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

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

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

Thursday, September 8, 2016

A Minor Mystery Revealed?

[Point of interest. I was recently contacted by an author offering her e-book on the Ramsey case as a "free book giveaway" this week only. The book is called "Little Girl Blu: The JonBenet Inside Circle Theory"  and it can be downloaded from this website: https://www.amazon.com/Little-JonBenet-Inside-Circle-Theory-ebook/dp/B0149IE9M8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473648813&sr=8-1&keywords=sweetie+bee ]

[UPDATES: 

Burke will be interviewed by Dr. Phil at 3PM Monday on CBS. First of a series.

JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery, this Monday, SEPTEMBER 12-14 10/9C on Investigation/Discovery.

The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey, first episode, Sunday 8:30 p.m., CBS, Sept. 18, continues on Monday, Sept. 19 (9:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) and concludes Sunday, Sept. 25 (8:30-10:30 PM, ET/PT)]


Thanks to the A&E trailer (I don't have cable, so was unable to access the show itself), we have a brief but tantalizing glimpse of John (I'm assuming it's John) writing on a lined notepad, which (finally) gives us a chance to see some examples of his "official" writing style -- assuming that's what we see in that shot. The use of "artfully" superimposed images makes things a bit challenging, but I was able to do a couple screen captures that might prove helpful.

Before getting to this new stuff, however, I'd like to share an older, more easily authenticated exemplar found online not too long ago by a contributor to this blog: a brief thank you note addressed, apparently, to Mike and Pam Archuleta. It suddenly materialized on an internet forum, where it was attributed to Patsy by people who tend to attribute everything to Patsy, and then wonder why her handwriting changes so much.


My blog informant thought it was probably penned by John and I agree. Why do I feel sure John wrote it? Compare the signature with the one we see below, on the left:


Note the loopy captial "J," the loopy "h" and the loopy capital "R" just above, and compare with the similarly loopy J's and h's in the signature on the note, plus the loopy "P," so much like the loopy "R" in John's signature. There's a lot of loopiness in the note generally, as in both signatures, and the resemblance is striking. One more very interesting similarity: both the note and the signatures are characterized by back slant. Hmmmm. 

Now let's have a look at one of my screen captures from the A&E trailer:


What you're seeing is a detail, with enhanced contrast to make reading, and evaluation, easier. On the top line I think I see something like: "testing that is desirable, but expensive." On the next line: "I imagine a lot(???) has confused the police." Next line begins: "Must have been when  . . " but I can't make out the rest. 

Looks like the back slant is gone. I see some loopiness, but not as prominently as in the Archuleta note. Is this really John's hand, or was it penned by someone else? Hard to say for sure, as there are no obvious similarities. One thing I've noticed is the loop on the letter "d" in "desirable" and a somewhat similar loop on the "p" in "police." Those loops are similar to loops on the "d"s in the thank you note as well as the "p"s in "helped" and "help."

Here's another screen capture from the same source, an enhanced detail that's been realigned on the page to make it more readable:


I can't make all of it out. Maybe "We stated(???) our . . . to return to Boulder to help the police find the killer." Here again I see no back slant. I do see more loops, however, on both "p"s in "police."

So! Finally we get a chance to see the sort of thing that, in all likelihood, the handwriting "experts" saw when John provided them with his exemplars. (Even if the A&E writing isn't authentic, I feel sure the thank you note is.) And clearly, it's radically different from anything in the ransom note. I suppose you can't blame them for ruling him out (though imo it was a huge mistake regardless). Of course it's important to keep in mind that all the above samples are written, for the most part, in cursive.

The only available example of John's printing is, of course, the legal document we've all seen many times before. 

Looks completely different doesn't it? A lot more like the ransom note, I'd say. But I seriously doubt it was among the exemplars offered to the "experts" who ruled him out.

So! One might well want to ask: is this really John's writing, or was it penned by someone else? Here's my take:

1. A digital copy of this document was shown by me to Patsy's sister Pam during an internet chat session hosted by long-time Ramsey supporter, Jameson. Her reaction: "Yes, that's John's chicken scratch all right." Jameson was alarmed and attempted to explain it away, but I heard it loud and clear. And Jameson, who could be a pain in the butt, but is also honest, has since confirmed it publicly.

2. I attached a copy to an email sent to John's lawyer, Lin Wood, asking him to either confirm or deny it's authenticity. No response. I tried again. Again, no response.

3. In all the years this document has been available on the Internet, no one in a position to know has ever questioned its authenticity.

4. Though it's different in many ways from the samples we see above, there are certain similarities that can't be ignored. The back slant, for one thing. Note also the loops on the "d"s in "completed," "notified," and "pleased," very similar to the loops seen in the other exemplars.

If this document was in fact penned by John, and I see no reason to assume it was not -- then the difference between the two very different styles evident from examining the exemplars seen above, needs to be explained. One style looks nothing like the note and was probably the sort of thing presented to the authorities. The other bears many resemblances to the note and was probably never seen by the authorities. Will we ever get an explanation? I wonder.

282 comments:

  1. The thank you note has the neat left margin and the precise and unusually wide spacing between each word - like the RN?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think we'll get very far trying to find similarities between that note and the ransom note. Stylistically they are completely different, as far as I can tell. However, given the many reasons to conclude that the writer was deliberately trying to disguise his hand, we would expect to see differences.

      Which is why ruling John out was such a huge mistake, regardless. It seems incredibly naive of these "experts" to decide such an important matter purely on the basis of such differences, as though this were the sort of thing they are typically asked to evaluate.

      When we add the very different court document, which is much closer in style to the note, the entire picture changes radically. Did John have two completely different writing styles? It certainly looks that way.

      Regardless, my focus has always been on the facts and logic of the case, not the "evidence," because evidence can be interpreted in so many ways, and one "expert" will tell you one thing and another will tell you something else. We're going to see a lot of that in action in the coming weeks, with all the renewed media attention on this case. I call that sort of thing the "morass," because it will never lead anywhere. On the other hand, as I believe I've demonstrated, paying attention to the facts and the logic takes us to the heart of the mystery very quickly.

      Delete
  2. What I found interesting/confusing about the A&E special was that they showed pictures of JonBenet's neck that seemed to clearly show half moon fingernail marks around the rope. It appeared that she was alive, conscious, and grabbing at the rope during the strangulation. If the strangulation occurred first that really changes the scenario for me. I could believe that she was struck on the head, possibly accidentally, and then the scene staged. It's hard for me to think that anyone in the family would be able to strangle her while she was alive and struggling. They would have to be a total sociopath and I just haven't seen evidence of that. Do you know if the fingernail marks were in the original autopsy?
    I love your blog, the ransom note only made sense to me reading it as John trying to manipulate Patsy. There is no other logical reason for it be so long and rambling. I saw an interview with Patsy where she said that she only read the first couple lines of the note, searched JonBenet's room, called 911, then called several friends...never reading the rest of the ransom note. It is completely bizarre behavior to me that you would never bother finishing the note that was left by the people who have your daughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see fingernail marks on her neck. The coroner describes them as petchial hemorraghes, which is a completely different thing. Also, no skin cells were found under her fingernails. The DNA found there was due to contamination from a nail clipper.

      As for how much of the note Patsy read, the fact is that we have no way of knowing what happened prior to that phone call and we have conflicting descriptions from Patsy regarding the sequence of events. For details see my third blog post.

      Delete
    2. Even if she claimed she only read a few lines then called the cops, at no point does she address the fact that she should have read the entire note because it stated her daughter would be killed if she did call the police. She never seems remorseful. She never says "oh, if I only didn't call the police, maybe my daughter would still be alive". If the intruder theory is to be pushed in our faces by the Ramseys for all of us to believe, then she should have expressed some kind of concern for her actions. And what about John? Was he in the room when she called 911? Did she show him the note before she called 911? Does he ever express any anger or frustration over not having read the note before his wife called 911?

      Do the Ramseys ever talk about what THEY think happened? What is their opinion because they had a ransom note and no kidnapping. They had a daughter found dead in the basement, tied up and garroted. What are their thoughts on what happened? Do they stand by the intruder theory? If so, what are their opinions on what happened? Do they believe that the kidnapping went wrong and the intruders killed JBR instead of kidnapping her and they fled the house without her, abandoning the request for money?

      Delete
    3. Well Doc they are there and we got a close up clear view of them on tv. This is as clear as I can find for you online. You can blow them up but it gets less clear. https://www.google.com/search?q=jonbenet+crime+scene+photos&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&source=lnms&prmd=inv&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx2qKE7YPPAhVJ2B4KHW9sD2YQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=512#tbm=isch&q=jonbenet+ramsey+neck+closeup+crime+scene+photos&imgrc=WAXHGH4DWQm5FM%3A

      Delete
    4. LOL. Well, someone labeled them nail marks but that's not what they look like to me. I see what the coroner saw, basically dots of blood. If she'd been struggling against that cord we'd see scratches, not dots and not nail marks either. You don't remove a cord by digging your nails into your neck.

      Delete
    5. Unless you're trying to pull it away from your neck. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    6. No skin cells were found under her nails. Not hers, not anyone else's. End of story.

      Delete
    7. I hate to be blatantly obvious here, however, if ypu were trying to grab/get your fingers under a ligature while being strangled, that is exactly where nail marks would be. The lab screwed up any evidence under JB's nails so that is irrelevant. The nail marks were saw up close first hand by many of us on TV and probably millions of other people first hand. It doesnt really matter if the coroner meant abrasion or if he did not mean it all. The fact of the matter is they are there and experts were involved in the study and finding, not just people on here making it up. Cyril Wecht said she was strangled first, right from the get go and that this is probably part of the reason as to why he came to that conclusion, so you really should not act so surprised or that this is some f far fetched evidence just because it does not match your theory. Also there would be no petechial hemorraging around the eyes from an unconscious person being strangled to death. You have a real problem accepting any fact or evidence that does not fit into your theory.

      Delete
    8. Actually Wecht's version of what happened fits my theory better than any other because it provides us with a very clear motive: an accident due to erotic strangulation. If I could accept that theory, it would suit me fine, because I'd rather not see John as someone willing to murder his own daughter in cold blood.

      Unfortunately, I, unlike you, feel obliged to consider
      ALL the evidence, not just what suits me at the moment. A photograph is not sufficient to evaluate evidence of this kind, as you should be aware. You are seeing what you want to see. And I'd like nothing more than to see it your way. But I can't argue with what the medical examiner said, and I can't argue with the very clear and completely unambiguous reports that no skin cells were found under her nails. And the only screwup on the part of the lab was the inadvertent contamination from the clippers, which had nothing to do with skin cells.

      It is you who can't accept evidenced that doesn't fit your theory, not me.

      Delete
    9. If she was hit in the head last after she was dead from strangulation there would've been no brain swelling or bleeding, so that reality negates and refutes the blow being last. Blow first, penetration with paint stick near or during strangulation. Ransom note and wrist binding, blanket, move to basement, all that was staging after death by an adult.

      PS google recaptcha is annoying as hell. Seriously.

      Delete
  3. If John wrote the note and concocted the whole thing, how is it that at no point Patsy didn't question that her husband might have murdered their daughter or been involved in the staging of her death? Wouldn't Patsy be able to recognize John's handwriting if he wrote the ransom note?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well obviously John disguised his hand. Even the experts ruled him out, so why would we expect Patsy to see what they couldn't see. What surprises ME is the fact that no one ever seems to have even considered the possibility that "the Ramseys" might not have been in it together, that one could have been manipulating the other. After all, if you had awakened one fine morning to find your daughter dead at the hand of your spouse, why on earth would you want to risk your whole future to help him (or her) cover it up? Does THAT make sense to you?

      Delete
    2. Ok, but YOU are trying to make connections to the handwriting, aren't you? You see similarities. You make specific posts about it and are trying to show your readers what you see. You don't think that Patsy, who lived with John on a daily basis and saw endless accounts of his handwriting for years and years, would not be able to make the same connections you are making? It is like you want Patsy to remain in this bubble - because it supports your theory.

      I do try to consider that one might have manipulated the other, but manipulation can only last so long. It might work in the very immediate future, but once all the evidence is being sifted through, once you have time to look at the evidence yourself and hear expert opinions, is when you start to put two and two together or when you start actually thinking outside the manipulative box you have been put into.

      Delete
    3. "Ok, but YOU are trying to make connections to the handwriting, aren't you? You see similarities."

      Yes, but for many years I was the only one to see those similarities -- aside from Italian handwriting examiner Fausto Brugnatelli, who also picked up on that. No one else saw them because no one else thought to look for them. And obviously neither did Patsy.

      When Patsy first saw the note, what she saw was a ransom note, and she reacted accordingly. She was obviously in a panic at the time and in no mood to do any sleuthing. If this was a real kidnapping, as she and everyone else believed, then the note would have been written by the kidnapper. Period. Why on earth would she have suspected John of kidnapping his own daughter, especially since he was right there beside her.

      You need to realize also that Patsy was under heavy sedation for weeks and hardly in a position to study the note. In fact she probably wanted to stay as far away from it as possible. Meanwhile John had arranged to be "ruled out" by handwriting experts he had hired. So regardless of any resemblances she might have seen when she finally got around to studying that note, she, like everyone else, would have accepted the decision to rule John out. If he had not been ruled out then, yes, it's possible she might have recognized his hand in that note. But once he was ruled out she had no choice but to accept the intruder theory.

      Delete
    4. She did NOT act accordingly, thus the point. She did not have to do any sleuthing ! The whole world was sleuthing and blaming JR . This is nothing more than a 1+1=2 type scenario for PR. There are so many indicators if JR were guilty by himself that Helen Keller would have figured it out the first day.

      Delete
    5. If there were that many indicators and it was all so obvious, then the case would have been solved years ago. I see no reason to believe Patsy would have had any more insights than anyone else.

      Delete
    6. She was married to him and sleeps next him every night. She sees and knows all of his behaviors, his handwriting and his personality. Plus any indicators from the day of the murder and evidence that we all see.

      Delete
    7. Oh yes. As is well known, all wives know everything there is to know about what their husbands have been up to, what they've been thinking and how they are spending their time when away from home.

      Delete
  4. Exactly anonymous, there is no way she could not know. She knows that John Ramsey disappeared for an hour in the house, she knows that John Ramsey tried to take off to Atlanta 20 minutes after his daughter was found dead. She knows body language and she knows his handwriting by heart. She knows plenty more than being as she saw him every day while this was going on and for 10 years after. She knows that if she did not cut up fresh pineapple and feed it to JB that JR had to do it. There is no way she or anyone for that matter could NOT know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy was not a detective. And many others, including the experienced detective Lou Smit, accepted that an intruder must have done it. I don't think she could imagine John as the killer, that just was not part of her mindset. Many wives have defended their husbands relentlessly in the face of all sorts of damning evidence.

      Delete
    2. She didnt have to be a "detective"! The whole world are not detectives and they figured out something was fishy ? PR lives with JR and she was privy to his body language and other clues. In this case, all she had to do was pick up a paper or turn on the tv for 10 years and she would have no choice but to look back and remember all the manipulation, lies and clues that we dont know about etc etc. Yet that did NOT happen. You want to talk about bias ??? You honestly believe that her hearing her husband coming up with a magical business trip and wanting to take off to another state 20 mins after finding his daughter dead in the basement would not be 1 hell of a Giant Red Flag for PR or anyone ??? I mean cmon ...really ??? The only way this is not a dead giveaway would be if they were complicit in some way. Common Sense. Period

      Delete
    3. And yet he got away with it, despite all the red flags. I stand by what I've already written.

      Delete
  5. I am new to reading this blog. I am very interested in learning more about this case as I have become very intrigued by lately. The handwriting above is trying to compare cursive and print style handwriting. I would agree that the 2 cursive exemplars look like the same author. None of them look the ransom note though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're anything like me, the more you know, the less you know! Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. They don't look like the ransom note because John disguised his hand. Why wouldn't he?

      Delete
  6. It was John's idea to call 911. Why would he do that just to hand over a note of his own handwriting and with the body in the basement ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it was not John's idea. Read the third post on this blog.

      Delete
    2. It WAS John's idea, as reported by Burke 20 yrs ago.

      Delete
    3. 1. The Dateline program is now available at the NBC website and I was able to go over Burke's interview several times and in some detail. According to the captions he is quoted as saying: "He was like 'OK calm down. We can call the police. Let's call the police.' But when I listen carefully I find it just as easy to hear "It" instead of "He." That word goes by very quickly and it is not clearly articulated. It's not as though he said "I heard my father tell my mother to call the police," which is how he's been quoted in the past (and yes this version is an old story with which I've been familiar for years, and wondered about).

      2. It's very important not to make assumptions based on what a half-asleep 9 year old heard or thought he heard from a considerable distance. Burke's bedroom was on the second floor, on the opposite side of this very large house from where John was, on the first floor, when he claimed he told Patsy to call the police. He said he heard it "pretty clearly," not very clearly, and he might easily have misinterpreted something.

      3. I find it interesting that so many have no problem assuming Burke lied about being in the same room with his parents when the 911 call was made, and are nevertheless willing to believe he was telling the truth at all other times. As I see it, the story the Ramseys present in their book is a fabrication that Patsy went along with for reasons I've already discussed here at some length. It's not difficult to see how Burke too could have been persuaded to support that same story. Obviously it would have looked really bad for his parents if he reported that they had a big fight over whether or not to call the police.

      For all the above reasons I remain skeptical concerning what Burke said he heard about calling the police. And that's the case even if he did say "he" instead of "it."

      Now I could be wrong and it's possible Burke was in fact referring to his father, heard everything clearly, understood what was meant, and was not lying. In that case I'd have to concede that calling 911 was John's idea after all. But if that were the case, we might as well throw up our hands and concede that JonBenet must have been attacked by an intruder after all.

      Because: as I've said, if the two of them were in it together, that call would not have been made. And if Patsy had written the note she would never have agreed to John's request and he'd have been forced to make the call himself. Only if both were innocent would John have wanted that call made, with Patsy agreeing to make it.

      Also, if we are willing to accept that Burke was telling the truth and the Ramseys assumed he was asleep, as they themselves claimed, then why would Burke have overheard all those hysterics? If John and Patsy were conspiring to stage an intruder breakin there'd be no need for all that carrying on and certainly no need for John to tell Patsy to call the police. They would already have agreed ahead of time on what to do and there would have been no fuss.

      Delete
    4. BR says he. It would make no sense for him to say it. He clearly is referring to JR. He was asked what is the first thing that he heard and that was what he said and said he heard it clearly. That being said, while most likely true, Burke lied about the 911 call obviously, so this proves Burke is surely capable of lying, the question is why. A 9 yr old would take a whole lot of manipulating, training and alot of luck to not slip up and say something that he shouldnt. Also if you have to train a 9 yr old to make it through this investigation and have him lie then you have to throw PR into knowing JR is manipulating BR and having him lie ...which again is just another of umpteen obvious giveaways to PR about JR's guilt.

      Delete
    5. You haven't spent much time with young people. I have. "It was like" is an extremely common expression and yes, it does make perfect sense. I'm not saying he didn't say "he." All I'm saying is that it's not clear.

      You want to have it both ways. You want to have him testifying that he overheard his father tell his mother to call the police while he was lying in bed, and you want him to be on the first floor with them at the same time.

      That doesn't bother you because you see no need to see the big picture, or even to be logical, you just want to pick out whatever suits you at the moment so you can make a point. It's called nitpicking.

      We also have to ask ourselves why John would have said "OK calm down. We can call the police. Let's call the police." If the two of them were conspiring together there would have been no need for him to say that, nor would there have been any reason for Patsy to go ballistic after discovering the note -- because under that theory she would already have known about the note and would already have been planning to call the police.

      As for the rest, you are assuming you know what happened and how Patsy would have reacted. All sorts of people have all sorts of assumptions regarding this case and I see no reason to be guided by yours.

      Delete
    6. I've been reading this blog for a while and watched the Dateline special as well. I wanted to respond to DocG's comment, "Now I could be wrong and it's possible Burke was in fact referring to his father, heard everything clearly, understood what was meant, and was not lying."

      From what I gleaned from the context of Burke's interview on the Dateline special, nothing he said conclusively proves or disproves anything in this blog. What Burke heard may have been the tail end of the argument about whether or not to call the police. It could very well be that John's first reaction to the note was to obey the "kidnapper" and not call the police, and Patsy went into hysterics at the idea of not doing so. John may have *had* to relent to calm his wife down, or perhaps he was worried that if he did not relent, she would begin to suspect him. Nothing Burke says shows that John initiated the idea of calling the police. So frankly, I think that Burke's comments do more to support DocG's claim than otherwise. Burke's testimony shows that the Ramseys did not conspire, leaving it down to the intruder theory or the idea that John did it, and we know where the rest of the evidence leads.

      Delete
    7. Thank you. Your observations make sense. Regardless of what Burke heard or didn't hear or thought he heard, or claimed he heard, the words he quoted were taken out of context and as such don't tell us much at all. It's easy to assume they could represent John's initial reaction to the note, but as you say they might represent a later stage of their conversation where John might have felt he had no choice but to give in. The bottom line is that we really have no way of knowing for sure what happened, in what order, what was said, why it was said, etc.

      Bottom line: if John wanted that call made, told Patsy to make the call and she went ahead and made it, then they must be innocent and their daughter must have been killed by an intruder, because two people engaged in staging a kidnapping are not going to agree to call the police while the body of their victim is still in the house. However, as you say, "we know where the rest of the evidence leads," and it does NOT lead to an intruder. Therefore, as I see it, the logic of the case points to John, regardless of what Burke might have heard or said that morning.

      Delete
    8. (I'm the same Anonymous who just posted above.)

      I also noticed something interesting in the TV interview footage they showed from the 1990s. Studies have shown that people who are lying tend to have a slight smile on their face and a slightly surprised expression. This is very unscientific on my part, but wow, did I ever see a "liar smile" on John when he was talking to reporters.

      Delete
  7. After watching that Dateline last night and seeing BR's interview I have little doubt that he was in the kitchen during that 911 call. He said it sounded like his voice and experts are split what they heard, though the 911 operator seemed confident she heard 3 voices. So, if he was in the kitchen during that time then BR knows a whole lot about what happened that night. On a side note, that Santa Claus guy was extremely creepy!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I've said before, I'll reserve judgement on that until I too have heard the enhanced recording. Not that it matters much. John could always claim he was just trying to protect his son from public scrutiny.

      Delete
    2. YOU have serious evidence bias. JusT because you have not heard it yet, does not make it NOT fact or evidence. You have eyewitness accounts, including the 911 operator and you still act as tho it is not true or fact unless you hear it firsthand. That is unless it supports your story, then we dont need eyewitnesses, Patsy's schoolteacher has the wrong student, Burke must have misheard, she must have been brainwashed etc etc etc

      Delete
    3. Burke's presence after the 911 call is neither here nor there as far as "my story" is concerned, because according to my interpretation of these events, their version of what happened can't be trusted anyhow. There is nothing about Burke being there at that time that contradicts anything I've asserted.

      If you prefer to believe that Burke was telling the truth about what he heard his father tell his mother from his bedroom, then how can you insist he was with them on the first floor at that time? You can't have it both ways.

      I've defined a "fact" as something everyone agrees on for a very good reason. Because it's all too easy to insist on something being a fact simply because you see it that way. The presence of those additional voices on that tape has no bearing whatever on my theory. But it is certainly not a fact, because there is room for disagreement on that score -- as the man said in the Dateline interview. He too heard that recording.

      You badly want to accuse Burke of lying about what happened and I have no problem with such a theory. But it is certainly not a fact. Not yet. Not until that recording has been released and everyone can hear it for themselves and decide for themselves. End of story.

      Delete
    4. Im sorry to tell you but in order for something to be a fact it does not have to be released to the public nor to Doc. Burke is right next to his parents during the 911 call whether Doc ever hears it or not. Suggestion of this is 1 of the more laughable things that I have heard. As far as Burke saying he heard his father tell his mother to call 911, that doesnt mean they called that minute. Burke could have went downstairs right then to see what was going on. I will agree with you on 1 thing here, being as I have heard that Burke was awake and with JR and PR, I will call that a fact long before I acccept a word out of any Ramsey as fact.

      Delete
    5. Is there any clear sample online of this 911 call and their exchange after the non hang up? I've found half a dozen but I don't hear anything but static.

      Can anyone point me to a clear copy somewhere that allows us to actually hear anything?

      Also, the Dateline doc, is it available online for non cable subscribers?

      Thanks!

      Delete
    6. According to Dateline the enhanced version has never been released. All I hear is static also, plus something that could possibly be Patsy saying "help me Jesus."

      The complete Dateline show can be accessed for free at their website.

      Delete
  8. What I don't get is why didn't Patsy and John ask Burke any questions about his sister's whereabouts from the time she was discovered missing? Patsy entered his room, shouting "where is my baby? where is my baby!??!", but never asked Burke anything directly? According to Burke, he was pretending to be asleep. What if Burke had heard something? What if he had seen something? What if he knew where she was?

    Ok, so then Patsy finds the ransom note which answers what happened to JBR. But, Patsy then feels the need to call the police, but not ask her own son any questions? According to their timeline, Burke remained "asleep" in his room until police arrived and entered his room with a flashlight?

    This leaves a VERY detached account of interaction between parents and child during a crisis where one of the kids is missing. I know they might not have wanted to scare him, but he was in the home. JBR frequently slept in his bed. If someone came into the home and took JBR, couldn't it be possible that Burke had seen/heard something? Didn't the parents want to know? What would be better? That they parents went into Burke's room and sat with him or brought him downstairs so they could all be together, or have the police barge into his room with a flashlight. Which is more traumatizing?

    Also, the account of Patsy storming into Burke's bedroom asking about "her baby", is kind of off. If one of your children were missing, wouldn't you look to see if the other child were safe and sound, as well? How come Patsy didn't go into Burke's room and state "Burke are you here? Are you ok?"? There seems to be a marked detailing of the incidents that specifically leaves Burke out of everything. Even showing any care or concern for his whereabouts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what's your point? Are you criticizing Patsy as a mother? as a sleuth? If you want to see a conspiracy between John and Patsy to stage a kidnapping, then why all the theatrics that morning, all the yelling and screaming? They assumed Burke was asleep. So if calling the police was part of the plan all along, what's the point of putting on an act for each other?

      Yes, Patsy didn't wake Burke up and question him. And I agree, that was a mistake. But the police didn't question Burke either. The whole situation was pure misdirection and everyone was looking in the wrong place.

      Delete
    2. No one knows what happened in the house, thus why we are all here writing on this blog.

      I'm commenting on what Patsy and John have told the detectives/police and journalists. Their account doesn't make any sense regarding what would be consistent behavior for parents who have a child missing. I'm saying that all their behavior (from their account of what happened) and the morning when the police arrived, seems to keep Burke out of it; to keep him in the background. Burke could have been very instrumental in helping figure out what happened to his sister.

      Consider the pineapple. If no pineapple was served the night of and JBR was put straight to bed after they arrived home....who gave her pineapple? Maybe she woke her brother up and said she was hungry and could he get her some food. I think it is highly normal to say to one of the children "did you see your sister/bother?" when one of them is missing. Yet, this didn't happen! According to the parents, no one spoke to Burke at all about anything until the police arrived. I'm saying their account of what happened that night does not make sense. Did Patsy and John really sit in the house waiting for police to arrive to help them with their kidnapped daughter and not at all go up to see/talk to Burke? If the ransom note was to believed, someone came into their home and stole their child. Someone invaded their home. Someone stole one of their most precious belongings. And, not once did they go up to sit with/check on/talk to Burke?

      Burke claimed he was pretending to sleep. That means he didn't get up from bed or sit up or speak to his parents. What if he had actually been murdered by the "kidnappers"? Patsy didn't talk to him, John didn't talk to him. What if he were not "sleeping" in his bed, but had been killed there instead? Would they have known? Did they care? Did they check? Nope. Doesn't add up. Their story does.not.add.up.

      Delete
    3. My take on this is that the story they presented to the authorities is most likely not what actually happened. I think it very possible they argued about whether to call the police and that Burke may well have witnessed that. We know for a fact that Patsy presented a very different version on the A&E documentary from the "official" version she relates in their book. So why believe any of it?

      Where my take may differ from yours is that imo Patsy was manipulated by John to go along with his version of what happened, and Burke was probably also manipulated to support that same story.

      In any case, we have no reason to believe anything either Burke, Patsy or John said about what happened prior to the 911 call.

      Delete
    4. I have come to accept doc's theory because it's the only one that answers:
      The pineapple,leaving Burke in his room, not reacting to the ransom deadline, the bizarre ransom note and the absence of stranger DNA. Any IDI believer must answer those for it to makes sense. Now I read that 4 matching strands was allowed to qualify DNA from the blood in the panties, far less than the 13 strand standard.
      The leaf growth under the grille covering the window doesn't register with me. We had such a window grille and every year, surrounding grass and vines grew under it exactly as in the photos by Lou Smit. Weeds grow through a sidewalk, it doesn't mean someone lifted the sidewalk.
      The finger marks on the outer wood frame of the window do not look like finger marks and could have been put there by anyone at any time.
      As for the third person on the 911 call, I did hear it, back about the time of the murder on some newstainement show. I head a younger male voice saying "what did you....'' or something like then John cutting him off.
      I agree that the small marks around the ligature do not look like a child's nail marks.
      And why was there no clear DNA? How could a stranger do so much to a child's body, go up and down the stairs, serve pineapple, write the note and leave the house and not leave any DNA on her body or fingerprints anywhere? It doesn't fit. This is why I have come to agree with Doc. Just try to answer all these questions and it becomes clear. All of the crime professionals came to the same conclusion at their "secret meeting": Something horrible happened in that house and there was a cover-up.

      Delete
  9. I watched Dateline last night also. I do not think it's odd that Patsy didn't ask Burke about JonBenet because he was (supposedly) asleep when she entered his room. Why would she think he heard anything that night when, after all, SHE didn't hear anything? She may have assumed that if he DID hear something, he would have gone up to his parents' room when it heard it. And I believe Burke's account. If he had been "coached" to lie about being awake during that 911 call, then the only reason they would lie about that would be if he were somehow involved and they were protecting him. And if he were involved, why oh why would they allow him to leave the house and go to a friend's house that morning, unsupervised by them? And if, in fact, there are 3 voices on the 911 tape after Patsy's failed hang up, I would suggest that the third voice may have actually been John's voice and he just sounded slightly different because of the commotion going on at that moment. Have you ever heard your own voice recorded? It can often sound different at different times depending on what you're saying and where you are when you're being recorded. I hold to my belief that Burke WAS, in fact, left in his room that morning until police arrived and that he knew nothing about what happened to JonBenet. In the video of him being interviewed, when he was asked how he thought JonBenet was killed, he responded with a strange laugh, as if he was surprised to be asked that. If he had any involvement in her murder or coverup, I think he would have been very nervous during this whole interview and especially when he was asked that question.

    Out of the whole Dateline show, the thing I thought most interesting -- and it may mean nothing at all -- was when one of Patsy's friend described one of her open houses where people were invited to "tour" the inside of her home. Patsy apparently laid out her Miss Atlanta contestant gown and crown on her bed for everyone to see. That tells me how obsessed she was with beauty pageants. My first thought was everything Hercules has said about her personality. Not that I have changed my mind on who I think is responsible for JonBenet's death, but it sure has me wondering . . .


    bb

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your comment about the third voice being John is interesting. Maybe John had now moved much farther away from the phone making his voice sound different. Or maybe even Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Watching the two documentaries thus far, Burke strikes me as very awkward and strange. There is a new clip on YouTube with him talking to Dr. Phil. He smiles whenever he discusses details of his sister's death. Very odd.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LhalUxTuKA

    I still believe he wrote the ransom note and murdered JonBenet. Burke fails every eye test in photos, interrogations, interviews, and home videos. This guy definitely has some kind of mental disorder. It wouldn't surprise me if Lin Wood and John Ramsey are allowing him to be on Dr. Phil and allowing his interrogation footage to be released so that the public an see just how messed up he is. John Ramsey will never admit that Burke killed JonBenet, but he sure doesn't seem to mind if he looks guilty. - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I think Burke might be on the autism spectrum.

      Delete
    3. In photos of Burke at Patsy's funeral, he has that same smile on his face. I found it odd then, and I find the smile on the Dr. Phil trailer to be the same smile and also very odd. I think you can tell between a smile that is sort of sad, where the person is attempting to convey "thank you for being here for me at this difficult time" vs. a smile that seems to say "I like this attention on me." I'm not attempting to be a mind reader, just saying that most of us can admit that different types of smile convey different moods of a person. Not that this proves anything, other than Burke might have a low EQ.

      Delete
    4. I've observed people who seem to have a permanent smile plastered on their face and I don't see that as a sign of anything suspicious. Looks to me like that's his natural expression, not a sign of something sinister.

      Delete
    5. Agree, I don't think it is sinister. I think he does not have an awareness of how his demeanor may come across and doesn't seem to adjust for the circumstances.

      Delete
    6. He seems to have a very odd personality. He may have something medically wrong with him, we just dont know. I will say that he does look extremely nervous in his interview and that may attribute to the smile.

      Delete
    7. Agree, something appears off with his demeanor. It doesn't make him a murderer but appearing to almost chuckle when discussing your sister's murder is different.
      John's interview was more telling when asked by Dr. Phil if they hid Burke - he answered emphatically NO!, then said they wanted to protect him, blah blah blah and then "we hid him" quickly. Then he went on to blame the media, the police, etc. This tells me he is someone who can hold two conflicting truths at the same time.

      Delete
  12. What are the statistics on handwriting experts being able to solve crimes like this? Is it really that easy to trick them by simply disguising your style? It's hard for me to believe that one of the Ramsey's could write such a long RN and the experts not be able to confirm it was them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll refer you to the blog post titled "Some Handwriting Evidence." Look it up.

      Delete
  13. JR was asked by LE for samples of his and PR's handwriting. JR then went and grabbed 2 pads of paper with notes on them written by he and Patsy. One of the pads that he handed over to LE was the pad on which he had written the RN ? That makes no sense at all. It is the exact same thing as why would PR cal o11 if she had wrotten the note. If JR had written the letter he would have never handed the pad over to LE , he would have destroyed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, we have no reason to believe John would have suspected the note could be traced to that pad.

      Even if he did, it would have been too late to do anything about it. The authorities would certainly have confiscated the pad so they could study the handwriting in it. So the next best thing would be to try to deflect suspicion by being "fully cooperative" and handing it to them.

      As far as destroying the pad, that's easier said than done. How would he have destroyed it? What would he have done with it after he'd "destroyed" it? I think that at that point he had no other options.

      Delete
    2. John could have disposed of the pad in the same place he took other evidence: the duct tape, the rest of the cord, the missing piece of Patsy's paintbrush. Some have suggested that this is what he was doing when he disappeared that morning when Det. Arndt was there. But Doc is probably correct . . . he may not have thought the note could be traced to that pad OR, imo, it was left to establish that the "intruder" was in the house that night and used that pad and pen to write the note. The Ramseys always believed that the intruder entered the house while they were out that night and that he hid out and waited for their return.

      Responding to anonymous's comment above about Burke's smile, I would agree. I saw several clips of his interview with Dr. Phil and is smiles at virtually every question asked of him. And if you read Kolar's book, he states he saw a photo of Burke at JonBenet's memorial and Burke had that same mysterious smile on his face. Kolar states that that smile was part of his epithany about who really killed JonBenet.

      Although it's tempting to jump onto that band wagon and point the finger at Burke, I still just don't see it possible. He was too young to have been sexually abusing JonBenet, too young to write that elaborate ransom note and too small and frail to have struck JonBenet over the head with such force to cause that huge crack and hole in her skull.

      bb

      Delete
  14. It's obvious to me what John Ramsey's agenda is now. More information about the Dr. Phil interview has been released. Dr. Phil was given permission to ask Burke a lot of tough questions that I never dreamed Lin Wood would allow. This has to be by design. From what we've seen so far from this interview, Burke looks like either a psychopath or he has some form of mental disorder. Why would John or Lin allow this side of Burke to be seen?

    It's been 20 years. John Ramsey perhaps feels it's time for the truth to finally be revealed without actually admitting that he protected his murderer son. Not only is John letting Burke display his odd behavior in front of a national audience, he is allowing never before seen videos of Burke being questioned by a psychiatrist and later by law enforcement. Why would this be allowed?

    The only thing that makes sense is: This is an indirect confession! Not only does this remove any remaining suspicion from John Ramsey, it allows him to clear his conscience. John will never admit what really happened, but with this strategy, he won't have to. Burke will inadvertently show the world just how damaged and capable of murder is really is. -D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because he's an odd person, it does not mean he's a murderer. I simply cannot draw that conclusion! We don't know if he became this way because of his sister's murder and everything that followed. I would agree that John and Lin Wood have allowed too much, and that John would love to throw more confusion into the sea of suspicions to turn attention away from himself. If JR did kill JB, he is a diabolical person and I would put nothing past him, including subtle attempts to throw Burke under the bus.

      Delete
    2. Of course Burke is odd/weird. Who wouldn't be if your sister was murdered when you were nine and you've had this story following you ever since? That would make anyone a bit crazy.

      Delete
  15. I notice that in the legal document you posted here (assumed to be written by JR), he spells occasion with two esses, "occassion"--just like how the writer of the RN spelled business with two esses, "bussiness". These kinds of misspellings are a life long habit. In other words, the writer isn't aware he/she is misspelling words. When you try to hide your writing style, you don't suddenly become aware you've been making a spelling mistake and correct it--thus this mistake in the RN could have been a common habit of the writer (JR) instead of purposeful and meant to mislead. It would be interesting to find an instance of JR's where he wrote or even typed the word "business" or possession (also spelled incorrectly in the ransom note). Someone would have to have known if he had a problem with words that have multiple esses in them. The police and handwriting experts must have looked into this. It would also be interesting to note how common a habit this is. Also I would hope they would have dictated the RN to the Ramseys when checking their writing samples to see if they also misspelled the same words--but my guess is the Ramseys (being uncooperative) did not submit to handwriting analysis until months later--at which point a lawyer acting in his clients' best interest could have made sure they spelled those words correctly. Nevertheless I find this to be a possible clue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually, a smart person would intentionally misspell some words to make it appear that the writer was someone less smart.
    BP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the person didn't succeed in looking less smart--the person had a fluency of language, proper grammar ( spells other difficult words correctly) and uses quantitative reasoning. Also, as DocG points out, the writing has a beginning, middle and end. If the person meant to appear unintelligent or foreign, he/she would have used improper grammar and phrasing along with major spelling errors. The person spells everything correctly except two words--both "s" mistakes. If the person was trying to deliberately misspell--one would think he/she would have made it consistent throughout the RN. A better explanation is that the misspellings were that person's common habit.

      Delete
  17. I am convinced that the killer was Professor Plum, with the candlestick, in the cellar.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Just because he's an odd person, it does not mean he's a murderer."

    No, it certainly doesn't. There are plenty of reasons why we should think Burke killed his sister. If you haven't read Kolar's book, then I suggest that you do that first. Burke's odd behavior as a child and now as an adult is the capper to this case. Everyone will finally get to see that for themselves.

    I'm pretty sure that Burke is Doc and Hercule's #2 suspect for good reasons and it's not just because of his odd behavior. The only two reasons Doc eliminates Burke as the murderer is because of the prior sexual abuse evidence and he doesn't think Burke was strong enough to deliver such a damaging blow to the head. Both of those conclusions have merit but are far from factual. Even at the age of 9, Burke was fully capable of molesting his sister. Statistics prove that. Burke was also capable of delivering the blow to the head. A lightweight aluminum bat or flashlight would not be difficult for a 9 year old boy to produce the necessary speed and force to crack a small skull. Hercule once stated that if Burke was capable of writing the ransom note then he would concede that Burke killed JonBenet. In other words, Hercule doesn't think John and Patsy could have written a ransom note after such a traumatic event. That's exactly what I think happened. Burke planned the murder and wrote the note weeks ahead of time. Burke watched a lot of movies (every night when he went to bed). Burke watched true crime TV shows and I'm convinced he was reading the book "Mindhunter".

    "If JR did kill JB, he is a diabolical person and I would put nothing past him, including subtle attempts to throw Burke under the bus."

    If John Ramsey wanted to use Burke in a diabolical way to make himself look innocent, why didn't he do that a few years ago? Especially in 2010, when investigators wanted to ask him more questions. Why not then? There's been so much talk about this 20 year anniversary that I think John Ramsey wants people to know who the killer is without having to admit it. - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Dr. Phil says burke is socially awkward and a loner.

    'He now works as a computer consultant and in computer security, but he works off site, he doesn't go into work every day,' Dr. Phil told Inside Edition."

    Dr. Phil and Linn Wood are buddies. Why would Linn Wood allow him to say such derogatory remarks about Burke? The writing is on the wall. - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dr. Phil also discusses the "lost Burke Ramsey interrogation tapes" that HE recently recovered. That could only mean that John and Lin had them hidden and now want the world to see the real Burke Ramsey. - D.S.

    https://youtu.be/fkfOUfGHJxE

    ReplyDelete
  21. In that vid ^^^^ Dr Phil gives me the impression he thinks Burke did it. This is one crazy, crazy case.

    ReplyDelete
  22. D.S., I have read Kolar's book. He implies that he thinks Burke did it but doesn't come right out and state that; doesn't even provide a direct case. An "indirect" case, which ignores John as the possible culprit, doesn't cut it for me.

    Hercule has not provided a case either. His speculations about Patsy being angry over bedwetting and being a crazy pageant mom sound like pure fantasy to me.

    So now we're back to your thinking Burke could have done it. Like Doc says, its possible but I've seen no real evidence to support it. I'd like to ask you why we should ignore the statistics about incest by fathers/uncles/grandfathers? There is even a former Miss America who revealed that her father molested her for 13 years. Yes Burke is odd. I also think that John is very odd. His lies, his stone cold behavior, the lip licking, the shaking his head "no" when saying "yes" is all really odd to me.

    I don't think that John has any reason, whatsoever, to end this by allowing Burke to be pointed at. He's better off dying with his secrets intact. If Burke did it, did he suddenly, after all these years, stop loving his son and caring that he could have a good life in spite of what was done?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nothing is going to happen to Burke if he confesses. He can't be arrested or go to jail for it. John is doing Burke a favor by making him look guilty. In fact, he could make a lot of money writing a book about the details of how he murdered JonBenet. - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have got to be kidding me. The stigma of being a murderer far outweighs any book deal. The kid is probably making high five figures at age 29, will soon be into 6 figures (I know because I work in the same field). He'd be very lucky to net $300K from a book. You honestly believe that John would want him to have difficulty sustaining a lifelong career, ruin his chances of marrying and having a normal life as a husband and dad? Gosh, this theory totally negates the entire reason John and/or Patsy would have covered up for him in the first place. Sorry, but its wishful thinking that we'll ever know for sure what happened unless John goes to trial and either confesses or points a finger at Patsy or Burke.

      Delete
  24. Burke definitely knows alot more than he is saying, that is for sure. We now know that a 9 yr old can lie very well and fool everyone in the process. I am not pointing the finger at Burke but I will say that anyone who says a 9 yr old is not capable of doing this needs to do a little reading and some rethinking, myself included.

    ReplyDelete
  25. My son is 9 years old. He is above average in regards to his IQ. But there is no way he could write a ransom note like the one that was discovered. Impossible. No 9 year old could.

    I'm not saying it wasn't Burke, maybe he lashed out at JBR. Maybe he hit her on the head and she fell down the stairs. But there is no way he wrote that note. So either Burke was the murderer and then John or Patsy wrote the note. Or Burke was not involved at all.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Then how do you explain the ransom note being written in Burke's handwriting? - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no way he wrote it. Even if he wrote while being dictated what to write, he couldn't have written it.

      Delete
  27. My thoughts after watching Dateline

    -After hearing the 911 Operator, I believe there were 3 people in that kitchen when the call was made. Even BR doesn't deny that it sounded like his voice. SO, what does this mean? Well, it definitely means that the Ramseys lied about BR being asleep

    -The show kept pointing to PR being involved, but it just makes zero sense why she would dial 911 with the body still in the house. I just don't see how she could have been involved.

    -I know Doc has said in the past this could have been premeditated, but I tend to side with the investigators that this was a horrible accident and then a cover up. It makes absolutely zero sense to have a premeditated murder over the holiday when they were scheduled to fly out the next morning.

    -I had eliminated BR being the killer, but I just keep thinking a jealous brother who was angry could have swung the flashlight and accidentally killed her. JR comes downstairs and thinks he is saving his son by helping cover up a crime. OR JR was the sole killer.....I just don't think anything makes sense involving PR due to the 911 call

    ----On a side note, am I the only person who thinks the Santa Claus guy is extremely creepy and suspicious?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, creep factor off the scale.

      Delete
  28. What would make Patsy and John go to these lengths to cover up for what is most likely an accidental killing of JBR? If Burke accidentally killed JBR (pushed her down the stairs, hit her on the head with the flashlight, etc.), then couldn't they have just either told police/paramedics that it was an accident? Even if Patsy was cleaning JBR after perhaps wetting the bed and JBR fell and hit her head on the tub or floor, couldn't this also be conveyed to paramedics? Children have accidents. Why wouldn't they have called 911 right away once JBR was hurt? I am trying to think of the psychology of the moment. What would make someone not call 911 immediately after an accident where someone was hurt? What would make them go to the lengths of covering up the accident?

    Would this mean that it wasn't an accident and perhaps Burke hit is sister on purpose?

    Would it mean that John and Patsy wanted to protect their social standing and not be seen as parents who could allow for such an accident to occur in their home?

    Were all of them fearful of being looked at as negligent and perhaps resulting in them going to jail and losing Burke?

    There has to be SOME reason why there was a cover up. Patys is a woman who took her daughter to the doctor how many times in the prior year? I may be wrong, but wasn't it written somewhere that Burke had seen a counselor because he had hit his sister on the head with a golf club the year prior? Patsy didn't neglect her children's physical health.

    Ok, so say Patsy didn't know anything and was completely in the dark about the cover up. Would she never have second guessed her husband? Would things not add up for her eventually?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are some who think it was an accident - I'm not one of them. I also don't think Burke is a monster. I think he was 9 years old, had some issues, but intentionally struck the blow, probably out of anger or irritation.

      A plausible scenario is that they "went to bed" but he got up and went downstairs to play with his new stuff he got, JB heard it, followed him down, they went down to the train room. They could've played awhile, or maybe JB accidentally or deliberately messed up his model or something harmless and Burke retaliated in the worst of ways. Siblings do that all the time, it's normal behavior. Siblings fight. I don't necessarily think he intended to do major damage but I do think he meant to hit her...and when she went down and didn't get back up, he freaked out.

      There's a period of about 2 hours, give or take a few - where she remained unconscious with brain swelling and bleeding. That crucial period may be the part he got his parents up, or his dad, and JR took control. It's entirely plausible Burke woke up his dad only or his dad came down, handled it, staged it, sent Burke to his room and he didn't actually inform Patsy.

      I personally feel she wrote the note but I'm not clinging to it. I do feel this was a cover up for Burke.

      Delete
    2. There are many reasons to see Burke's involvement as improbable, though technically it can't be ruled out, because there is no factual evidence that absolutely positively rules him out. On the other hand there is NO evidence to even suggest his guilt. As I see it, this is a theory concocted to explain why both John and Patsy would collaborate on a coverup. Since I don't accept that they collaborated, it's especially difficult for me to even consider the possibility that Burke did it. James Kolar, who attempted to make such a case, never even considered the possibility that John could have done it, which was a huge abdication of responsibility as far as I'm concerned, as there was compelling evidence of prior abuse.

      If Burke struck his sister on the head and knocked her out I see no reason why the parents would not have called 911 as soon as they discovered her body. She would still have been breathing and her heart would still have been beating. There was no laceration of the scalp and nothing to suggest how serious the injury was. For me it is simply beyond belief that they would go from there to the staging of such an elaborate coverup, complete with garotte strangulation, vaginal penetration and a long, detailed ransom note -- not to mention calling the police on themselves the next morning for no good reason.

      Burke is a suspect simply because no one in the investigation ever had the imagination to look closely enough at John and consider that he and he alone could have killed his daughter. Assuming that, if John or Patsy did it, the other spouse would not likely want to cover it up, people have settled on Burke because in their mind parents would do anything to protect their child, even one who killed his own sister. Sorry but I can't buy that. I can't buy any of it. Parents lie for their children, they steal for them and probably even have commited murder for them, but I don't see John and Patsy Ramsey going to such bizarre lengths to protect their child under such circumstances.

      Delete
    3. I never suspected Burke until recently regardless and it wasn't "just cause" he was the only one left. I based it on Kolar's FF read and the specific inclusion of Burke's first interviews and having detailed awareness of how she was killed. Up until then I read a bunch of other opinions and was on the fence. Even reading FF I was reluctant and thought he's a naive child, oblivious, maybe because he was shielded, removed, whisked away he had no knowledge about her being gone, didn't grasp the significance, etc and they're grasping.

      Then he mentioned the previous golf club incident, the bodily function issues, and then I saw the dateline videos of his earlier interviews. I wanted to see the one Kolar mentioned in FF but haven't found it, if it's even available. Seeing Burke in those gave me chills. I could recognize the behavior without needing to know any of FF.

      I was further disturbed by him smiling with zero affect or emotionalism while revisiting the murder with Dr Phil (though I still think this is a cash grab)...but then I saw a snippet of the said video in this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6vyM2tZtY - and that child had inside awareness of the blows to the head that were not released. If he was being shielded overall, he shouldn't have any awareness of the mechanics of her death. That he does is suspect.

      Delete
    4. Doc, I have to ask, why did they lie about the pineapple? The autopsy found it in her stomach, and some on the counter uneaten, Patsy and Burke prints on the bowl (although those prints could be from any time) -so why lie about the pineapple? Where does that fit in your theory?

      Delete
    5. If they were in it together than there would have been no need to lie. Nothing wrong with feeding your kid some pineapple. If Burke and JonBenet sat down together for some pineapple there would also be no need to lie about that. It certainly doesn't mean Burke killed her -- in itself it's perfectly innocent.

      It's only if either John or Patsy fed her pineapple and the other knew nothing about it, that there would be reason to deny any knowledge of it. I think John fed her the pineapple just before clubbing her, and didn't want to admit it because that would have made him the last person to see her alive.

      Delete
    6. I think Burke ate the pineapple when he snuck downstairs to play with his toy. By the time he was questioned, I think he was too afraid to admit he had been up when his parents thought he was in bed. Afraid, too, that someone might suspect he killed his sister. He probably realizes at this point the importance of the pineapple to the case, that it was causing suspicion to be cast on his parents. That could be why he admitted to Dr. Phil that he could have eaten pineapple that night. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    7. I don't think he actually admitted that. He was asked if he'd had any pineapple THAT DAY. I can't imagine him admitting that he even MIGHT have eaten pineapple with his sister that night.

      Delete
  29. Listen, how can any of us put ourselves in that situation and try to explain why somebody would do something like that. Im not saying I fully believe BR killed her, but lets say that he did. JR already lost 1 daughter, just would have lost another and then he is supposed to call the cops on his son? I just think that its possible he didn't want to put his son in that situation.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm finding your blog on the case quite interesting. I started with 2013 cobweb posts so haven't read from then to now yet to see if your opinions have changed or not, and if so how so...but from 2013 at least we're definitely united in that there was no intruder.

    I'd always suspected the parents, JR the culprit and stager, and Patsy blindly following what he said so she didn't lose her gravy train though after Koler's book and some of Burke's interviews, especially having knowledge of the head injuries, I landed 98% firmly on the side of the fence Burke did this to her and his parents covered it up, staged it, and shielded him.

    That said, you had a valid and firm theory/speculation that JR manipulated PR into going along and as a mother of 3 boys, I'd move the earth to protect them as much as possible, so it was hard for me from that perspective accepting your theory she went along after discovering he'd obviously been molesting my child. I'd have burned him alive.

    But then it kicked me in the head there are women who cling to wealthy, powerful men and their gravy trains - especially simple minded women...and I needed only to look at my own mother, sadly, to see her doing exactly what you described in your theory. My parents divorced and she later married a real sleazebag who manipulates her every move. She attempts to act independently and he supports her but in serious matters he cons, frauds, and manipulates her to the point she's chosen him over her own children. I've busted him cheating on her, indulging bestiality porn and teen porn - or leaving traces for me to find because he's a perv - so nothing I could definitively prove and because of it, he conned her some more.

    At one point it appeared he was messing with her medication as she was a drugged out zombie for 3 months and it coincided with his telling me on the DL he was considering leaving for a few months to visit his son, get away a bit...I swear to this day I thought he was trying to kill her. Once I raised it to his attention that her doctors need to check her meds, she suddenly started improving.

    So is it possible JR kept her drugged and manipulated? Having seen how easy it is to accomplish with a weaker personality, absolutely.

    I'm still leaning more to Burke but I don't think I can discount the one you presented at all. Back on the fence I go :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That said, you had a valid and firm theory/speculation that JR manipulated PR into going along . . ."

      I hope you understand what I mean by "going along." I've never claimed that Patsy knew he'd molested and murdered their daughter. If she did, I feel sure she'd have left him at once and called the police. What I've said is that she was manipulated, and possibly also gaslighted, into supporting his version of what happened in two crucial instances: the decision to make the 911 call and his story about breaking the basement window the previous summer. Any suspicions she might have had regarding his involvement in the crime itself would have been allayed by his being ruled out as writer of the note, a finding NO ONE in law enforcement ever questioned.

      Delete
    2. Definitely.

      I don't think she's been ruled out as the writer, definitively.

      So in the span between that post and this one, I managed to find the episode on Dateline.

      Now, amazing as it may be, I am one of the few who was never obsessed with this case so I had way more objectivity than a lot of people. It was tragic but I heard about it during a point in life I was busy with lots of things so never got into it much. It was never my "pet" case, so to speak. My big two were WM3 (innocent) and Paul Cortez (also innocent). I'd only delve into this case periodically and infrequently.

      I saw the handwriting comparisons and on a visual they were well matched. Her deposition on the samples was absurdly bogus. I doubted any intruder theory. It was only "this round" after years and years not looking at it that I decided to see what people were saying & why there were those who suspected Burke. I see exactly why that is and it brought my overall opinion to the place already mentioned - he did it and they covered it up.

      So, being there and still more objective than most (though I totally get obsession, I was ridiculously obsessive about the WM3 case back in the day and if I revealed my name at the time chances are tons of people would know it immediately)...

      So I pulled up the episode, grabbed a drink and settled back to watch. I decided that I'll set everything aside, all opinions, stuff I read/heard/watched and just look at it as if it's the first time and see if I come out of it with anything new or changed.

      I was a little squirmy with the initial phrasing of things but let it ride - things I can't help but know weren't the case - and it was when the two of them held that PR interview with CNN I believe it was, I could see this time around Patsy was so medicated she could hardly talk. When she said to keep your children safe - in that moment - I saw this woman loved both of her children to hell and back. I accepted for the first time she didn't kill her little girl. (Yes, I do understand your point about her being manipulated...I don't and never did think she'd knowingly allow her husband to molest/murder her child and sit quietly by. I'm also from the south...I get it.)

      When it was over, I'm still on the fence. I don't like the suspicion Burke hit his sister and even molested her - and even would be able to understand it from a child's point of view who has no real grasp of the permanence of consequences. Even molesting her over a period of time would be harmless from a child's point of view - we're sexual beings, his simple curiosity and unawareness being met with restriction and information - I don't for a moment think he was some little psycho. He diddled his baby sister, got caught, got in trouble and they thought they handled it. That sort of thing.

      Anyway, I could absolutely see Patsy being torn to pieces - needing to protect one child while mourning the loss of another at his hand...she did not want to lose her children. I could absolutely understand her being overly medicated and JR controlling that.

      I could see him convincing her this is the way to proceed.

      Delete
    3. BUT...I recognize outside Burke's statement and motion of blows to the head, etc. that he could've been informed of this by his parents in that week otherwise...that JR displayed everything a parent who is *not* bonded with a child displays. He is cold, he is calculating, he is manipulative - in exactly how he controlled the entire situation. I also know the statement Burke made is the only factual piece of evidence that provided him with inside knowledge not yet revealed so that's why I haven't discounted Burke, and JR just took control to "control the narrative" as Dr Phil put it about Burke...and provided a convincing argument for them both to do what he said do.

      At this time, while I still see Patsy writing the note, I don't - any longer - see her actively involved. I think she was in a no win position and had piss poor judgement overall but I understand the necessity in her mind to protect her child she'd still see as innocent even in guilt, shielding it, taking the blows for him.

      I understand it personally, because one of my own children revealed something to me that would ruin his life if it ever got out and I will go to my grave with that knowledge and it will never be revealed.

      I have not seen any other factual evidence that suggest John was molesting her prior to this, or was the one who killed her. If you have more on here that points to something I'll sure have a look. As of now, it looks like they both covered for Burke and staged this, and hired somebody to come up with alternate theories to try (or so they assumed would be easy enough) to shift light off them.

      Delete
    4. I find it interesting how women always are so quick to blame Patsy. Patsy was a patsy.

      Delete
  31. Sorry, went off and forgot to post the actual reason I posted ;p

    The A&E doc is utter garbage, if it's "truth uncovered" or whatever. You can google that with 'vodlocker' and watch online. It starts with a drone narrator saying JB was dragged from her bed, taken to the basement and tortured to death...and by 20 minutes in they're all but calling BPD liars, championing Smit's intruder theory. It's absolute nonsense and if you're OCD about facts and reality, chances are you won't be able to sit through it either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I went to vodlocker and tried to find that show, but their search engine came up blank. Any tips on how to find it? Do I need to register?

      Delete
    2. http://vodlocker.com/sa10lxj5ip0n here's the link I used

      Delete
    3. Hi Kara, thanks. But when I clicked on the link to sign up my browser stopped me. Apparently this is not considered a safe website.

      Delete
    4. I have half a dozen ad blockers and have never had any issues with vodlocker. ad guard, ad block, all of them. But I understand if you're uncomfortable. It's the one I used and I went ahead and watched the whole thing. It wasn't as bad as I felt originally once I got into it. It was still pro intruder and they sailed over the cobweb - giving it a slurred mention as if it was said with eye rolling. Basically implying James Kolar is obsessed and Lacy was right to do what she did, and only one hispanic male dna hit on the panties. They left a ton out and slanted it badly... it wouldn't surprise me if it was funded entirely by Team Ramsey at this point :)

      Delete
  32. Woah! They said BR reveals a significant detail regarding the pineapple and also about the mystery boot footprint on Dr Phil. Could be big

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, he says "maybe." The perfect teaser. Could be big -- most likely not.

      Delete
    2. Geesh on Dr Phill BR answers, acts, & looks like he just doesn't takes any of this very seriously... almost like he'd like to start laughing. Watch his eye movements, creepy. IMOO

      Delete
  33. What if Patsy did it all? All on her own? It would explain her writing the note then calling the police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just my opinion, but why then call 911 with the body in the house? Plus it doesn't explain JR's bs story about the window

      Delete
    2. The reason Patsy would have called the police with the body still in the house is because she likely had no ability to move it elsewhere.

      Patsy would surely have struggled to carry the dead weight that was Jon Benet's body upstairs to the garage from the basement. And she would likely have further struggled to lift it into the trunk of the car once she had it in the garage.

      Gravity being what it is, though, she probably could have managed to carry the body downstairs. And as it happens, the only place in the house where it could have been temporarily hidden with even a remote chance of not being discovered immediately was the basement.

      In view of John's personality, there was no way she could count on him leaving her alone in the house long enough to move the body to the trunk of a car in the garage, from which she could then move it elsewhere, even if she was physically up to the task.

      So if Patsy was covering up the crime, not John, once Jon Benet's body had been moved to the basement, that's where it likely would have had to remain until it was discovered. Whereas John could have planned to move Jon Benet's body from the house at a later time, common sense suggests this was a much less likely option for Patsy.

      Accordingly, any plan she devised to cover up Jon Benet's sudden disappearance would necessarily have been a very different plan than one John would have devised, simply because she would have had fewer options available to her due to the difference in her physical stature.

      When viewed from this angle, writing a very unusual bordering on ridiculous ransom note and then calling the police herself, knowing full that the body would be quickly found in the basement, isn't so illogical after all. What other option did she have, except to hope the police could ultimately be convinced that Jon Benet was murdered by an intruder?

      Sure, this would be an unbelievably risky plan on her part, but that risk was also part of the plan's ingenuity, because it was so risky that very few people would believe she would attempt to get away with it!

      Delete
    3. I thought about Patsy being entirely responsible but then watched something about the knot that was tied around JBR, how it was very intricate and the person who tied the knot had to know what they were doing. I don't think Patsy had the strength or knowledge to tie the rope like that.

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

    ReplyDelete
  35. In the previews for the next show Dr P asked him if he and JBR ate pineapple together that day. He answered maybe.
    I never thought that maybe the two of them ate the pineapple together before they went to the party. And the kitchen was such a mess neither John or Patsy even noticed.

    ReplyDelete

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I caught that too. And it's entirely possible they did eat it before they left for the White's house. But the forensic experts may know more than we do, i.e. that the pineapple was only partially digested, as opposed to what she ate for dinner, meaning it was eaten after dinner.

      Delete
    2. I am dure that if the pineapple was eaten before dinner then it would be beneath the dinner in the digestive system . I am no expert however if that were the case then im sure we would have the information regarding it as such. Beyond that PR and JR both denied anything about any eating of any pineapple that day, which leads us to Big Red Flags.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. Why was the pineapple lead never followed through by authorities? Now, Burke says he might have eaten pineapple with JBR. There is always some kind of out for him. Always. He is like this phantom member of the family who is neither here nor there. Asleep, not asleep, pretending to be asleep. Maybe in the background in the 911 call, maybe not. The parents try to be concrete with their answers regarding their whereabouts, even though they are not consistent. It is never the same for Burke. And everyone needs to start wondering why.

      Delete
    4. They show Burke saying "maybe" and that's it. "Tune in tomorrow folks." Sounds like a clever teaser to me, and I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that. If Burke "confessed" to "maybe" being with JonBenet when she had her pineapple that would be huge and I have a feeling we'd have heard about it by now. In any case, I'm willing to wait for the full context of Burke's "maybe" before making any assumptions.

      Delete
    5. I agree with Doc on this...I think he's going to say something like "maybe....its been 20 years and I dont remember"

      Delete
    6. Ok, but you are completely evading the other point I made, that Burke is always neither here nor there. I know he was young when JBR was murdered, but there is always a very fluid aspect to his presence in the home. No one can pinpoint him down. Wouldn't it be nice if we can all say "I don't remember" or "maybe" or "could be" or "that sure sounds like my voice in the background of the 911 call, but I was pretending to be asleep in bed while my mother was screaming about my sister being missing".

      Delete
  36. Ok how about this...

    Burke kills JBR but doesn't realise she is dead. He hits her on the head and she dies. John finds Burke and tells him to go to bed and John tells Burke that JBR is ok. John then plans the whole intruder scene to protect his son.

    Burke, meanwhile thinks JBR is ok and actually believes an intruder came during the night. Maybe he doesnt even remember hitting her. So Burke is the murderer but doesnt even realise it.

    John does the rest (including RN) and Patsy is completely in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This would work with Doc's theory (except he doesn't subscribe to any participation by BR)

      Delete
    2. I just don't believe any parent would be willing, or emotionally able, to construct such an elaborate cover up to protect their son. I think the FIRST thing any parent would do is call 911 for an ambulance. Most parents would hold out hope that their child could somehow be revived. And probably while they were waiting for the ambulance, they could call their attorney on advice about what their son did. They would have been told that Burke was too young to prosecute. There would be no need for any elaborate coverup to protect him.

      Delete
    3. Why not just call 911 if it was an accident?
      Jon

      Delete
    4. I agree. I just don't see Burke as the actor in this case. Everything points to John and John alone. Period end of story.

      Delete
  37. Does anyone know if JR's bonus was public information, posted on the company website or in the financial reports? How easy would it be for a non-family member to know the exact amount?
    BP

    ReplyDelete
  38. Amanda Knox and John Ramsey ought to get together and publish notes on how to get away with murder.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I do agree with what someone posted above...definitely not premeditated. It was the worst night possible for this to occur for John (if he did it). They got home late and had to get up early.

    It had to he an accident of some description "or" an outburst of sudden anger. Either way, it means the RN was not prepared earlier and was written that night. You would also assume the RN would have been the last thing to be performed after the body was moved and some intruder staging was performed.

    If Burke was involved, there is no way John would have got him to stay up and help with that. Saying that, it would have been a risk to let Burke go back to bed and potentially cry or wakeup Patsy (Patsy could not have been involved otherwise she would not have made the phone call to police). Plus John let Burke go off with friends in the morning which would not make sense if he was involved. Therefore, the more I think about it, I just can't see Patsy or Burke being involved. Both are odd characters no doubt, but that doesn't make them guilty.

    Which leaves John or intruder/s.

    If it was an intruder, they HAD to be in the house when the Ramsays got home. They didnt sneak in the basement window as John wouldn't have told that absurd window story. Plus cobwebs were not broken. So only way they could get in is if a door was unlocked or they had a key. And the intruders didnt take the body which doesnt make sense. Unless they deemed it too risky and decided to hide JBR in the basement hoping they wouldnt find her before paying the ransom. To be honest, I was very much IDI for a while (many years ago) because I dont think it could be ruled out as easy as Doc states. If an intruder/s did have a key or got in via an unlocked door, they had plenty of time to write the note whilst the Ramsays were out. Plus they could have brought the garrote with them, instead of John making this when obviously time would have been against him. And the idea of leaving with the body is certainly something which could have changed...things like murder would not always go to plan.

    I feel I can't entirely rule out Intruder...especially with some items (broken paintbrush and some other items) never recovered and the brutality of the garrote (i still cant imagine John doing that to his daughter).

    I think John is very much responsible and Burke/Patsy 100% innocent. But I just cant rule out intruder as easily as Doc although I dont believe it was an Intruder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I downloaded the "Little Girl Blu..." e-book Doc mentions in the introduction to this page. I found it very interesting, in regards to the intruder theory. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  40. JR and PR both had their own pens and pads of paper in the same area. When JR was asked for handwriting samples he handed over the 2 notebooks with writing in them to law enforcement. If JR wrote the note then why would he hand over the notepad and pen to LE ? Doc claims that JR probably did not think the notepad and pen could be traced to to the RN. I can agree with that, after thinking about it if it were me in this situation I probably would not think it could be traced either. So if JR did not think the pad could be traced back to the RN then why would he use PR's pen and paper to write the RN and not his own ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm pleased to see so many comments. I read all of them carefully, but at this point I just don't have the time or energy to respond to each one, or even most. Hope everyone understands and continues to post with their thoughts and theories regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I watched the first of the three Dr. Phil shows with Burke being interviewed. I didn't realize JR was going to be on it too, also being interviewed by Dr. Phil. I'm not sure if both interviews were done at the same time but I suspect they were just by the same set that they were in. There were actually more clips of Dr. Phil interviewing JR than Burke. Burke is definitely an odd duck -- constantly smiling even during the darkest of questions and fiddling with his fingers quite a bit. But I would agree with Dr. Phil that he is just "socially awkward." I don't think he's a murderer.

    During a segment with JR, when recounting what happened that morning, JR said that he said "call the police." As Doc has stated previously, during the A&E interview of both Patsy and JR, Patsy says "I told him I was going to call the police and he said OK." Now that I've seen both interviews and have seen how each recalls how that 911 call was made, I believe Patsy. She is very clear and precise with her wording when she talks about deciding to call the police, whereas JR raised his voice slightly when he recounts saying "call the police." It's like he was trying to over emphasize that he wanted the police called which, of course, he didn't according to Doc's theory.

    Other than that, there wasn't anything very noteworthy about Dr. Phil's interview. I know a few people caught the preview of tomorrow's show where he is asked if he ate pineapple with JonBenet and he responds "maybe". That would certainly explain his fingerprints on the bowl. But maybe the pineapple was eaten before they went to dinner, unless it has already been determined, by how much it was digested, that it was eaten after her dinner. I'd be curious to know how long it takes pineapple to digest.

    I also watched Discovery ID's special tonight (also a 3-part series). It was terrible in comparison to the A&E documentary or Dateline special. It was a Hollywood glamorized show, with actors playing the Ramseys and reenacting different events, rather than using real clips. The show heavily suggested that Patsy killed JB during a late night bedwetting incident and JR helped with a coverup. The handwriting "expert" who analyzed both JR's and Patsy's handwriting samples stated, quite frankly, that JR was "ruled out", but that she found hundreds of letter similarities between Patsy's handwriting and the RN. This show was amateurish when it came to analyzing the evidence and clues, drawing quick conclusions about many clues. It reminded me of how the tabloids draw quick conclusions and sensationalize cases. Part Two will introduce Lou Smit and his intruder theory which should be interesting since they already laid down their PDI theory.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  43. It's amazing that Patsy and John had no problem throwing their friends under the bus and burning bridges, even John saying the White families wife was jealous of Patsy. The ironic part in that is that John and Patsy seemed to be closer than ever and not even question each other despite the publics view on the case.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh wow.

    So I went (to vodlocker again / http://vodlocker.com/fxk23ofdmglk / ) and got the Dr Phil episode. Once again deciding to set my Burke suspicions aside and see how I felt. My observations:

    1. How the hell did Dr Phil, faux doc entertainment tv hack, managed to "uncover" and "obtain" police interview tapes of Burke's 1st, original, unlawyered police interviews a weekish after she was found? Or the other two in an open investigation? Do we really feel BPD handed them over to the media?

    2. Dr Phil show graphic artists are entirely too full of themselves and spent 80% of the episode showing off flashy graphics and rehashing everything, and, to be completely fair to Burke, almost certainly creative editing in the vein of The Walking Dead trailers that always make it look like Daryl's a goner. Every cut between question and answer had Burke looking all shifty eyed, nervous and twitchy, smiling wide and amused, but when the wide shots happened it was far less suggestive. It would be nice if they'd sat him down, turned on the camera and left it alone the entire time - no edits, no cuts, no bias slanting. Just ask and let the boy talk uninterrupted.

    3. Burke did a hell of a lot of smiling and twitching and answered vaguely in everything relevant to what "we" want to know, yet managed to have a pretty clear recall of irrelevant stuff.

    4. Not convinced at all by this that he's uninvolved. There was a chilling response from him about being told she was in heaven when he said his dad told him that and started to cry, and everyone was sad, "so I started to cry" as if his father was cuing his response. I didn't think John manipulated it, my entire reaction was "Dexter" and his ever elusive grasping at trying to emulate what normal people do as expected so he'd fit in.

    5. Dr Phil appears to be pro intruder theory at the end of the day.

    6. John said three words that about sent me into a cold sweat that were so utterly inappropriate and horrific it's astonishing. He recounted his discovery and bringing her up and a split second before cutting to something else, John finished with (after putting her on the floor and Arndt saying JB was dead), "She looked peaceful."

    I'm sorry but WTF? She's got a cord dug so deeply into her throat it's a wonder she wasn't beheaded, her stiff arms above her head bound at the wrists, she's got bruises and abrasions across her face and side of her head, mucus and brown dried substance across her face...and she looked peaceful? Does she look peaceful?

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7f/4c/7c/7f4c7c56c23941738cf2e573a301b920.jpg

    7. That bratty ass 13 year old needs to be dropped off in the desert somewhere and left for the buzzards. Or, perhaps garrotted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comment "she looked peaceful" really caught my attention, too. Is that really the first thought that comes to mind when recalling the discovery of your beloved 6 year old child has been heinously murdered? A a minimum, John has a sensitivity chip missing. Perhaps this personality "defect" was inherited by Burke, who seems to fall somewhere on the asperger spectrum, or at best has a low EQ. I'm not trying to play doctor here, just saying that the father and son seem to have some similar personality traits. Both of them could have been jealous of Patsy's and JBR's outgoing personalities.

      However, there are 3 pieces of information that I cling to:
      1. I find DocG's analysis of the ransom note, compared to JR's exemplars, very compelling. I do think the lettering was copied or traced from an MS Word draft. I wonder if the BPD examined his laptop for temp copies of any docs. I am convinced that JR wrote that note.
      2. The reported screams that a neighbor claimed to have heard that night. Were the kids fighting in the basement, as someone on this blog suggested? Did Burke use the train tracks to poke at JBR or even electrically shock her? Did JR hear the scuffle, go to investigate, and accidentally hit JBR with the flashlight?
      3. The signs of prior sexual abuse really confuse the situation. Could it be that JR was abusing JBR, but there were also issues with Burke? Once John realized he had hit JBR with such force and things looked really bad for him, for her, and even for Burke (e.g. how am I going to explain all of this?) he proceeded with a cover up of Burke's deeds and his own deeds. In other words, both father and son had wronged this child and are culpable. For a man with his character/personality traits, I think he justified his actions to himself and that's why he says things like "she looked peaceful."

      Delete
    2. Not sure why you feel the need to include Burke in this scenario.

      Delete
    3. Doc, I don't personally need to include Burke, because I think your scenario is the most plausible one that I've read. However, given all the comments about Burke and his behavior/demeanor/silence, I wanted to just throw out some thoughts on the possibility that Burke is the cause of some of the injuries found on JBR, but JR is the one who wielded the flashlight and committed the strangulation and subsequent staging. Its just a way to get those who think Burke was somehow involved to play out in their minds how this went down. Its a more complex theory -- just something to think about.

      Delete
    4. "She's got a cord dug so deeply into her throat it's a wonder she wasn't beheaded" I suspect John was indeed going to behead her later. Don't think she fits into the suitcase with her head. Would get rid of her bashed skull. In fact, if he was going to get rid of the note (not at all clear), it seems the kind of thing he would have to do along with withdrawing the money.

      Delete
    5. This is an interesting observation, but decapitating someone in that way in a hasty fashion is kind of unrealistic. There would be a massive amount of blood loss. I think he just wanted to make sure she was dead or to make the staging look realistic.

      Delete
    6. Nothing hasty about nearly beheading someone with a garrote and then giving yourself a whole day to finish it off. The delivery will be exhausting.

      Delete
  45. I`ll give you the solution to this `mystery`: her brother did it. It`s obvious. Just listen to his story and look at the guy, I can`t believe he got away with it, he might as well walk around with a large sign, reading "I killed my sister" with big neon letters. Cased closed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Does anyone have the vodlocker link to the second dr phil interview (part 2) with burke? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll post it when it's up. I usually watch via primewire.ag but you will need heavy ad blockers.

      Delete
  47. Well, the Dr. Phil interview with Burke does not make Burke look very good at all. This second interview makes him look so unemotional and uncaring. He even said he was downstairs playing the night of the murder. I bet JBR came downstairs to see where he was and to get some food. Maybe with Patsy. Maybe Patsy went upstairs and let the kids play for a bit before bed and then something happened.

    The baseball bat that was found outside had fibers from the carpet in the basement. Burke said he remembers leaving his baseball bat outside frequently but can't remember if he had pineapple the night that his sister died, stating "who remembers what they ate 20 years ago?". Well, a specific event right before a tragic event is more memorable than whether or not you left your baseball bat outside on a frequent basis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, maybe Burke ate the pineapple when he sneaked downstairs to play with his Christmas gift. Fearing he would get in trouble, he denied being the one to eat it. After that, he figured he had to maintain the lie. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  48. I actually kinda like Burke. He is very introverted. Introverted people are often misunderstood (raises hand).
    But he could still be a possibility.
    But not really - John did it. Premeditated. Alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am introverted and hugely misunderstood in my life, but either he did it or he knows who did and will not/can not say. He was one of three living people in a home where his younger sister was killed. Misunderstood really flies out the window at this point.

      Delete
    2. I don't have a problem with Burke's smile and I don't see him as particularly weird either. Nor do I see him on the autistic spectrum. He makes eye contact and he engages with the good Dr. in a reasonably normal manner. I agree that he seems very introverted and shy, and seems also to be the sort of person who has a very hard time dealing with emotions. He was clearly withdrawn and detached as a child and he still is to some extent. But he also comes across as intelligent, cooperative and reasonable.

      Which doesn't mean I believe every word out of his mouth. I've always thought he knew more than he was willing to say (or dared to say) and I still believe that. The presence of Lin Wood on this show is chilling. I can see him prepping Burke and making it clear to him what he could and could not say.

      Delete
  49. I think its funny "Doc" thinks she knows everything about everything, even if posters on here have been around kids or not. Get over yourself, Please! Do you really think you are smarter and more experienced than the professionals? Didn't I read where you said you were the "only one" that put JR as the writer of the letter. LOL, again, please sit down! You seem to be pushing an agenda, js!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DocG is a male. I have never read where he states that he knows everything about everything. He explains upfront in this blog, which btw is HIS blog, the methodology that he uses. You can't argue with logic, but I've known many an illogical person who think they know everything and you can't argue with them!

      Some of us who have been on this blog for years, regardless of whether all are in agreement with Doc, have great respect for his thinking skills, his writing skills, and his patience. I'm sure many of us on here have kids or have been around kids; you are not special in that regard. Now I suggest you go back a read or re-read, because the entire premise that Doc put forward is: if you don't rule out John as the writer of the ransom note, what can you then do with a hypothesis based on him being the author? With that as a hypothesis, you examine the various scenarios. Which scenarios are most supported by known facts? Which ones require so much speculation that the case becomes too weak?

      Finally, what in the heck would his agenda be? He doesn't personally know JR. Most of us do not. I think most on this site want justice for an innocent little child.

      Delete
  50. Agreed. Doc has a viable theory, as there are many viable theories in this case. Nothing in this case is concrete, none of the evidence is concrete and no theory is concrete, including Docs, any more than alot of other theories. What I have found in this case is if you last read James Kolar, you will think BR did it, if you last read Steve Thomas' book you will think PR did it and if you last read Doc's theory here you will believe JR did it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, that is why this is such a bizarre crime. I go back and forth each day. No road leads to Rome.


      Delete
    2. Here's another angle for you... read "Little Girl Blue," which Doc mentions above. Now I'm leaning towards the housekeeper. Good Lord. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    3. I also read that book and the author makes some very interesting points about Linda the housekeeper, yes. It's clear that she'd been filled with a considerable amount of inner resentment directed against Patsy, which could have provided a motive. The author also points to many details where certain items or locations were known only to Linda and Patsy and no one else, apparently. One almost comes to think: if it wasn't Patsy it must have been Linda. I'm sure that wasn't Linda's intention but many things in Linda's book could backfire on her if she were ever taken seriously as a suspect.

      I've been over this theory many times, both in my head and with people commenting on this blog, and despite the many reasons to suspect Linda there is really no evidence of her involvement, nor any reason to believe she or her husband could have written the ransom note or would have done all that was done that night. It's occurred to me that they could have had an accomplice who was better educated and more literate, but there's a limit to which one can spin this sort of theory. I might want to write more about Linda in the light of this very interesting book, if I have time.

      What's so fascinating about this case is the large number of potential suspects who seem so likely to have committed this crime if you look carefully enough at their background and potential motive. You can pick any one of over a dozen and convince yourself that this HAS to be the one.

      Delete
    4. I understand what you're saying. Still, I found this theory to be more believable than the one where John goes off the deep end and kills his daughter.

      Delete
    5. My comment above. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    6. Of the motives out there: anger over bedwetting, covering up incest, jealousy of the Ramsey money and lifestyle, sibling fighting and/or rivalry, foreign faction who does not respect John or his country, ransom for money, just because the Ramsey's have money (strangely though only asking for $118K),angry ex-employees...The one that I find most compelling is incest. Incest destroys careers, livelihoods, reputations, families, lives. There is a lot to lose if you're caught molesting a child. On the other hand, extorting people for money for whatever reason, whether it be greed or jealousy, has a lot of risk tied to the benefit. Would any amateur in their right mind think all of this was worth $118,000? I don't think you have to be any smarter than LHP to realize the risk tied to such a scheme. I could see LHP asking Patsy for more and more money, to see how much she could be milked, but I don't really believe she would hurt Jonbenet or risk going to jail to get an amount of money that would not even cover attorney fees if she got caught.

      Delete
    7. You could be right. However, I think LHP would have considered $118k a lot of money, but yet a small enough amount in JR's eyes to possibly not involve the police. I believe people are attracted to sensationalized theories, rather than a plain old kidnapping plot gone wrong. Check out Little Girl Blu, if you haven't already.

      Delete
  51. After watching the first episode of Dr Phil, I think Burke had nothing to do with it. Hes just a shy, introverted human being who has been sheltered most of his life. When he said he thought maybe JBR was hiding somewhere, I believed him. For me, I'm ruling out Burke. I think it was a 90% chance it was John (and John alone) and 10% it was an intruder/s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah being only 9 at the time I think Burke would have cracked by now if he had done it. Don't think he had anything to do with it.

      Delete
    2. Cracked how ? He has not said a word in 20 yrs and denied LE an interview.

      Delete
    3. He might not have cracked by now since he had the cloak of armor around him including his mom, dad, lawyer, many family friends, etc.

      He has odd behavior, to say the least. He isn't doing wonderfully let's put it that way.

      I think he might crack down the line, maybe once his father gets up there in years. I wonder if that is why interview was done...to protect him in the future. Maybe John knows he might have trouble later in life when he is gone so he is setting up this "introduction" to his son, which includes the world knowing Burke's take on his sister's murder and knowing that Burke is "socially awkward". It seems the whole thing was to field off any future questions about Burke.

      Delete
  52. Burke seems like a nice guy, Patsy and Burke come off to me as likeable people. John is defensive and comes off as having a temper or not likeable, though I am not saying he's not likeable.
    Burke in his part 2 interview with Dr.Phil seems emotionless as a kid, doesn't seem to respond to questions appropriately and his movements seem strange but I take that as a 9 year old kid who doesn't know how to act. Maybe Jonbenet and Burke weren't close?
    As far as the part where after they were brought to bed, Burke sneaking downstairs while the potential killer(s) were in the house?
    The thing I don't like is how nobody could remember why a bowl of pineapple would be on the counter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With BR's fingerprints on it. I want to know if he was questioned about the pineapple 20 years ago. We already know he lied about the 911 call so we know he is capable and good at lying as a 9 yr old.

      Delete
    2. Actually for the first time we learn that his prints were on the glass, NOT the bowl as has generally been assumed. And it's not clear, to me at least, whether the glass has anything to do with the bowl of pineapple at all. So many people were present in the kitchen that morning that it's hard to say why the glass was there. Wonder if anyone else's prints were on it.

      Delete
    3. PR's and BR's prints were on the bowl ? Did that change ? If so which is the truth ?

      Delete
  53. Besides the fact that Burke seemed affable during the Dr. Phil interview, how come no one points out the details Burke says (or doesn't say). Everyone is on point detailing everything about John and Patsy, but Burke is left in the dust. He is dismissed, probably because he was young and under so much control of Patsy and John. But, it is kind of embarrassingly stupid to not fine tooth comb what Burke says if are going to fine tooth comb the ransom note.

    Ok, did no one at all find it odd that Burke said he never read the ransom note in its entirety? Ever! He never read it through. Must be kind of a boring read. Guess he isn't too concerned about the "killer on the loose" like his mom and dad were. Oh well.

    Burke also did not remember if he came downstairs to eat pineapple the night JBR died because "who remembers what they ate 20 years ago?". True, so true. But, I don't remember what I got for Christmas 20 years ago, yet Burke remembered what he got as well as what JBR got. He remembers going downstairs the night of the murder, and recalls that he "always left his baseball bat outside" (you know, the baseball bat that was found outside that had traces of the carpet from the basement on it). He also recalls pretending to be asleep when his mom screamed for his sister and also remembers a police officer coming into his room. Basically, he remembers everything but eating pineapple and never read the ransom note through.

    Ransom notes that detail killing your sister who was found dead in your home are generally boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me Burke's lack of interest in the note and in the case generally is consistent with his personality. He obviously has a problem dealing with emotions and focusing on the note and other details of the case would probably have been intolerable for him. He could probably profit from old fashioned psychoanalysis.

      As far as the pineapple is concerned, note that Dr. Phil asked if he'd had pineapple with JonBenet at any time that day. He should have narrowed it down but he didn't, possibly because Lin Wood wouldn't let him. Burke says he can't remember, which is interesting. As I see it, if he had anything to hide in that regard he would simply have denied it.

      Delete
    2. You make a lot of excuses for Burke. I find it interesting.

      You don't at all think it is odd that a 29 year old man has, at this point, not had any interest in reading a complete two and a half page ransom note that is at the crux of his sister's murder? Regardless of whether or not he has "emotional issues".

      Delete
    3. As usual I always ask myself what someone would have to gain whenever it seems possible that someone might be lying. I see nothing Burke had to gain by claiming he never read the note that carefully. So I have no reason not to believe him.

      Delete
    4. That is ridiculous. Burke gains defending his mother for writing the note or not confessing she wrote it. He stays out of it all...like he has from day one. He was in his room the whole time pretending to be asleep. He was whisked away as soon as the police arrive. He has never spoken to the press until now. He has very vivid memories of certain things around the time of the murder (like the exact Christmas gifts he and his sister received and that he went downstairs to play with a toy), but can't remember if he ate food that night before bed.

      You just don't want to go there with the BDI theory because it isn't the JDI theory.

      We are all writing what WE think of the Dr. Phil interview, where is your commentary?

      Delete
    5. I've already presented my views on BDI many times, in posts and comments strewn around this blog. I saw nothing (so far) in the Dr. Phil interview to change that. In sum, BDI strikes me as extremely unlikely, though technically there are no facts that could rule it out completely. For details you can do a search here on his name.

      Delete
  54. So, after all of these years, John Ramsey finally admits to Dr. Phil that not only was the black flashlight on the counter his, that he used it to take Burke to bed? Why in the world would he need a flashlight to do that???? I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard that. The Ramseys were questioned several times over the years about the flashlight and stated that they either didn't recognize it or wasn't sure if it was their's. REALLY? This is huge. Then Burke sneaks downstairs to play with a toy when everyone went to bed???? This has NEVER been discussed. So why now? Like I said, John and Lin are telling the world who the killer is. It's Burke Ramsey. Case closed. - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The story I heard is that either John or Patsy couldn't identify their flashlight from a photo because it had been dusted for prints before being photographed and looked darker than it actually was.

      And John reported years ago that he and Burke worked together assembling a toy before going to bed. That was never a secret.

      Delete
    2. Except in the interview, Burke made it sound like he had gone downstairs alone to work on the toy, not worked on it with his father. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  55. Also, during the Dr. Phil interview, Dr. Phil asks Burke why he is talking now...Burke states that it is the 20th anniversary and "apparently there is still a lot of attention around it [the crime]".

    Patsy and John always believe there was an intruder and that the intruder was still at large. Why isn't Burke interested in finding his sister's killer? Why is he describing an unsolved murder by a still-at-large killer as apathetically as he does? Like it is an annoyance.

    I recall before Patsy died (or perhaps it was shortly after she died) that there was a "break in the case" and that some pediphile was found in Thailand. I remember finding the timing of this odd due to Patsy either being ill again or just passing. Nothing came of the lead and it all just went away. There is a history of bringing "new light" to the unsolved case at certain times, seemingly to deflect from themselves and protect their own image. The Ramsey's seem very set on protecting their own image.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The police believe that Burke saw or heard something that night that can implicate the murderer. It makes me wonder if Burke knows that John did it and has suppressed the memory all of these years later.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Seeing the interview/interogation with Patsy, she is very adamant about not killing her daughter and I believe it!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Why would Burke Ramsey need to have read the ransom note? I can't believe there are those who even think a 9 year old wrote that. The media keeps harping on the "mysterious ransom note." It's not that difficult. The note was addressed to John Ramsey. Has anyone ever questioned John's friends about the bonus?

    ReplyDelete
  59. John is sticking to the bold face lie that he was the one who told Patsy to call the police. If only the police knew about Patsy herself admitting it was her idea. And those in the house felt that John walked right down to the basement as if he knew where the body was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was the one who told PR to call the police according to what BR remembers from that morning.

      Delete
  60. Hi DocG. I've been a long time follower of your blog, and I agree whole-heartedly with your theory. There is one thing however I cannot seem to wrap my head around and trust me I've tried. Any incite would be appreciated:

    If the RN was written on the family notepad in the house (assumably by JR), and PR and JR both admitting to reading it; why were there no finger prints found on the RN? And to your knowledge were pens in the house ever checked? I could not find anything. From my understanding, fingerprints can be obtained from regular note paper under the right circumstances for up to a year after they have been placed... odd that no fingerprints and only a partial palm print were found on the 3 pages with writing but 5 of Patsy's prints were found on the notepad itself. I read somewhere as well that PR later re-canted her admission of picking up the note but rather read it on the floor or "couldn't remember", but it mysteriously ended up on the counter before the police arrived. I should also note that 2 prints from police officers at the scene where obtained from the RN.

    Your theory that clean hands might not leave a print is believable, but I am still seeing an inconsistancy. They both claim JR had a shower that morning which supports your clean hands theory most definitely. Patsy however was still dressed in clothing and makeup from the previous party night, and its not very likely a woman wearing previous nights makeup took the time to wash just her hands and only her hands prior to going downstairs to begin her day, and finding the note.

    Sweat and oil in the hands will also increase the chances of at least a partial print on the RN and I find it very hard to believe that a father staging a cover-up for a murder or a mother who just found a ransom note for her beloved kidnapped daughter are not sweating enough to leave at least a partial print on the paper. Do you have a theory for this?

    Looking forward to your response. Much respect as always,
    A xo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all I see no reason to assume Patsy was still in clothing and makeup from the previous night. If you agree with my theory where is that coming from?

      As far as prints are concerned, the only explanation for the lack of Patsy or John's prints on that note is that prints don't always show up. Period. Even if their prints were found on the note that would mean nothing, because they certainly handled it after it was found on the stairs. The reason the investigators examined it for prints (destroying it in the process) was to see if the "intruders" prints might be on it. Patsy or John's prints would have meant nothing.

      Imo far too much has been made of this issue. Yes, it's surprising that Patsy and John's prints were not found on the paper. No, there is nothing suspicious about that. Nor would it have been suspicious if their prints HAD been found. Prints don't always show up. That's the nature of the beast.

      Delete
  61. Just watched dr phil episode 2. Episode didn't really share too much really. Two things I noted:

    1. Burke seems like a nice bloke. Shy, yes. Reserved and a tad socially awkward, yes. But a nice guy. He had nothing to do with this and doesnt know anything.

    2. However, I couldn't believe it when he said he snuck downstairs when everyone was asleep to play with a toy. And Burke said, he went alone when everyone else was asleep. He seemed to remember that well. He wasn't playing with John, although I believe John did state that (which I'm sure did happen because John couldn't not tell that because he knew Burke might tell police). However when John told that I was under the impression it was soon after they got home and Patsy was still possibly awake.

    So, this tells us that everyone went to bed and it was dark (Burke said this). He then woke up (not sure how late it was) and "snuck downstairs by himself" to play with a toy. And then, I assume, John heard and came down to see what was going on and probably played with Burke for 5min. This tells us everyone was asleep except for John and Burke. John then put Patsy to bed and either JonBenet woke up or John woke her up. We do know that John was out of bed, alone, during the night JBR was murdered. Coincidence? I don't think so. I wonder if JBR would have never been killed if Burke never snuck downstairs that night....

    ReplyDelete
  62. Doc, make no mistake. This information is NEW. I can't believe no one is discussing this!!!! Burke clearly agreed that he (Dr. Phil used the word SNEAKED) downstairs AFTER everyone went to bed to play with a toy that he would not identify. Dr. Phil then asked Burke if he saw anything suspicious while he was down there and Burke said no. Why are we not discussing this revelation???? And yes, I know that John helped Burke with a toy before leading him to bed. That was also discussed but also added that John used a FLASHLIGHT to take Burke to his room. That is highly unusual. - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Dr. Phil knew more about the case he would have followed up with more questions, because what Burke said was vague. Did he really get up after having gone to bed? According to John the two of them worked on the toy together before going to bed. Which is it? Phil should have followed up on that but didn't. Also mention of the flashlight is a red flag for sure. But again there was no follow up.

      Don't get me wrong. I feel sure Burke had nothing to do with JBR's murder, but I do feel sure he is withholding important information that could implicate his father.

      Delete
  63. In other words, here is the order of events:

    1. John puts JonBenet in bed and Patsy changes her clothes then tucks her in.

    2. John helps Burke with a toy shortly after returning home.

    3. John leads Burke to bed using a FLASHLIGHT that they claimed may or may not belong to them and later had no fingerprints on it despite John using it that night.

    4. After everyone is in bed and all the lights are out, Burke sneaks downstairs with the FLASHLIGHT so he can either continue to assemble his "toy" or play with it. Doesn't it seem incredibly unlikely that a normal 9 year old child would go downstairs ALONE in a huge dark house just to mess around with a toy??? And why won't they tell us what this toy was? One of the gifts Burke received was a train. I thought he already had a train? Maybe he did and got a new one? Why are there no crime scene photos of this train set? Why were there no fingerprints from Burke or John on the flashlight? - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Doc, please skip to the 33:55 mark for info about the Burke sneaking downstairs:

    https://youtu.be/FxSBUjf4QLo

    - D.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. That's very interesting. The problem is that Phil is putting words into Burke's mouth. As a psychiatrist I suppose he knows what he's doing but as an interrogator in a criminal case he makes some serious errors.

      We also need to realize that what we are seeing is not necessarily continuous. In this type of show, often the questions are shot separately from the responses and then it's all edited together to make it seem like a real time interchange. This can create a false impression of what the respondent is actually responding to when questioned.

      I don't mean to apologize for Burke, because this exchange does in fact raise some red flags. But I do wish Phil had understood the implications better and asked some followup questions so we could get a clearer picture of exactly what went on between him and his father and what role the flashlight played.

      By the way it wasn't just that there were no prints on the flashlight. According to reports I read, the flashlight had been wiped clean, as had the batteries inside it.

      Also, according to her testimony as I recall it, Patsy was asleep by the time John went to bed, so there is no solid evidence that he went to bed at all that night. According to her he was already in the shower when she awoke, so she apparently never saw him in bed next to her that night.

      Delete
  65. There has been new video uploads (8/16) on the Ramsey house, showing every single section of the house, gives a VERY detailed view of the home and basement. That house is truly a maze.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJcdwgRsh5s

    Letty

    ReplyDelete
  66. The part where John was talking about Linda A pissed me off. He was "exonerated" by so-called experts but had the audacity to say that Linda should not have been a cop. Of course, John! She's one of the few people on this Earth that quickly realized the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  67. According to John, friends encouraged them to go on television. He's still throwing them under the bus years later.

    ReplyDelete
  68. One thing I can say is that the police got it right. There is no doubt in their mind that it was an inside job but it's baffling that they won't realize that only one did it. John lying about the window saved his ass in more ways than one. That's the most frustrating thing about this case. It CAN be solved.

    ReplyDelete
  69. In the interview with John, they ask him if Patsy wrote the note. But nowhere do you see them ask him if HE wrote it. Once again, why?

    ReplyDelete
  70. The key thing about this case is Burke. I believe he has information that could lead to John's arrest. The fact that he hasn't spoken to police the two times they've requested is what's holding this case up.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I noticed something yesterday while watching the Dr. Phil show that I never noticed before. When they played the clip from CNN when Patsy says "Keep your babies close" take a look at JR when she says this. He mouths the exact same thing as she is saying it. Rehearsed?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  72. John said that his child was murdered Christmas night. But there has been no specific time attributed to when JonBenet died or how long she had been dead when she was found right?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hmm, if Patsy stated that she never saw him in bed that night, that means that's another clue that the police skipped right over...

    ReplyDelete
  74. I read this at another site:

    "I read on Twitter that on Part 3 Dr. Phil reveals Burke has Aspergers. That had occurred to me at the end of Part 1."

    Has anyone seen a preview of the third interview segment anywhere?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Doc, et al. - What do you think about the times that John said after Patsy changed JBR, that he read a book to her when he put her to bed, as he said he always read to her? I know I saw that in an interview but it never comes up anymore. The story is always changing with little tweaks here and there. Guess it doesn't matter in the end, he put her to bed and did or did not read a book. But when asked the sequence of events that night I know that lies get hard to track and keep up with and the truth is always the same and always the truth. Because you did not make up any of the truth. You make up the lies. KDinVA

    ReplyDelete