would have found out that BR was too young to prosecute.

    To cover this crime up, with such elaborate measures (garrote, window, ransom note), seems almost impossible for any parent to do after realizing their daughter has just been killed. They would have been in extreme shock over their loss and I just don't see either of them being capable, either emotionally or physically, of doing all those things to make it look like a kidnapping.

    And I certainly don't think BR would be giving any interviews to Dr. Phil if he were the killer.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, are you saying you think an intruder is responsible? Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  20. Because today the case is so high profile I forget that back in 1996 the Ramsey's weren't famous and really weren't known. But this still happened to them.

    Looking back at some of the evidence pointed elsewhere I think that the killer was among the over thousand people who just 2 weeks earlier got a tour of the Ramsey's household. Got a layout of the house and did what they did. The man who commited suicide shortly after which looked suspicious but was ruled a suicide is also something many don't look at anymore.

    Is it possible that the killers got Jonbenet out of bed without a scream? Could they have some how persuaded her out of bed? Such as saying they were Santa Claus or something along those lines? I just have to look at reasons why a 6 year old girl would get out of bed and go downstairs and from the evidence seem to eat Pineapple at the kitchen table.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I can't see JBR and the killer sitting by the table, with her eating pineapple, when her parents or brother could have come downstairs at any time. And, most importantly, why the ransom note? I think that idea is way more far-fetched than than parents wanting to cover up for a scandal or evidence of prior sexual abuse. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think once PR called 911, JR decided he had to tell her the truth about BR's involvement in the crime. Otherwise, no telling what kind of damaging things she might say. Maybe she would have even accused him of killing JBR to cover the sexual abuse she suspected of him of. From that point on, I think she kept her mouth shut in order to protect her son.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There exists what's known as "situational molesters." Plus a male with inclination towards this will "groom" a child, prepare a child over time, not assault the child like a rapist. This is what the evidence shows. The hymen was eroded, not torn.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I believe John's window story is a lie but why didn't he just say he cleaned it up when Patsy was away like a poster in this thread said? Would be more practical and he wouldn't have to include Patsy in the story which is risky in itself. Including the housekeeper is even riskier since she she claimed she never cleaned up any glass.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Perhaps he didn't think he would be believed by the BPD if he said he both broke the window AND cleaned it up when the other family members were away. Maybe needed PR's involvement to make it more believable. I think by this point, PR was in on the cover-up (see my August 27 posts). Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John would have needed to gaslight Patsy, not simply to get her to say she cleaned up the glass, but to make sure she wouldn't spill the beans by claiming she knew nothing about any broken window. Sure he could have said he cleaned up the glass himself, but Patsy would have known that was a lie, because she would have known the window had never been broken.

      So John would have had no choice but to implant that memory, and I guess the easiest way to do that was to convince her she'd cleaned up the broken glass.

      And no, Linda, if she'd been in on the coverup, she would not have included Linda in her story. That detail tells me this had to have been an implanted memory.

      And if you prefer to think John is innocent and that his story is the truth, then it still doesn't explain why Patsy would have included Linda, who very clearly has denied any knowledge of any broken window or any broken glass.

      While the gaslighting theory may seem far fetched, it's the only explanation that accounts for every aspect of their story. Patsy had recently undergone chemotherapy and, ever since her daughter's murder, had been on anti-anxiety and anti-depression, meds, so I don't think it would have been that hard for John to manipulate her in this manner. He would simply have reminded her that she'd been on all those meds and that her memory wasn't reliable.

      Bottom line: no other explanation can explain the circumstances surrounding John's story and Patsy's confirmation of it.

      Delete
  26. Yes there is another explanation and it makes the most sense. The most logical explanation is that Patsy was somehow involved. If you step back and realize other scenarios ARE possible and look at how many lies Patsy told and was caught in it forces you to look at other scenarios. I did know she lied about the Christmas Bear and the HiTek boots until I read links from commenters here. That is just too much lying on key pieces of evidence for anyone innocent be caught in. Linda K

    ReplyDelete
  27. Did not know Patsy lied - typo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've already had a long discussion of the Santa bear and the Hi-Tec boots, and as I've already argued, there is no reason to believe Patsy lied about either of those items. If she'd known (or recalled) the truth about the Santa bear, she'd have been foolish to lie about it, because she'd have realized it would be investigated and the truth would soon come out. So why lie? Same with the Hi-Tec boots.

      When you accuse someone of lying you need to consider the reason why they might want to lie, what they might have to gain from that, and in both these cases there was nothing to be gained. I think she just got confused about the bear and had a lapse of memory. And as far as the Hi-Tec boots are concerned it's probably something she never paid much attention to. I'm well aware that several people posting here don't agree, but as I see it there is no reason to assume Patsy lied about these items.

      Now as far as the window glass is concerned, I find that especially interesting, because once again we need to consider what motive she would have had to lie. If she were involved with John in staging a breakin, yes, there would be a motive to lie. But no motive to include Linda in her lie. And this is something she does not only when questioned in 1997, but also a year later, in her 1998 interview.

      So let's consider the various possibilities:

      1. She and John are both involved and she is deliberately lying to support his phony window story. That can't be the case because she'd have known very well that Linda would dispute her story. And since there was nothing to be gained by including Linda in any case, then that part of her story makes no sense if we assume she is deliberately lying.

      2. John's story is true and she is telling truth, but she has a memory lapse and thinks Linda was present while in fact she was not. This would make sense if John actually did break that window earlier and Patsy did actually clean up the glass. The problem there is, first of all, John's story makes no sense, but more important, Linda testified right from the start that she knew nothing about any broken window. As the housekeeper she would certainly have been aware of a broken window that had gone unrepaired for months.

      So. We can rule out lying. And we can rule out telling the truth.

      Fascinating!

      All that's left, as far as I can see, is the implanting of a false memory by John, in order to, first of all, make sure Patsy won't blow the whistle on him by insisting the window was never broken, and, secondly, manipulate Patsy into corroborating his story about breaking that window the previous summer by gaslighting her into "remembering" how she cleaned up the glass. Linda came into the picture because Patsy's false memory would have included her, as she was always the one to count on when there was a mess to be cleaned up. That's not something John would have deliberately planted, but he would have had no way of controlling every detail of her (false) memory.

      If anyone can come up with a fourth possibility, I'd love to hear it.

      Delete
    2. I recommend Doc's Either/Or post for those formerly into PDI and/or "the Ramseys" did it. I could never buy that an intruder or three wrote a ransom note for a kidnapping that never happened. I could never buy that John didn't stage the window and hid her, due to his bringing her up from the wine cellar/basement/whatever. I suspected him of the garrote and the bindings simply for being the man of the house, or at least we're talking John in a house of either Patsy or Burke. Though I was also probably silly enough to think the paint brush handle implicated Patsy somehow.

      And that's because the note seemed such a blunder. Well surely the handwriting experts will find out who wrote the note and his or her goose is cooked. And they say it was Patsy, which is superficially plausible with the phrases taken from her, etc.

      But when one realizes "the Ramseys" did not call 911; but Patsy did, and the note said not to do so. Then the killer becomes clear.

      The motive of sexual abuse/incest coming out makes a lot of sense too. Not technically necessary to show a murder, but the further one's scenario is from the truth then the more reasonable doubt can creep in. At least, it seems that way in my armchair opinion. A six year old girl with a picture of herself in lacy gloves? She always seemed so "mature".

      I do think there are additions which could help a prosecution's scenario. Doc slaps us all in the face to remember the 911 call. Slightly less so, 118 strikes me. Even if that was your bonus, why not say 100? To make yourself look more suspicious? Given my feelings of the attache case, I am leaning towards the separate amounts having something to do with beheading and/or dismemberment.

      Also, I have not seen Doc address the Charles Lindbergh case as possibly John's MO, which surprised me. That would certainly cast suspicion on the pilot in the house.

      Delete
    3. My theory regarding the $118,000 amount is this: John knew he'd have to part with the ransom, but a more plausible amount, such as $1,000,000, would have made a serious dent in his bank account. And if he'd asked for, say, $100,000, that would be too small an amount to be convincing. By matching the requested ransom to his bonus, he gets around this problem by constructing a kidnapper with a personal connection to him -- and a very strong grudge. That way, the smaller ransom amount is justified by the "statement" it makes, suggesting someone with inside knowledge who wants to get to him via his daughter.

      As far as the Lindbergh connection, based on the fact that both are pilots, sorry but that seems a bit far-fetched.

      Delete
    4. 100,000 is too small but 118,000 isn't? I think John had much more up his sleeve with the part of the note going from "You will withdraw.." to "in a brown paper bag" than you seem to do. There must have been a reason for every word there. The point about it only being his bonus seems very plausible, but not enough for me. What does that by itself do for him in the commission of the crime? There was a reason for two amounts. There was a reason for the attache and the bag, I am sure. Given the note, I suspect beheading or dismemberment, but would like to think of something else.


      I am not saying the Lindbergh connection is based on the fact that both are pilots. I am saying some have drawn parallels with the MO, thinking Lindbergh murdered his kid with a blow to the head and controlled the scene, etc. If this is true, that would not point at Patsy or Burke.

      Also Doc, I am curious if you can come up with a better meaning of "SBTC" than "signed by the captain". It's naval/racing, it's how the note is signed, it's written by the "captain" of the "foreign faction" who has two underlings "watching over your daughter". Seems far more plausible than "saved by the cross", say.

      Delete
    5. I think you are letting your imagination run away with you. As I said, I think the $118,000 had a symbolic meaning.

      And the closest I've ever seen to a sensible explanation for SBTC would be: Subic Bay Tailgate Club. As I understand it, such a club may have existed. Whether John was ever a part of it I don't know.

      Delete
    6. I accept that as a possibility. It just seems very odd to me considering how you believe he is getting rid of a body on pretext of delivering a ransom, that you see nothing more in the two amounts (1,000 $100s and 900 $20s) and the adequate size attache and brown paper bag. In my humble opinion, nothing about how he is helped in this. What John wants it to suggest for Patsy or a reader, sure, but not what John is doing with that. There is no way 118 is more convincing than 100. Rather, it sticks out. That is the weak point for in your scenario for me, and I am convinced you have the culprit.

      The rest is very plausible. Yes, it was only his bonus; and, yes, perhaps it made it look like this was personal and some kind of business dispute. Not enough for me. Why not just say 100? Is an 18% difference worth it? All that does by itself is draw suspicion to John. It is only natural to think of 118 as 100 and 18. Why did he feel he needed two amounts? The three sentences after the $118,000 one must for somehow deal with what John had in mind. I feel like we act as if those four sentences are just the first one. It will take a lot to budge me from that position.

      My best attempt at reconciling it all which I am not so dogmatic about is that the foreign faction was supposed to leave a beheaded jonbenet in the suitcase which was the deviation from the instructions. I don't really have a role for the bag except possibly her head, though I am convinced it had one.

      The Lindbergh Case is something I know little about, asking in hopes the esteemed Doc knew if there was anything there. If John was a copycat of that it casts a solemn shadow on the planes all over Burke's room.

      Also quite willing to accept SBTC was nonsense, but find "signed by the captain" orders of magnitude better than the other ideas, even the subic bay tailgate club (whatever the hell that was!)

      Delete
  28. Maybe those meds you mentioned earlier caused her to become confused and include Linda in the story of cleaning up the glass. ;) Once PR said it once, she knew she'd have to repeat it each time she was questioned after that. Don't see JR being confident that he could gaslight PR. Hell, he couldn't even stop her from calling 911! Thanks, Doc, for allowing me to play devil's advocate. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think he would have been confident at all. A better word would be: desperate. He couldn't let Patsy talk to the police right off the bat, because he knew she wouldn't corroborate his story -- which explains the months of delay before agreeing to be questioned. That gave him time to work on her and implant that memory. It might not have worked, and could easily have backfired. But obviously it did work, and her story helped to save his butt.

      And no, I see no reason to think she somehow got confused and included Linda in her lie for no reason. If they were in it together, there would have been plenty of time to rehearse her testimony and make sure it didn't contain any holes.

      Delete
  29. There are a great many possibilities about that window and 1 of them could be this - John really did break the window long before as he said he did. Finding himself in the situation where either he or 1 of his family members were in very deep water, he then considers it to stage a break-in as proof of an intruder. After realizing that some aspect of the window staging would not work, he then decided to "take back" the staging. Patsy does the exact same thing with the boot, the bear, the window, the heart and the 911 call as John did with the window. Following along that line of thinking, then that must mean John has to be innocent as well because surely he would not lie and change his story when he knew he would be caught. "You have to look at why someone would lie." The boot and the bear were both declared by Patsy as proof of an intruder, I think that her motive would be obvious in this situation exactly the same as John about the window. Surely her declaring these to be from an intruder would have jogged her memory, that is, if it were even possible that she had forgot. You seem to want to use Patsy being caught in lies as proof that she was not lying ? Surely it is possible. however it is not likely. If you believe that Patsy has no clue and false memories of every important piece of evidence in her daughter's killing then you have to also believe Patsy Ramsey was a complete space cadet of extremely low common sense and intelligence. That is what you are implying. She had to know that John disappeared that morning. If she did not know John disappeared that morning then surely she found out later as we all did. At that point she would have been forced to put 2+2 together and at that point there would be no way she would wver sleep in the same bed with John again. . Linda K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Patsy does the exact same thing with the boot, the bear, the window, the heart and the 911 call as John did with the window. Following along that line of thinking, then that must mean John has to be innocent as well because surely he would not lie and change his story when he knew he would be caught."

      No, you can't compare Patsy's supposed "lies" with John's lies about the window. If Patsy knew the truth about the santa bear and the hi-tec boots, she would have had nothing to gain by lying about them. The presence of a santa bear and hi-tec boots in the house is certainly not evidence that could be used against her, so there would have been no need to lie. These items could never be used as intruder evidence because the testimony of a chief suspect would mean little to nothing in a court of law.

      On the other hand, if John had not fabricated his window story, the staging at the basement window would have been obvious and he'd have been arrested that day. BIG difference.

      Delete
  30. Fascinating site! I agree with Doc although there is much circumstantial evidence against PR, some could possibly be red herrings. Her biggest lie though is probably the 1 that lost her the friendship of Barbara Fernie. Patsy told a tabloid back that the intruders may have come through a broken door in the back of the house. Barbara Fernie had pointed out that same broken door to Patsy BEFORE the murder. I think that Mrs. Fernie believes Patsy to be guilty and ended the friendship because of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've covered the broken door myth pretty thoroughly in an earlier series of comments on this blog. Use the search mechanism to find it. There's a lot of misleading information out there, so please check to get the full story.

      Delete
  31. I had read that article about the back door long ago, however I also read this about why their friendship ended. <<>>

    ReplyDelete
  32. Even Barbara Fernie, according to friends, began to have doubts. For months, she and Patsy had been inseparable - shopping, lunching, chatting on the phone. By early spring, Fernie began telling people, "I am the one grieving. Something is wrong with Patsy." Soon, friends say, Barbara was dropped from the Ramsey inner circle, though her husband, John, has continued his relationship with Ramsey, as have many other business associates .

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Doc, I am one of the newcomers to your site. I got a yearning to reread PMPT a few weeks ago and since segued here.
    I admire the logic of your theory. My question to you and others concerns the 911 call - if John hadn't planned for this and Patsy did so anyway, would it then make sense for John to prompt Patsy to call others, ie the Whites and Ferries? More people, more movement, more contamination of the crime scene.
    In PMPT Patsy is identified as the person calling their friends. Is there any evidence that this was John's idea in either original interviews or over the following years?
    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's occurred to me that calling in friends could have been John's idea. He would have needed people to witness the contents of his note if, as I suspect, he was intending to destroy it before it could get into the hands of the police. And he would have need someone to take Patsy and Burke out of the house "for their own safety." On the other hand, Patsy might have felt vulnerable and wanted her friends with her at that time.

      Delete
    2. It was PR idea to call friends according to her depo and prior transcripts. It makes no logical sense at all why she would do that after reading the RN. None at all.

      Delete
    3. Look. If Patsy and John were in this together, then they'd have been able to set up the "crime scene" to look exactly as they wanted it to look. No need to call in friends to "contaminate" anything. And if John was an innocent bystander, then, by your logic, he wouldn't have let her make those calls.

      Delete
    4. I'm confused by your 8:27 post. I thought the police got there before their friends did. How could he show the ransom note to the friends before the police got there. I must be reading something wrong. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    5. Sorry, I should have made myself clear. The possibility I'm considering would be John putting the idea into Patsy's head from the start -- with the assumption that she'd call their friends instead of calling the cops. So when she called 911 anyhow that idea could still have been in her head, which could explain why she called them after calling the police.

      This is admittedly extremely speculative and I won't try very hard to defend it. It's just a thought.

      Delete
    6. Which is my point about the link between the 911 call and the friends. If JR wanted the house to himself /no police called, then PR's premature 911 call would have been contrary to his plans. I can then see him (according to your logic) prompting Patsy to call the Whites, Fernies to have others in the home, as to have the potential to confuse the crime scene. If JR wrote the note to stop outsiders from being involved (If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies), then the idea to call friends must have been on the fly. So is there evidence that John, not Patsy, initiated the contacts with friends?
      -Sisu

      Delete
    7. You make an interesting point. But all we know about those calls is what the Ramseys have testified to. And according to Patsy it was her idea. Which does not mean it couldn't have been John's.

      Delete
  34. Has anybody been reading Jim Clemente's twitter feed lately? Keeps saying "the world will finally know." I cant wait for this documentary. I really think it might expose JR

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a chance. He's either identified "the intruder" or else he thinks he can prove Patsy did it. John has been off the radar for a long time.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Doc. The way I see it is this, had the case been solved and any living person been found responsible or culpable in any way, then I would assume we would have seen an inditement handed out right and arrest made right ? I find it very hard to believe that any investigator would overlook anyone in that house at this point but I guess anything in this case is possible. Which is why I think that if we could get someone on those shows to tale a look at Doc's blog and theory maybe it spark something in their brain.

      Delete
    3. See my post "Media Madness." I was in fact approached by a producer, but her superior cancelled the interview, supposedly because I was "only a blogger" and not a professional law enforcement or forensic specialist. It's possible also that they were afraid of a lawsuit, but that's not the reason I was given.

      Delete
  35. Radio interview with Fleet and Priscilla White from 2014 for anyone who is interested. http://www.710knus.com/peterboyles/index.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try this... http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10340-Peter-Boyles-interviews-Alan-Prendergast-and-Fleet-and-Priscilla-White
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. OK, thanks, I found it. After spotting through both videos, I must say I was disappointed. The Whites actually had very little to say. Boyles seemed to be taking the opportunity to sound off on his own take on this case, which he of course had been doing for years, so nothing new there. Prendergast also had nothing new to say. And the Whites seem most preoccupied with Nancy Krebs and the bizarre story she came up with. I can understand Fleet's feelings about that, especially since he's never been able to see the full transcript of her interviews. But the one question Boyles should have asked but did not (as far as I was able to tell - I did not listen to every word), was "who do you think killed JOnBenet? Who do you think wrote the note?"

      Everything about White's involvement with the investigation I find extremely frustrating. He gives the impression he knows more or less what happened, but he's never been willing to come out and say it.

      Delete
  36. Has anyone read "Perfect Town, Perfect Murder"? I enjoyed Thomas's and Kolar's book, but am hoping this book in question doesn't perpetuate intruder theory nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," and no it doesn't promote any particular theory of the crime. The author (the late Lawrence Schiller) attempted to be as objective as possible, though I got the sense he suspected "the Ramseys." I highly recommend the book as it contains lots of information and is reasonably even handed.

      Delete
  37. I've been following this case on and off for years. I find myself agreeing your theory that it was probably John who killed JB. It makes the most sense to me, less hoops need to be jumped through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Always nice to hear from people who agree.

      Delete
  38. What is the biggest question everyone, that Dr. Phil should ask Burke ? I think the very first question should be to ask Burke if the basement window was broken or not and go from there. I highly doubt this will happen unfortunately. I think this will be more of a friendly how did this or that make you feel type of interview.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The basement window has been off the radar for a long time, so I doubt he'll be asked about that. And if he is asked I feel sure he'll support John's story.

      What I'd ask him is if he heard or saw anything unusual that night. And I'd also ask him why he's remained silent for so long and why he refused to meet with the police last time they asked.

      Delete
  39. I have always thought Burke was the one who killed JB and believe the family covered up the killing - hence why neither has really ever came forth to proclaim one another's innocence because they all had a hand in it IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. If John and Patsy were collaborating on a coverup the 911 call would not have happened. And if Burke killed his sister, both parents would have known about it -- and again, the call would not have been made prior to getting the body out of the house.

      Delete
    2. Not if PR was brought in on it AFTER the 911 call.
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    3. Doc, I'm curious as to why you think if BR killed his sister, both parents would have had to know about it. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    4. Because there'd have been no reason for one to keep it a secret from the other.

      Delete
    5. If JR was going to stage a kidnapping to cover for the actions of both he and his son (BR hitting her over the head and JR finishing her off), wouldn't he want to keep PR in the dark about it? That went out the window when PR called 911. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    6. I just had an epiphany about what PR and JR were arguing about and/or in disagreement about that morning ! 1 of them wanted to get rid of the body while 1 of them did not want to get rid of the body. Patsy may well have been the 1 who wanted to dump it while John may not have, or it could have been vise versa. That IS why we have conflicting stories of who wanted 911 called. They never agreed on this This answers a great many many things, Like why they were so obviously distant from each other yet neither suspected the other 1....etc etc Linda K

      Delete
  40. I would suspect that all questions Dr. Phil intends to ask have been run by Lin Wood first. Let's not forget that JR is still alive and if he thought Burke might say something that would in any way incriminate him or cast suspicion on him, he would want his attorney to review the questions ahead of time. I'm sure Dr. Phil would oblige since Lin Wood is also his attorney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, exactly. I'd be stunned if anything meaningful emerged from that interview.

      Delete
    2. DocG - Why wouldn't the 911 call have happened? If anything the 911 call would make it look more realistic based on whatever planned the family devised as the cover up. Also, I believe the parents knew he killed JB and they were the ones who plotted to make it look like a ransom in order to protect their son. I think Burke hit her on the head and then assuming she was dead, John Ramsey went back 2 hours later and strangled her to kill her off. Interested to hear anyone else's opinion on this topic as well if you have something to contribute!

      Delete
    3. No, the 911 call would not have made it more realistic. Not with the victim's body still in the house. A ransom note plus body equals deception. The police and everyone else figured that out very quickly.

      Delete
  41. Reply button isn't working for some reason, so I'll respond here:

    "Not if PR was brought in on it AFTER the 911 call."

    Excuse me. If you're assuming John wrote the ransom note but kept it secret from Patsy, why would he tell her the truth only AFTER she had blown his plan? Wouldn't he tell her beforehand, so she wouldn't call?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think he was planning to tell her at all, but once the 911 call was made, he thought it would be easier to fill her in on what had happened than try to control things she might say in the future that would contradict his plan. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. Or, what if PR was aware of what happened but couldn't go through with the staged kidnapping at the last minute and called 911 because she couldn't bear the thought of her daughter's body being left out somewhere in the cold. Just a thought. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  42. Has it ever been discussed that PR didn't actual read the whole note (before calling 911) but just the first few sentences? The way this software works it is easy to miss a post if you are not constantly backtracking. The first few sentences and verification that JBR was indeed missing could be enough to set PR in motion to call 911 and friends.

    The RN, for me, makes it clear that it was not:
    Burke.
    Patsy, accidently, in a rage over something.
    John in sudden desperation with JBR getting hysterical when he once again tried to molest her.

    That 'awesomely incredible' RN, IMO, could not have been composed and written on the spot in the midst of a very tragic and personal crisis.

    IMO, murder premeditated. The note conceived and composed with much thought (and maybe some research). And actually written prior to the murder (maybe even days before). And we know who that leaves and I am not talking about an intruder.

    Does anyone know what John was wearing to the party on Christmas day? I can't find any pictures

    ReplyDelete
  43. It was supposedly an Israeli made sweater. I cant remember what color though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was blackish blue. The sweater fibers were found in JonBenet's panties. Suspicious.

      Delete
  44. I have to disagree about how long and that the ransom note couldnt have been written at the time. The note is an unorganized, rambling mess of someone trying to make it convincing, complete with movie quotes probably previously memorized by the author. Anyone with a speck of common sense who had days to reread it and see how long and rambling it was would have redone it and made it shorter and more to the point. Also considering it was a Ramsey they would not have put quotes in it pointing to themselves if they had all that time to prepare it. Unless you believe that the note was meant to point at another family member purposely.

    ReplyDelete
  45. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3765239/I-know-people-think-did-Brother-JonBenet-Ramsey-gives-interview-Dr-Phil-20th-anniversary-beauty-queen-s-death-addresses-speculation-murderer.html Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  46. Here's another article... http://rense.com/general11/benet.htm
    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry. That was an old one. Never mind. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  48. The DailyMail article seems to point out two things to me: Burke is revealing his mother was looking frantically for JB while it was still dark outside (he calls it "night"), saying "where's my baby, where's my baby", which is definitely a Patsyism. Couple that with her having made the 911 call with JB's body in the house, it really revs up the probability that she had no clue at that point what had happened to JB.

    It also looks to me like JR is making it clear that he will give no further interviews about his daughter's death after his appearance on Dr. Phil. IMO, he stands too great a chance to say something down the line that might conflict with something that is disclosed in the upcoming specials, and has been advised to clam up by his legal team.

    He also has a new aviation Adventure company to run, having relocated himself and his "fashion designer" wife to Utah. Way too busy to keep trying to find the "real murderer" of his daughter. Makes me want to tear my hair out. MWMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the same thing about the "night" comment. I'm assuming, since it was winter, that it was still dark when JR and PR awoke. But why did they lie and say BR never woke up? Can't wait to see what, if anything, is revealed in BR's interview. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. From Fox News Entertainment, quoting Dr. Phil...
      “I think people are going to be very interested. His personality is very unique. I think they are going to find him compelling. It’s going to be very difficult to look away from.”
      Wonder what Dr. Phil means by BR's personality being "very unique."

      Delete
    3. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    4. I have heard the 911 call cleaned up and it is very clear that Burke is up, awake and right next to PR when that 911 call was made. If it is not Burke then another unidentified young male was in the house. If we assume that it is Burke, then what we learn is that Burke at 9 yrs old is a very good liar and also that JR and PR have also lied about his whereabouts that morning.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I have heard that claim, but no one seems to recall exactly where and when that "enhanced" version of the call was played. I'm hoping that one of the upcoming shows will finally make it widely available for study. None of the versions I've heard demonstrate much other than cross talk after Patsy's hangup. So I'm really eager to hear how it sounds when "cleaned up."

      Delete
  49. Sorry, I hope this isn't too convoluted.

    Patsy is too snappy and indignant during interviews for her to be without knowledge of anything. I know women like that and they are trying to protect their family and hope their aggressive behavior fends off criticism.

    She knew...and helped keep it a secret. What is unclear is when she became involved. Was it from the getgo? Was she the one who accidentally killed JBR and helped cover it up? Did BR accidentally kill his sister and JR helped stage the murder scene only filling in PR at a later time?

    The ransom note reeks of PR. PR could have written it and STILL became frantic as to when involve the police. Maybe she and JR argued over when to call the police. Maybe they had another plan and it fell through and ended up calling the police instead, maybe JR didn't want to call the police but PR felt they must and did so against JR's wishes, or maybe PR wasn't involved at this point and she called the police once the note was found.

    The behavior of PR and JR once the detectives and police arrive was noted. They had little interaction with each other and this would lead me to suspect that they either argued before the police arrived (maybe over the fact that PR wanted to call the police and JR didn't want to?), and they were handling the circumstance individually. Interestingly, they were not faking care and concern for each other but were very separated. Maybe that was because JR still had work to do regarding the "crime scene"? It seems like PR just threw in the towel upon calling the police and JR was still in motion as far as planning and plotting up until the very end when he brought JBR's body upstairs. Remember the detective noted that PR broke down and started crying when JR brought their daughter's body upstairs? Wouldn't a mother be hysterical and frantic that her child was in the home the whole time? Wouldn't they be freaked out that the murderers could still be hiding in the house? After all, they were waiting for a phone call about the ransom from the "kidnappers" that never arrived (duly noted by the detectives that the Ramseys never broke down or spoke to the fact that the scheduled phone call from the kidnappers never occurred).

    ReplyDelete
  50. Continued from 8.30.16 @ 1:53pm

    The parent should have had hope that their daughter could potentially be brought back to them. Did they seem like parents who were willing to work with the "kidnappers" and do whatever it takes to get their daughter back? Nope. Their plan was not as foolproof as others think. They called their friends and the police when the ransom note told them not to. They put their daughter's life in jeopardy. I could see them calling the police AFTER the ransom call didn't arrive, but they didn't do that. Their behaviors were beyond suspect. Detective Arndt noted all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they call "their friends and the police when the ransom note told them not to"? You've forgotten one essential thing: you are claiming they WROTE the ransom note. So we can turn your question around, thus: Why would they include all those dire threats in their ransom note if their intention was to call the police first thing in the morning?

      Delete
    2. We don't know their intention. I never claimed to know their intention. John and Patsy could have had MANY scenarios on how to deal with handling the "crime scene". It could have been one parent who decided to handle it one way then when the other became informed, the scenario changed. I'm sure their minds were frantic that night/early morning and they didn't know which fabrication would work best. Which would be the most believable. Which would make them (the parents) look the least suspect.

      It is why there ended up being a ransom note, no ransom caller, and a body found in the home....which the FBI/detectives have stated is so low in probability of actually happening that it made the family suspect.

      Delete
  51. I totally agree with anonymous above. Aside from her obvious odd behavior, she has been caught lying to law enforcement 3 or 4 times. Unless you are gullible enough to believe PR got amnesia many times regarding key evidence. Her fibers are all over that crime scene. Also, if you pay attention to the wording and are not fooled by how desperate and terrified PR seems to be in the 911 call you will see plenty of distancing and alibi setting in it, which is very consistent with others who have committed similar crimes and called 911.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Is it possible that the parital dna could of came from a wash rag that she could be be wiped clean with ? Did any one ever report seeing jr at the airport? Any witnesses ? Any camera footage that he might of been at the airport?

    ReplyDelete
  53. You have all been duped, including you Doc. Burke Ramsey wrote the ransom note. The only question is whether or not it was dictated to him. I have read a few posts where some of you caught the Rainbow Fish Player handwriting match to the RN. That is Burkes writing everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you noticed an interesting feature of the "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar. Good!

      It looks like it was written by a different hand than all the others. It occurred to me some time ago that Burke could have written it. But we don't have any examples of Burke's hand to compare it to. What makes this discrepancy especially interesting to me is the fact that NONE of Darnay Hoffman's "experts" noticed the difference. That exemplar was treated just like all the others, and yes, some letters from it were included in the list of dubious "matches" between Patsy's hand and the note. This in itself gives you an idea of how professional (NOT) these people are.

      As far as it matching the ransom note, sorry but I don't see the slightest similarity between Rainbow Fish Players and the note. The "matches" found in it were, like all the other matches, due to cherry picking. In fact this is a perfect example of how misleading such matches can be.

      Delete
  54. "My best attempt at reconciling it all which I am not so dogmatic about is that the foreign faction was supposed to leave a beheaded jonbenet in the suitcase which was the deviation from the instructions. I don't really have a role for the bag except possibly her head, though I am convinced it had one."

    In the movie, "Ransom" the FBI wanted to put the ransom money in a "Samsonite" case which contained a tracking device. The kidnappers in the film requested that the money be transferred to a brown paper bag. This was to ensure that law enforcement would not be able to track their whereabouts. The mastermind in charge of the kidnapping was a cop. Clearly, whoever wrote the Ramsey ransom note had recently viewed that film (which was playing in theaters). As I have maintained, the crime could only have been committed by one or more members of the BPD. Every other theory has too many holes to overcome. - WF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am going to play along with the scenario above -for humors sake. So then why did these kidnapping cops leave the body in the basement ? Also I would like to know if they cooked and ate a meal at the Ramsey house or did they just serve pineapple ?

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply WF. That has the "countermeasures and tactics" part make a lot more sense, and without having seen the movie it does sound like a source for the note, along with Dirty Harry and some other films. However, if it comes from a film, then why in Heaven's sake do you think the perpetrator needed inside knowledge?! All they needed was a VCR or a movie ticket.

      Doc has me convinced very much so that John did it; I would urge you to read more of this blog if you have not. I stress the only part of his theory with any holes for a defense is contained in this: "$100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag."

      That is, I don't think he has an adequate explanation of what this section is doing for John. It's doing something for him and him alone though, he and I seem both convinced. He and you both give thorough pictures of what it meant were it not a deception. Of what John wants a reader to assume, yes. Of John's behavior given the reader's assumptions, no. Doc has an in my opinion incomplete picture of the body's disposal and role of certain facts (e. g. the quoted part of the note, the suitcase, the garrote, the 'exhaustion'), of which I feel confident go together for somehow. He has a damn near perfect theory of the crime and its aftermath. His only possible improvement is what John said and did to lure Jonbenet aside from pineapple, but we can expect that to be a mystery.

      Delete
  55. Here is a software program that identifies user's writings at 80%. Patsy Ramsey's writing was put into this software to see if it would match. I have never heard of this before but it seems like a computer could do this better than a humanhttp://www.elastictruth.com/2016/07/unmasking-jonbenet-ransom-note-with_12.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very very interesting. The author (not named) claims to have used a newly invented, computerized system for identifying the writer of any document by analyzing its content. Not the handwriting, by the way, but the content. And apparently, presto chango, Patsy's wording came out as a 75% match!

      The software used interests me very much and I definitely want to look into it. I have several questions right off the bat, however, and I'm sure I'll have more as I learn more about the method(s) used.

      1. First of all, just on the face of it, I see no similarities whatever between Patsy's verbal style and that of the note. Here, for example, is how the note begins:

      "Mr. Ramsey,
      Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We do respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

      You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery." Etc.

      Now we've all read samples of Patsy's writing and observed her verbal style in many interviews and other public appearances, and I'm sorry but I see nothing whatever in the note that remotely resembles the way she writes or speaks. So right off the bat I have to question this result, regardless of how "scientific" it purports to be.

      (continued in next comment)

      Delete
    2. 2. There is, in scientific research, such a thing as a double-blind controlled experiment, wherein every aspect of the experiment is done by assistants with no knowledge of what the goal of the experiment might be. There is a good reason for this, because there have been many experiments, even controlled experiments (such as this purports to be) in which the results conveniently bear out the hypothesis of the experimenter, although in many cases such experiments could never be replicated by independent researchers. In this case, the possibilities for confirmation bias are great, since the person operating the software may have unconsciously (or consciously) pre-selected samples of Patsy's verbalizations that seem to match better than others. One could indeed run the same program over and over with different samples, until you got the desired result.

      3. As should be well known by now, the phrase "and hence" comes from a Xmas message authored jointly by both Patsy and John. And it so happens that John has used this phrase at least once, in an interview (see my post, "Johnisms"). In all the many public statements by Patsy we see no example of this phrase, and if we were to hear it coming out of her mouth it would sound wrong, because it's a formal expression totally uncharacteristic of her breezy and informal style. If that Xmas message was used to produce the 75% similarity then we have to ask ourselves how much of it was John rather than Patsy. In my post "Johnisms" a list a great many examples of wordings and phrasings found both in his public statements and the note. But apparently the software used in this "experiment" missed all that and focused on Patsy, who rarely ever used any phrase from the note.

      This doesn't mean Patsy could not have written the note, because it was intentionally deceptive. But I must wonder at the sophistication of a mechanical process capable of seeing beyond the obvious differences.

      Nonetheless, "stylistic analysis," as it's been called, is an exciting development with great promise, and has, apparently, had many successes. I'm not sure whether any of its results have ever been independently verified, and I haven't been able to find any scientific papers reporting on any tests of its effectiveness.

      As far as Patsy and the note are concerned, however, I am extremely skeptical, as I see little in the note that resembles anything she's every written or spoken. Statistics can be a very useful tool, but it is not a magic wand. Before we pull Patsy out of a hat like a little white rabbit, I'd like to know more about the process leading to such a surprising result.

      Delete
    3. Let me add that I find the possibilities of stylistic analysis extremely interesting and will probably be spending a good deal of time both researching it, and doing some testing of my own.

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

      Delete
    5. A minor note Doc, but on "We respect your business but not the country that it serves" you see the correction being a scratch out of "do", though underneath the scribbling it appears pretty clearly to me to be "don". So either it was indeed "we don't respect...ok they respect my business but not the country" or "we do..I don't like do...I'll add an N so they thought it wasn't dont" Do you see the N as well or am I hallucinating?

      Delete
    6. I've been spending some time looking into the "jstylo" software employed by the author of this web page, UNMASKING THE JONBENET RANSOM NOTE WITH LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS (http://www.elastictruth.com/2016/07/unmasking-jonbenet-ransom-note-with_12.html?m=1), who's identified himself as Tom Berger, and at this point I must say I'm really frustrated.

      From what I've read, recent developments in "stylistics" have made it possible to identify the author of just about any document, based on comparisons with known texts, filtered through sophisticated computer programs capable, so we are told, of identifying certain stylistic traits, based for example on grammatical usage, the sort of thing we do unconsciously, even when trying to be deceptive. And on the basis of this software, Mr. Berger claims to have identified Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note.

      I was hoping to see if I could replicate Berger's results either via an online interface of some sort or by downloading the software and running it on my computer. Unfortunately, the software in question can run, at present, only via a program called "R," which is basically a statistical programming language I have no idea how to use, nor any desire to learn how to use.

      Another problem is that this software can be configured in a variety of different ways, which would give someone the opportunity to keep experimenting with different configurations until one got the desired result, increasing the likelihood of confirmation bias.

      Additionally, there is a potentially built-in bias that could be produced by carefully selecting certain texts as input, based on similarities with the questioned text, again in order to get a desired result. So at present I must say I remain skeptical of Mr. Berger's claim.

      It seems to me that this software could easily be boiled down to something very straightforward, where one could paste in various texts and have the program compare them automatically, a bit like the way this (relatively crude) program works:
      http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~schlerj/style/SubmitText.html

      But so far I haven't been able to find anything like that online. (By the way, the program linked to above identifies the Ramsey ransom note as written by a male.)

      I must say I do believe the advances claimed by this program (and others like it) could be of great importance in forensic text analysis, and I am eager to learn more about it. Admittedly, I don't have the technical expertise to deal with the complexities of running such a program as it exists today, but I'm not ready to give up yet. And I'm hoping a more straightforward interface will be developed soon.

      I'm also wondering whether law enforcement officials, as well as members of the legal profession, are aware of this software and what they think.


      Delete
  56. I just had an epiphany about what PR and JR were arguing about and/or in disagreement about that morning ! 1 of them wanted to get rid of the body while 1 of them did not want to get rid of the body. Patsy may well have been the 1 who wanted to dump it while John may not have, or it could have been vise versa. That IS why we have conflicting stories of who wanted 911 called. They never agreed on this This answers a great many many things, Like why they were so obviously distant from each other yet neither suspected the other 1....etc etc. Linda K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they decided not to get rid of the body, then I can't imagine why they'd want to keep it hidden away in that remote room. Nor would there any longer be any reason for a patently phony ransom note, which could be used as evidence against them.

      Delete
    2. Construed charitably Linda, Patsy in denial of what she secretly knows to be true seems quite possible. The 911 call, the look through the fingers, etc. One could imagine her calling 911 for fear of what John is going to do to the body. In that respect, she could call the cops while the body was still in the house. But in the sense that Patsy and John were both guilty and were bickering over strategy and Patsy decided the best strategy was to call the cops? No way. If they were working together they'd probably have called nobody and later said they did.

      Delete
  57. They didnt decide not to get rid of the body. 1 of the 2 of them decided not to get rid of the body. My guess would be PR did not want to get rid of the body while JR thought it best to get rid of the body. This would exlain a great many things. Like why the house was not searched, why people were called and the note ignored, why PR and JR were so distant and their behavior so odd yet neither 1 ever comes forward on the other and they stay married for another 10 years. Linda K

    ReplyDelete
  58. It makes sense as well as to why NEITHER of them cared that the RN deadline for their daughter had passed without mention. They were in collateral damage mode the whole time. One of them was in disagreement with the other on choices made(what to do with the body and possibly if to call 911 at that point) but the other had not much choice to go along with it. Also the reason you hear JR so agitated when PR called 911, not because JBs death was a secret but because they were in disagreement over what to do with the body and over calling 911. PR was in denial thinking an ambulance could fix whatever it is that had happened. Now it all makes sense. Linda K.

    ReplyDelete
  59. In fact, it does not now "all make[s] sense". Taking your recommendation, I've done a little research of my own, and statistics do not bear out your claims. Princeton-Brookings, for example, published a recent journal article saying only 50% of reported child sexual abuse involves penile penetration, emphasis on "reported", as many, if not most, cases go unreported. Your initial premise is faulty, and the reasoning flowing from it flawed as well.

    Patsy Ramsey called JBR's pediatrician three times between 5:00 and 6:00 PM on 12/17/96, eight days before her murder. The child had suffered vaginal infections for weeks or months, and it seems likely that a pelvic exam was in that child's future after the holidays. The well-documented prior abuse would be discovered, and John exposed. Is it your contention that Patsy would have lied for and supported her murdered daughter's abuser, and conspired with him to conceal his crime?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ill find some better stats for you and your claim that adult males run around "only" sticking their fingers in little girls. Of which I know better. Secondly, your report of JB,s vaginal infections for weeks or months differs completely from what I have read many times over. She surely visited her pediatrician over 30 times in 2 years but 29 of the times were for other issues. Feel free to post your source on these weeks and months of vaginal infections.

      Delete
    2. "Patsy complained that JonBenét had frequent infections that were hard to clear up because her underpants were always wet."

      Schiller, Lawrence. Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (p. 123). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

      Delete
  60. I made no such claim; I merely refuted your statistics with some from a very prestigious, well-respected institute's 2016 study.

    I posted my sources here last year. You need to do some more reading, both within and without this blog.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not need to do anymore reading as I have worked with survivors of physical and sexual abuse for over 9 years. I said penile pentration is always the intention when adult males molest young female children. Secondly I do not know what you are now claiming that you did not claim, as you posted the following fallacy "The child had suffered vaginal infections for weeks or months, and it seems likely that a pelvic exam was in that child's future after the holidays." YOU apparently need to do more reading and paying attention to what YOU are dreaming and typing. The exact opposite was reported by Dr. Beuf, so it seems you are just making things up out of thin air. Feel free to site a link or reference of any sort even close to this fantasy. Were they going to fly Dr Beuf to Charlevoix for a pediatric exam ? ;)

      Delete
    2. What you actually said was that simple digital penetration was rare, and penile penetration the norm. Clearly this is not borne out by even the most cursory research.

      I did not claim that ". . . adult males 'only' run around sticking their fingers in little girls".

      The pediatrician never performed an internal exam and so would have had no knowledge of the abuse and so nothing to report. I'm suggesting the appointment and resultant pelvic would have taken place in Boulder, with JBR's regular pediatrician, after the holidays.

      I posted links and references late last year, and am disinclined to do so again for someone who cannot be bothered to read this entire blog or do her own independent reading and research.

      I'm sorry, but your anecdotal "statistics" are worthless. I'm sure the work you do is very important, but citations of sources and references is coin of the realm here. You promised Doc references and statistics on 8/29, and offered them to me again this morning. Bring 'em on.
      CC

      Delete
    3. I will do so and you can post your refernce to JB having vaginal infections for weeks or months. The report to that ( if I am not mistaken was (3 vaginal infections in 2 years). All ofnthe other visits to the pediatrician were for other reasons but feel free to post your reference to this made up nonsense.

      Delete
    4. Doc was kind enough to post one reference for me above, at 11:47. Your turn.
      CC

      Delete
  61. ****** UMMMMMMM, is this a big detail BR says to Dr. Phil or did he misspeak?

    "I remember my mom searching my room that night saying, 'Where's my baby? Where's my baby?'"

    THAT NIGHT? If PR doesnt see the note until the morning, is BR just misspeaking thinking it was still night OR did PR come into his room much earlier than the 911 call?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  62. It was before dawn and still dark and the kid said night and not a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Although I am a believer in Doc's theory, I tried to play out in my mind a scenario based on the theory that John clued in Patsy after she placed the 911 call, in spite of him not expecting her to react to the note this way:

    He only had about 10 minutes between the time of the call and the arrival of Officer French. I don't think he would have told her JBR was dead or she would have been beyond hysterical. Could he have told her that something bad happened and he was trying to mitigate it, and to just trust her and take his lead? Could that explain why she stayed away from him that morning, frantically waiting and watching for his next move? Could it explain her obvious grief when JBR was brought upstairs and pronounced dead, because she didn't know until that point that her daughter was actually dead, she just knew something bad had happened? Well, I suppose it could.

    But...if she now knew that John was involved in something going on in that house prior to her finding the note, then she had to have concluded that he wrote the note and he knew what happened. Could he have tried to blame Burke? Maybe, but then neither of them would have let Burke out of their sight that day. Could he have told her that he was involved in an accident with JBR and felt the need to cover it up? Possibly, but she would have thought this to be a very extreme and foolish way to cover up an accident, and once the information about molestation was revealed, I think she (and just about any mother), would have gone ballistic on him.

    Regardless of what Patsy did or did not figure out, she either was gaslit or she landed on the truth and decided that for the security of her family she would keep her mouth shut. I think either are possible, but choose the former because I see Patsy as someone who would have divorced John, taken Burke, and moved home to Atlanta to get away from JR.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't think Burke's interview is going to do anything but plead the entire family's innocence, including John. If he was going to incriminate John, I doubt he would have kept it to himself to announce on Dr. Phil; he would have gone through police, and the news would break that John was being investigated again or arrested.

    All this Michael Helgoth stuff is getting on my nerves as is the false claim that the Ramseys have been completely exonerated. It does not make sense. It does not make sense that a rapist/murderer would stage a kidnapping. It does not make sense that a kidnapper wanting money would be so careless and so unable to control himself around Jonbenet that he would molest her and accidentally kill her while still in the house. It makes no sense at all that Jonbenet would sit around eating pineapple with some stranger in the middle of the night.

    It makes no sense that someone crawled in OR out of that tiny window without disturbing a cobweb. It makes no sense someone sat around in that home for hours committing rape, murder, writing a ransom, feeding his victim a snack, etc. without leaving anything but a tiny amount of trace DNA in the child's underwear.

    The intruder theory makes no sense no matter how you slice it. It had to be someone in the house. I find it impossible to believe a 9 year old could carry out a crime that brutal and calculated, or that parents would cover for it. And I can't believe Patsy would call 911 before kidnapping staging was complete. There's only one logical answer to this case, and Doc you presented it best.

    ReplyDelete
  65. With the evidence that we have we know that BR was up eating pineapple and drinking tea. Unless we come up with some other reason like JR planted BR's fingerprints on that bowl of pineapple and glass of tea while leaving his own fingerprints off of them than we learn this - Burke is a liar and there has to be a good reason why. Linda K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fingerprints don't come with a date stamp. Burke could have handled that bowl at any time. He might have poured his breakfast cereal into it for all we know.

      Delete
    2. I think it is safe to say that a clean and freshly washed bowl and glass were used thus giving an excuse for PR's fingerprints and hence leaving Burkes.Someone had to touch the bowl and glass, logically it has to be 1 or both of the fingerprints that are on it. Linda K

      Delete
  66. Why is it safe to say that? On 8-24 you accused DocG of making assumptions but its okay for you to make them?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I would call that a logical inference or maybe common sense. Are you claiming a dirty bowl and glass were used ? If you have another theory of any rationale whatsoever feel free to go ahead

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure I have. Patsy took them out of dushwasher and handed to Burke to put away

      Delete
    2. I said OF ANY RATIONALE. I will post links so that you can possibly learn what the difference is between an assumption, common sense and logical inferences since you seem to be lacking the skills to differentiate between them. https://e-gmat.com/blog/gmat-verbal/critical-reasoning/assumption-inference/inference-assumption-critical-reasoning

      Delete
  68. Score one for Anonymous 2:01 PM! Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  69. And a person who had no hands and thus no prints made it , sat down and was eating it ...very logical and likely. Maybe God did it...the immaculate bowl conception. Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Add basic forensics to your reading list: fingerprints are entirely contingent upon the amount of oil in one's hands at any given moment. Freshly washed hands, for example, may not leave prints, and some folks have little surface oil in their hands at all and leave barely discernible prints.
      CC

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. From now on the only thing that you and anonymous above should reply on this site is this, Yes, what Doc said. As that is all either of you do to begin with, other than piss many other ppl off. Remember, Yes, what Doc said. You can probably even preset it so that you can just hit 1 key and boom ! there it is like the brainless puppets that you both are.

      Delete
    4. Personal attacks are not welcome on this, or any, blog. I will delete any comment containing a personal attack or slur.

      Delete
    5. What about the "retard" comment above, posted at 6:27? Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  70. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My previous comment was meant for Anonymous 3:39 PM.
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. Sorry. I meant Anonymous @ 3:29. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  71. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  72. It was a joke, for cripes sake. You're not only lacking in tact, but you don't have a sense of humor, either. I thought this was a public forum. Perhaps, for us newcomers who don't know "the rules," you and CC should use an alternate form of communication.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  74. I can't tell one anonymous from the next. I'm still not sure who said I was rude, childish and that there was good reason my husband was codescending to me.;) I try to remember to add my moniker to my posts but don't always remember. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  75. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I appreciate that there is so much interest in the case, but at this point my head is spinning because all sorts of old issues are resurfacing and I just don't have the time or energy to explain the same things over and over again. If there's an issue that bothers you please do a search on it and read what's already been covered here on that topic.

    This blog is starting to resemble the internet forums I escaped from years ago, where any and every possible scenario, suspect and motive is heatedly debated ad infinitum and everyone is continually going 'round in circles. I refuse to waste more time with this sort of thing.

    And yes, I could be wrong. But no, I don't think so. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  77. My policy at this point is to delete any comment not germane to the Ramsey case. I don't have time to police this site continually so some offensive or irrelevant posts might get by me. Up to a point this sort of nonsense can be amusing. But at this point I'm tired of it, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  78. That's sure too bad, Doc. I enjoyed the short time I was participating in this blog. At least MOST of the time. ;) Do you have any recommendations for a blog that was set up recently, where newcomers can share their two cents worth? Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Newcomers are welcome here, but don't expect me to respond to every comment. Maybe others will be willing to discuss certain basic issues with you, but I'm worn out at this point.

      Delete
    2. I don't recall asking you for a response to each of my comments. And I thought that's what I was doing, discussing basic issues with other commentators. Holy crow... your rules are confusing! Minnesota Linda

      Delete