What the world might need least is yet another lecture from DocG on the importance of logic. Well, screw the world. You're going to get one anyhow.
What concerns me especially at this point is the tendency of so many following this case, including many posting here, to confuse these three terms: assumption, speculation, logic. An assumption is a supposition asserted as though it were a fact. For example: "The Ramseys acted together, as a team." That's not a fact, yet for most following this case it is treated as a fact -- no, it's an assumption. "John Ramsey could not have written the ransom note" -- again a supposition treated as a fact. The finding of a team of "experts" is an opinion, not a fact. But as an assumption it gets treated as though it were a fact. "Burke Ramsey was eating pineapple with his sister on the night of her murder" -- an assumption, not a fact. There is no evidence other than some fingerprints which could have been placed at any time, linking Burke to JonBenet via some pineapple.
Assumptions abound in the Ramsey case, and often I get challenged because some aspect of my thinking conflicts with some commonly held assumption. E.g., "Weren't the Ramseys exonerated by the DNA evidence?" It is then presumed that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Misunderstandings abound with respect to my notion of a fact. Here's a typical example:
". . . it is not a FACT that JR molested anyone and it is not a fact that Patsy would not have called 911 with JB's body still in the house. It is also not a fact that the note was an attempt to stage a fake kidnapping." I never claimed that any of these is a fact. I've provided a very strict definition of fact for the purposes of this investigation: a fact is not only something known with complete certainty (the usual definition), but for our purposes in reviewing this case, something on which all parties agree. That JR molested his daughter is certainly not a fact by any standard and I've never claimed it was. Nor is it an assumption, since I never treat it like a fact. It is a speculation. I'll get to "speculation" part presently. "That Patsy would not have called 911 with JB's body still in the house" is neither a fact, an assumption, nor a speculation. It is a logical inference. "That the note was an attempt to stage a fake kidnapping" is also a logical inference, based on a prior inference: that there could have been no intruder. It IS fact, however, that the note is a ransom note, and must be understood as such.
I've been accused, by someone whose identified him or her self as a lawyer, that my theory "is not a repository of facts and logic" as I have claimed. . . "When submitting arguments for court, you can't falter at the beginning or assume "facts" because then the argument suffers from the fatal blow of casuistry." Excuse me? First of all my theory does in fact hinge on facts and logic. And I fail to see how an argument based on facts automatically descends into casuistry. And when it comes to facts, I "assume" nothing. There is no statement asserted as fact by me that would not be agreed to by literally everyone familiar with this case. Fact: Patsy is the one who called the police. Fact: the ransom note is a ransom note. Fact: the ransom note was written on paper taken from a notepad in the house. Fact: JonBenet's body was found in the house a few hours after the police were called. Fact: a window in the basement was found to have a broken pane. These are widely accepted FACTS, not assumptions, sorry your honor.
I'm sorry also, that some posting here feel that I've dismissed their theories and belittled their opinions. In my defense all I can say is that it gets very tiring when one has to over and over clarify misunderstandings and, sometimes, parry rather vicious attacks, made by people simply incapable of reading and understanding what I (and others) have written. Over and over I'm accused of making unwarranted assumptions to "save my theory" from the many "refutations" offered by people who 1. can't read and 2. can't bear to see their pet theories questioned. When someone actually does offer a serious challenge to my view, I take it very seriously and try to deal with it as best I can. I certainly don't dismiss valid criticisms. But I'm losing patience with those who persist in offering criticisms based on their own ignorance or failure to understand.
Back to the matter at hand:
As I see it, all we need to solve the case is the right combination of facts and logical inferences based on those facts. For details as to how that works in this case, see my previous blog post. For me this combination is rock solid and leads inevitably to John Ramsey as both writer of the note and murderer of his daughter. Anyone seeking to challenge it must either contest my facts (on which everyone agrees) or my logic. But you can't refute a logical inference by asserting that it is "just an assumption," as many have asserted. There is a huge difference between an assumption and a logical inference. When I claim that Patsy would not have made the 911 call if she were staging a kidnapping, I am obliged to provide a logical argument, which is totally different from an assumption, which is taken for granted and requires no argument.
Now my argument may be flawed. Which is one reason I am here, because I've wanted to give people the chance to challenge my logic. But all I've gotten so far are complaints that I'm just making assumptions or just jumping to conclusions. That's not fair. If there's a problem with my logic, it can be revealed only by another logical argument, not simply dismissed as an assumption, or as the result of arrogance or hubris.
Now as I made clear in my previous post, the case I'm making can be made very simply and on the basis of only a few sentences: statements of fact followed by logical inferences based on those facts. And as far as I'm concerned, because of the special circumstances of this case, that should be enough to identify the guilty party.
Of course there is a lot more to the case than just identifying who dunnit. And a great many questions arise. But as I see it, if my logic is sound, then every other aspect of the case can only be understood on the basis of the facts and logic presented at the outset. When attempting to answer all the many questions and account for all the evidence, it is simply not possible to rely only on facts, because in so many instances the facts are simply not available. This is where speculation comes in. My treatment of the ransom note, for example, is highly speculative and many have challenged it, as they have every right to do. But please don't confuse speculation with logic and accuse me of claiming that a speculative scenario is based purely on facts and logic when the facts are not there and we have no choice but to use our imagination. And that goes for everyone analyzing this case. The rule I've adopted for this sort of speculation is: 1. it must help us understand the evidence we are considering and 2. it must be consistent not only with the evidence at hand, but all the other evidence as well.
When attempting to account for all the evidence it's possible, if not inevitable, that at some point one might find something that appears to contradict the main premise. The Ramsey's assertion, in their book, that the 911 call was John's idea, is one example. If that were true, then that would mean my logic is flawed and my conclusion incorrect. Not only that, but by virtue of the same logic, one could assert that both Ramseys must be innocent. Because, if both John and Patsy really wanted that call made, then by the same token, we would be forced to conclude that neither of them could have been staging a kidnapping. Which would mean there must have been an intruder after all. Which for me makes no sense, because, as so many following this case have argued: no intruder theory makes sense. So. Something is wrong here. Something has to give.
The solution lies in the realization that the widely held belief that this is an accurate description of what actually happened between Patsy and John that morning is an assumption, not a fact. It's also important to realize that Patsy and John were (and are) suspects, meaning it would be a huge mistake to take them at their word. So when we find a quotation from Patsy contradicting the version provided in their book, we are in a position to challenge the notion that the call was John's idea. It's not a fact that it wasn't. Nor is it even a logical inference. But it's a meaningful speculation based on everything else we know about the case. And since we have found nothing to directly contradict our main premise, we are free to move forward. The premise is based on both fact and logic. The tale told in their book is not.
I could go on but I'm hoping this will be enough to trigger some interesting discussion.
Hi Doc. This one gets raised a lot, not least by myself.
ReplyDeleteFact: Ransom note had one aim of preventing a call to the law enforcement.
Fact: Patsy called law enforcement
Logical inference: Patsy did not write Ransom, therefore. John Ramsey did
But, it therefore follows:
Logical inference: John knows it is vitally important, VITALLY important that Patsy not contact police.
Fact: Patsy immediately called the police. Apparently in John's company.
Fact: Patsy never at any stage mentioned that John had so much as queried whether that was wise, given the threats in the letter, let alone attempted to prevent her. She has similarly never stated that John looked devastated or panic-stricken when he realised she was calling the police.
Logical inference: either John made no attempt to prevent Patsy calling LE or else Patsy was happy to cover up the attempt he made. What would be your explanation for either of those scenarios?
Good question. I think it was important to John that his opposition to the 911 call not be made public as it would look suspicious. So he must have persuaded Patsy to go along with his version of what happened, as first stated in their CNN interview. For the details I"ll refer you to my blog post titled "White Lies."
DeleteJR seemed to be present at the end of the phone call, but is there any proof he was there at the beginning? I think it is more likely JR walked in while PR was talking to the police. Apart from the contradictory statements JR and PR made about the phone call, is there any proof?
DeleteYou guys will never know anything about who was in the room or whom persuaded whom or if they planned the call together.
DeleteJR said something like "I think I was combing my hair or something" when Patsy found the note. Supposedly he was taking his morning shower just before. Did he expect Patsy to come get him?
DeleteIf you are going to quote my posts, could you at least have the courtesy to post them in full? They aren't showing up in the previous thread.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I did not identify myself as a practising lawyer at all ... I might be, but have never made that claim because I'm not trying to use that in order to give myself credibility. And, I'm not from the US, so it's irrelevant really. I would rely on CC, who has identified him or herself as a practising US lawyer and is clearly very knowledgeable.
I know very well the difference between assumptions and logical inference or whatever you're differentiating. But you can't make a legally safe case without facts and evidence from which to draw upon. You don't have it, no matter how many posts you repeat. You have no material facts and evidence from which to support any such legally valid case. It's all theoretical. That's fine, but it's no better than a fiction novel in the context of charging a person with first degree murder.
Sometimes, the line is blurred between inference and speculation. That would be for a court to decide. But, to repeat myself, here are your fatal flaws, the way I see it, which causes your theory to fail by reason of casuistry:
1. You don't know why the 911 call was made, other than the obvious, to take it at face value; and
2. You have no evidence to support your wild assumption that JR molested his daughter.
Your entire case depends on these two grounds. You've already accepted that you have engaged in speculation, based on facts. But that is not legally safe. Facts and evidence are really paramount, along with interpretation of the law (statutes, common law and Constitution). Inference is permitted but not conjecture.
It doesn't matter whose idea it was to call 911 or the reason (other than the obvious) because it can easily be rebutted. With respect, I can't imagine any prosecutor (or defence lawyer, for that matter) arguing that Patsy couldn't have written the RN because it would be incriminating herself. So, it must have been JR. Honestly, with respect, it's not a legal argument. It might be logic, but that doesn't make it legally safe. People do all sorts of things for different reasons, particularly when in a sudden twist of tragedy - not that I'm convinced of any Ramsey guilt. I haven't read their book, either.
I've obviously offended your sensibilities because I don't subscribe to your theory. In any event, since I think the Ramseys are innocent, I think I'll go back to just being a reader.
Thanks for letting me post. I wouldn't have posted again (since my other posts when missing) but I wanted to respond since I think this entry was directed at me!
But really no one here is the arbiter of whether you have solved the case and certainly not I. Have you thought about presenting it to the authorities? They might think you're onto something that I for one, fail to see.
It is not a "wild" assumption that John molested his daughter.
DeleteFirst of all, Unknown, your missing post can probably be found if you go to the bottom of the page and select "Load More." When there are too many comments, they don't all show up on the first page.
Delete"1. You don't know why the 911 call was made, other than the obvious, to take it at face value; and"
It would make more sense if you responded to the case I've been making rather than the case you think I need to make. The case I'm making is perfectly clear. For some reason you don't get it -- or you don't want to get it. Patsy is the one who made the call. Therefore, based on logical inference, as elucidated in my previous blog post, she cannot have been staging a kidnapping, i.e., she cannot have been the one who wrote the ransom note. Why she made the call, I cannot say. And with respect to guilt or innocence it's irrelevant. If you're bothered by the fact that she made the call in spite of all the threats in the note, that has no bearing on guilt or innocence that I can see. If you want to argue that it does, please do so. My point is that she must be innocent. And I see no reason why a jury would have a problem with such an argument. The evidence you need is in the ransom note itself, which implies either a kidnapping attempt or the staging of same.
"2. You have no evidence to support your wild assumption that JR molested his daughter."
Where on earth did you get that? And why won't you read what I have to say before offering a critique? First of all it is not an assumption, nor is it wild, but a very reasonable speculation. According to Steve Thomas's book, a group of pediatric specialists were convened by the BPD and they agreed unanimously that the autopsy results implied chronic sexual abuse. So yes, there IS evidence. Is it sufficient to accuse John of actually abusing his daughter beyond reasonable doubt? No. It isn't proof. But it is certainly evidence that can be presented in a court of law to support a circumstantial case. So please don't accuse me of having no evidence.
There is also evidence of fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's crotch area. Again this cannot constitute proof, but it can contribute to a circumstantial case.
The note itself is evidence, and I can provide a court with comparisons of my own and of Fausto Brugnatelli, a professional handwriting examiner from Italy demonstrating several matches between John's writing and that of the note.
Now as far as an intruder is concerned, that's another matter. I've provided many reasons for discounting an intruder in this blog, and many others have also done similar work in this area. You are free to disagree, but it's clear to me and a great many in law enforcement that there was no intruder. If there was no intruder, and Patsy did not write the note (see above) then all signs point to John.
As far as the authorities are concerned I have attempted to encourage them to read here and possibly they have. But they are wedded to their own view of the case and not likely to change their minds. Especially since I've been critical of their methods.
So, when someone else's DNA is found on her panties, that obviously got there from a factory worker at the panty factory, and certainly not from the killer, but when JR's shirt fibers are on her crotch area, you immediately come to the conclusion that he was molesting her and want to throw his ass in jail? You are cherry picking the evidence that fits your theory...
DeleteTim
You can provide several matches of JR's handwriting with the 13 words of his exemplar's that you have without cherry picking ? Whoever wrote the exemplars that Darnay showed PR during her depo IS whose handwriting it IS. Those are are unique and an EXACT match. So if that is JR's handwriting in that depo than you are in luck.
DeleteIf I am not mistaken that fiber was never positively matched to JR's shirt and if you can prove it is JR and not the neighbor or Fleet White or most likely BR than go for it.
DeleteThe fibers were reported by one of the LE people who questioned John. He and Lin Wood made a huge fuss about it, but I see no reason for this person to have lied. It's certainly not proof positive of guilt, but it IS evidence and it does suggest that John could have been the one who assaulted her. Whether it's innocent or not remains to be determined, of course.
DeleteAnd yes, I made it clear that my comparisons of John's exemplars with the note were cherry picking also. They can't prove he wrote it, any more than the cherry picked "matches" provided by Darnay's people can prove Patsy wrote it. But it does demonstrate how easy it is to do that sort of thing. Something similar was done with exemplars from Chris Wolf.
Fair enough, Unknown, but Doc isn't preparing a case to put before the DA, or before a jury, he's just applying some logic to an infamously illogical mess of a murder case. I admire what he's done, and if nothing else he's jolted many of us out of the lazy assumption that John and Patsy acted as one, conspired as one, and lied as one. For that alone he deserves considerable credit, because even if we don't go along with his scenario in every detail, it nevertheless frees us to look at the individuals as individuals, with all the possible scenarios and avenues of investigation that opens up.
ReplyDeleteIn Doc's defense he nev r r really claimed that JR was molesting JB. He simply said if someone did indeed molest her the most "likely suspest" would be a mature male in her life. With that being understood.. of the three is was most likely John. One of them did something for sure. Why not JR.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think PR was devastated and not thinking clearly by all accounts JR was the one who aleays stayed calm and rational, I think the fact that PR never seemed to realise that what she did was against the demands of the RN means JR never tried to reason with her and never tried to stop her hysterical madness because he knew JBR was already dead and it didn't matter.
DeleteThen how do you explain Patsy not reacting to the ransom call not coming in or wondering which day the call was going to come in? How was she not told at any point that day by anyone that the letter stated to not call the police or her daughter would be killed and she had disobeyed the note - therefore it could be possible that JBR was going to be killed? Stop focusing so much on just the 911 call and look at the facts surrounding the call...especially what happened after the police arrived.
DeleteLike I said PR seemed to have been the one who was hysterical and she even had to be sedated, so I am not surprised PR behaved irrational, as far as I can tell from the interviews PR seemed to follow JRs lead, so the question is why didn't JR intervene, he seemed to be in charge, and seemed to have been pretty calm during it all. And my answer is JR knew JBR was dead.
DeleteWhere are you getting your information from? A detective at the scene stated the both John and Patsy did not show any care or concern that the ransom phone call deadline came and went.
DeleteI don't think you can go by any one person's observations. If they were guilty they would certainly have shown concern. And if they were innocent they would certainly have shown concern. So if they didn't show concern, well maybe the cop missed something. In any case the note said "tomorrow" not today. So maybe they knew how to read better than he did.
DeletePatsy mentioned in the police report that she was confused as to whether the call was supposed to come that day or "tomorrow" (the next day).
DeleteThat should say "police interview."
DeleteIt amazes me that the same people who think Patsy's 911 call was a big act get suspicious when she doesn't put on an act after the call deadline. As I see it, if she's putting on an act she'd be acting the whole time.
DeleteBut the deadline is crucial! It is the connection to hearing if her child is alive or dead and her connection to the people who have her precious baby. If she isn't showing concern for the deadline, isn't it suffice to say she could have been faking the 911 call? She knew it would be recorded. She knew it would be analyzed over and over and over. She knew she had to create the "scene" as this is the first introduction to the scene for the police. This is the opening act, if you will.
DeleteUnless something happened between Patsy calling 911 and when the police were there at the home investigating, something has to be up with her because if she was confused about the ransom note call being today or tomorrow, and NO ONE knew exactly when the note was "placed on the stairs" (their words), then wouldn't someone, ANYONE be up in arms about waiting for a call that morning...even if they were wrong and it turned out the call was meant for the following day? Is that really a confusing matter you would be willing to overlook?
Delete"Oh, we don't know what day the letter was placed here, so we don't know which day to anticipate the call. It might be tomorrow (the 27th) so let's just forget about tapping the phone and waiting for the call today (the 26th)."
Yeah, THAT makes sense.
The note definitely said tomorrow and meant tomorrow. Once again we see a failure to read. How was John supposed to get to the bank before 8AM. How was he supposed to be "rested"? Tomorrow definitely meant tomorrow. I feel sure both Ramseys showed signs of distress, regardless of guilt or innocence. The cop just didn't notice.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnknown - I stated as much in previous posts and it did no good. Doc creates scenarios in his mind and tries to play them off as logic. He takes what the Ramsesys said at too much face value. The Ramseys LIE. They say anything and everything. The note probably wasn't even found on the steps. That could be a lie. We will never know, though, but just because they say it was found there, people believe it.
ReplyDeleteIf we have learned ANYTHING since the beginning of this murder case in 1997, is that the Ramseys lie and deflect and change stories and are not consistent. Nothing they say is to be believed.
Do you really think Burke, at age 29, has never read the autopsy note? That he has shown no interest in this two and a half page note that "someone" who took and killed his sister wrote? Something that could provide clues to the identity of the killer?
The Ramseys lie. They change their stories. You can't believe them when they say anything. Of course Burke was smirking during the Dr. Phil interview....he knows he can say whatever he wants.
Sure the Ramsey's lie. But we know some facts like Doc says. For example we know PR called at that time, we know there is a RN, we know RJ walked to the basement and "found" her. There are a lot of facts in this case we don't need to rely on what the Ramseys said/say.
DeleteBut Doc works with facts and what the Ramseys said. Since we know they lie, we can only work with facts. Piece together what you will with only the facts.
Deleteand anon 3:25 pm, if all we know is that Patsy called 911, how are we to know that just prior she and John did not sit together and discuss the call?? That they didn't discuss how Patsy had to sound very nervous and scared. Why are we assuming that things happened the way the Ramseys say?
DeleteJR lied, we will never know how much PR lied and how much JR manipulated her. My recollections of a extremely stressful time I went through are hazy and confused if somebody says something different happened during that time than I remember I take their word for it. PR went through an even more horrific thing and on top of that she was heavily sedated for much of that time. We'll never know what she remembered what she knew what she really thought and if she really believed JR or not.
DeleteAnon 3:36pm it doesn't matter what the Ramseys said about it. The fact is that calling the police at that time and saying what she did, was the WORST thing she could do, it left them with a body AND a RN AND lots of evidence still in the house. So the question is why? And the answer is, she didn't know JBRs body was in the basement. Facts and logic, it has nothing to do with what the Ramseys said.
DeleteExactly, same with me. But I would admit it and not hide behind a lawyer to refrain from cooperating with the police. Nor would I go on national television. Look at ALL their behavior.
DeleteNot cooperating with the police was John's idea. And if they were in it together they would certainly have "cooperated fully." Why not?
DeleteWhy not ? Because guilty people do not want to be questioned and interrogated. They want to get their stories straight etc etc etc. I do not understand at all the logic of why not. How you get 1 being guilty and 1 not out of every scenario, including the pineapple and call it logical I do not know. Why not is anything but logical. You talk like PR does not have any mind of her own and has absolutely no clue or care about much of anything at all nor does she care or know that she is not cooperating police. It is ridiculous, she knew exactly what she was doing. Does that mean that she is not upset and distraught over her daughter's death ? No of course it does not.
DeleteOne can see why this case has never gone to trial and been put before the ultimate fact finders, a jury - or a judge. It has been full of false starts, false leads, theories full of holes and a family who refused to talk to the police. One would have to REALLY start over, at square one. Analyze the window glass, go over the ransom note again and not rule anyone out until all of the evidence has been fully processed.
ReplyDeleteHi Doc. How do you answer Dr Lee and Dr Spitz who say that there is no sexual abuse here. These Dr's are world renowned.
ReplyDeleteAlso John has no history of sexual perversion of any type nor has ever since anyone ever come out to say he did this or that to me or my daughter ect.
Please answer this.
A child molester does not have to have a history. But it's quite amazing to see, that, to this day, people refuse to believe he's capable of having done that. They'd rather blame Patsy for killing her daughter.
DeleteI think what they meant was that the sexual abuse was not what it seemed, that it was staging. There was certainly abuse. There was blood from her vagina, her hymen was torn, and fragments of the varnish on the paintbrush handle were found in her vagina. I think they tried to minimize all that because a sexual assault would not be consistent with their BDI theory. Sorry but I can't imagine parents covering up an incident such as that with a full blown sexual assault and strangulation, just to protect their son. That's WAY overkill and actually counterproductive. The CBS show was a bit of a crock, imo, though it was certainly entertaining television.
DeleteAs for John, he was away much of the time, off on "business trips." So we don't really know much about him. For all we know he could be a serial child abuser when he's away, and yet come across as a model father when home.
DeleteThere was plenty of evidence of prior abuse, and John was the most likely by far to be the abuser. Other than that we have no evidence, no. Maybe that's sufficient.
Other very good pathologists said there was possible evidence of sexual abuse. In general I wouln't trust blindly all those "world renown" Dr's doing television or being paid by a defence, the programme wanted to finger BR and they looked for pathologists who were prepared to go along with that. You can always find a world renowned expert to agree with you if you search hard enough.
DeleteAs for the fact that no KNOWN history of sexual perversion has been found, a lot of answers are possible, but ultimately it doesn't matter. PR called the police to early, she was not in on the plan. The garrotes knots were too complicated for a 9 year old. Etc
Also one could "infer" that that kind of sexual molestation would not have been an isolated event. What has always been in my mind was when did he find the time? he would have had to have kept it from Patsy. Did he sneak into her room when the household was asleep? He even stated he worked from 8-5, sometimes 6 so he was home evenings, but the molesting would have had to have occurred "after hours." Probably started off gently. That night when she was murdered it was violent. Which makes me think it was after she was knocked unconscious. She wouldn't have protested or screamed, wouldn't have been able to.
DeleteBy infer I mean it was a pattern. It wasn't just the one time. It was incest. He was not a serial child abuser.
DeleteHere is an interesting transcript of the Ramsey's going up against Det. Steve Thomas in Larry King years ago.....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html
Interesting that JR considers the ransom letter "a gift" and interview sounds like they thought someone was angry at JR, a potential motive to murder his daughter. Whoever murdered JonBenet would need to have knowledge of how to make garrote, know of JR's bonus, ransom letter stated they were familiar with LE and countermeasures, would deny JBR proper burial. This sounds like someone with military background (or some knowledge of it), wonder if JR had any connections with former military colleagues, who would have known about bonus amount.
DeleteJohn seems remarkably unwilling to let Patsy speak for herself, and also spends much of the interview trying to dominate and issue demands and instructions to Thomas. He comes across as a very calm, controlled, and controlling sociopathic personality.
DeleteAlso amuses me that he calls the RN the killer's "calling card" - a phrase straight out some cheap thriller or true crime pulp paperback, the killer who always leaves a particular playing card at the scene of his crime, etc.
DeleteOf course this killer had no calling card, because this killer never struck again, as far as we know.
Reading the dialogue between PR and JR gave me a headache. Independent this independent that.. ugh.. If something happened to one of my children my butt would be camping out at the police station/FBI.
DeleteDoc, I have had 3 "last post's" but I just cant get away. :-)
ReplyDeleteAgain, you are entitled to your opinion and can defend your opinion till the end of time. Where I struggle with your post's in the past week are these:
* One of the FACTS we have that recently came out was that BR told Dr. Phil he went downstairs after being put to bed. He was evasive when asked a simple question about pineapple and we KNOW JBR has pineapple in her system that she just ate. He also said he used the flashlight, yet you not only dismiss it but have at no point seemed to even consider it possible that Burke was eating pineapple within a timeframe that she was killed.
*WHY would JR feed JBR pineapple, leave the bowl full and never clean it up? WHY is JR's fingerprints not on the bowl? Why are JR's fingerprints NOT on the Iced Tea glass?
*Though I do agree it doesn't make sense for PR to call 911 with the body in the house IF she was in on the staging, I did a full 180 and believe the 911 call was scripted. If the call is real, WHY hang up on 911? Why wouldn't you say JBR's name instead of "my daughter?"
*There is NO factual evidence that John wrote the note and I honestly believe PR did write it now. When they asked her to write $118,000 she spelled it out One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand. Do you have an innocent explanation for that?
*John's window story is crap, but do you believe for a second that PR wouldn't have been aware of a broken window in her basement? I don't
*IF John is the sole killer, WHY then would you use a garrotte when his plan was to get rid of the body? Why would any of that be necessary?
*The RN says they could have gotten an earlier delivery of her body if they got the money earlier, YET PR didn't seemed concerned whatsoever.
I don't need you to direct me to one of your other post's, because I have read them all. People say not everything makes sense in this case. WELL...yes! Why did OJ leave his bloody glove where it could be found? WHY did Jodi Arias leave her camera with images on it? My point of this is that people make mistakes under duress. I believe BR ACCIDENTALLY struck his sister and the parents in a panic covered up a horrible crime. Im not even going to try and explain why did the things they did, but maybe PR just didn't know the extent of the cover up that John went to.
I have always appreciated your well thought out post's Doc or anybody, but you are all searching for an answer that has already been given. BDI
-J
J Anonymous the definition of a fact (a noun) is "a thing that is indisputably the case." Synonyms are: reality, actuality, certainty. That Burke told Dr. Phil he went downstairs after being put to bed is only a fact that he SAID that (to Dr. Phil). And you heard him say it. That is a fact. But that he actually did go downstairs after being put to bed is not a fact in that it is non indisputable that he did so - we don't know if he did so or not. Only that he said so. No one is dismissing that he may have POSSIBLY been eating pineapple around the time that she was killed, only that you can't use that he was eating pineapple around the time she was killed and INFER that he therefore must have killed her. And so what that he used the flashlight? Can you infer from that that he killed her? And DID JR feed JB pineapple? we don't know that he did. Or didn't. The only fact we have in regard to the pineapple was that she ingested it as it was found partially digested in her stomach tract. You have every right to think BDI, this is a post where we can discuss everything we want to discuss. It's not about winning an argument I wouldn't think. And glad you are back to the blog. I couldn't give it up either!
DeleteOk, got me. Correct it isn't a FACT....not sure WHY in the world Burke would LIE about something as innocent as sneaking downstairs and playing with a toy. The story has always been he was sleeping, so by saying he snuck downstairs after he went to bed also put him near the scene of where the murder most likely took place. But yes, you are absolutely technically correct, it is not a FACT that he went downstairs. Please explain to me why he would possibly lie about that? He gains NOTHING by lying, only loses
Delete-J
Inquisitive....sorry if I came off snippy in my last post. My football team is getting crushed so not in the best mood. :-)
Delete-J
As with so much in this case certain things that might seem suspicious can be taken in two ways. If Burke had no problem admitting he went downstairs before going to bed and that he had a flashlight, that can be a sign of innocence as easily as guilt, no? After all, if this trip downstairs was associated with the death of his sister, why would he admit it? Same with the flashlight.
DeleteWhat interests me more is the connection of John with that flashlight. This puts the murder weapon in John's hands, something he has NEVER admitted.
J Anonymous not snippy at all. I enjoy a lively debate. I guess why does anyone lie? Don't know that he was lying or not. It's very possible Burke saw something, heard something. Even his father said he was downstairs playing with a toy. We just don't know if he hit his sister or not. He probably was playing with a toy and up later than the others. And was probably eating pineapple and/or drinking tea. Then went on to bed. JR said Burke was up late putting together his new toy. Their stories are consistent on that front.
DeleteWhat makes sense is that as of Dec. 26 1996, PR knew what had happened, yet consistently lied and was in on the cover up. If you believe that she knew JR sexually assaulted then killed and garotted her daughter and stayed with John Ramsey, looked away at what he did and continued sleeping next to him for the next 10 years then Doc's theory is plausible to you. If you do not, of which I personally do not, then Doc's theory is not plausible. Doc's illogical attempts at pretending PR had no clue in an attempt to keep his theory plausible are at times outrageous. PR was caught red handed by LE more than once in flat out lies trying to produce an intruder, AND THAT IS A FACT. Period. Doc will come up with outlandish explanations for it like saying PR knew whe would be caught so why would she do that ? Well the fact is THAT SHE DID IT. period. Just as she did with the window, even though she knew she would be caught then.
ReplyDeleteJR told a lot more nonsense untruths and he was not heavily sedated like PR.
DeleteAnd seriously, there are thousands of women who totally believe their husband is completely innocent and is unjustly persecuted while the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming. The fact PR apparently believed in JRs innocence proofs nothing.
"JR told a lot more nonsense untruths and was not heavily sedated like PR. What is alot of nonsense is that statement. JR was not caught red handed in a single lie by LE that I know of. If we are going to say he was caught red handed about the window then feel free to post that transcript. As far as all these untruths what you are implying is nonsense. Feel free to post those transcripts right here. If not I suggest that you go back and reread the transcripts. You implying that PR did not know what happened is pure specualation and nonsense as well. I personally have studied for years every aspect of PR's statements and any piece of info I could get regarding PR and she DID know. Period
Delete...in your opinion.
DeleteA thorough analysis of John's testimony regarding the broken basement window can be found in a series of blog posts beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html
DeleteFirst off, if I've offended anyone here with my theories, thoughts or opinions, that was not my intent. I assumed this was a place where we could post our theories, based on what we considered factual and logical and perhaps with a sprinkle of speculation.
ReplyDeleteI am open to and accepting of others' opinions and ideas regarding this case. In fact, I welcome them because I'm interested in how other people came to their conclusions.
I do believe BR accidentally killed JBR and a cover up ensued. I know many here think JDI. I'd love to be persuaded, but so far I haven't read a single post here to convince me of it. Some feel that PDI and yet I've seen nothing here to persuade me in that direction either.
I've also thought about that broken window. Either way, JR covered his tracks there. If they did discover the glass had been broken months ago, his "breaking it because he got locked out" would check out. If it turned out to be newly broken glass, then the intruder theory would work to his advantage. That's pretty slick as he covered his ass either way.
EG
If you believe everything CBS said than you won't be convinced by anybody else. CBS did a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of twisting and a lot of assuming without any evidence to back it up so they could come up with a new suspect. Their experts also did a lot of faking, like pretending to discover something new when those things were years old (and not giving credit!). Painful to watch and it showed they were not really serious, it was more a show with a lot of make believe and half lies. Great for ratings, not so great for science or justice.
DeleteEG Anonymous when were you convinced Burke did it? After the CBS documentary? And what was it that persuaded you that he did so? Thanks for answering hopefully
DeleteAnonymous and Inquisitive - I never believed an IDI and always felt it was an inside job. I have to be honest and say that BR was the last one I had suspected initially. I also didn't want to believe that parents could do this to their child.
DeleteHowever, when the parents refused to cooperate with the police, when they lawyered up and hired PR people, something smelled rotten. They didn't act like parents of a murdered child. At the same time they were saying the FBI should have been called in because the police were incompetent, they refused to take the polygraph which the FBI wanted to give. They wanted an "independent" party to take the polygraph. Why?? Everyone was out to get them, they claimed and no one knew how to do their job. Seasoned investigators, FBI agents, detectives, police officers, profilers, experts in every criminal field. Everyone was wrong, except Lou Smit.
When I watched CBS and Dr Phil, and I saw how BR acted in the interviews, both when he was a boy and recently, it was obvious to me that he wasn't normal. He was jealous of his sister, and had "accidentally" hit her with a golf club, which was also disputed by a family friend who said it was intentional as told to her by PR. Then there was the fecal matter, emotional outbursts, etc. When he was shown a picture of the bowl of pineapple, as a boy, he WOULD not identify it as such. He said "OH". To me, that was very telling. NOW, I will say that he may not have known he killed her as his parents may have quickly sent him to bed which is why the pineapple wasn't eaten. But that pineapple brought something dramatic back to him when he saw it. So much so, that he couldn't even speak it. That clinched it for me.
EG
I too found his reaction to the pineapple suspicious. I wonder if he knew by then that JonBenet had eaten pineapple that evening. But as I've said many times I feel that Burke knows more than he's been willing to say. It's even possible he was there when John fed her pineapple and was sworn to secrecy.
DeleteBut no, he didn't kill his sister. An even of that kind would have had a totally different outcome.
Doc,
DeleteThe picture of the bowl of pineapple triggered something in BR that obviously brought back a memory that he didn't want to admit to having. Now, it could have been that he witnessed something, I will admit that, and even agree to that. BUT, I find it hard to believe that JR, after having an exhausting day, wanted to molest his daughter on Christmas night, when he needed to get up for an early flight and having no prior history of molesting anyone. I just can't make that leap. What do you base this on? Because he traveled a lot on business? Perhaps you can shed some light here, that would make me see what you're seeing,
EG
I suspected Burke before I read the Kolar book, then I read the Kolar book and I suspected Burke even more. However it doesn't make sense that it was Burke. Yes, he's odd. I didn't know how odd until I saw him on Dr. Phil with is inappropriate smiling and saying he "may" have had pineapple on occasion with his sister. But I think too much is being made of this pineapple. The only significance of the pineapple is that it was not fully digested at time of death. That gives us a partial timeline but can we believe anything Burke, or John has said about when they may have been downstairs, or put her to bed, (or even read to her which John has added that to the scenario subsequent to be questioned by police). As you may recall some even said the Intruder fed her the pineapple (then used a stun gun) so theories abound. But mostly for me I don't see how Burke could "block out" that he struck his sister then went to bed and didn't know what happened to her the next day. And the staging, the garrot, the sexual assault, none of that fits the picture of Burke, the frail 9 year old. Nor does it fit that either parent would go to such lengths to stage a kidnapping gone wrong when if he did run to his parents and tell them he hit them they would have simply have called for an ambulence, not strangled her (strangulation came 45 min. to several hours later) assaulted her sexually, written a note, etc. etc. ad nauseum. That's alot of covering! Then 20 years later he goes on Dr. Phil? Why bother? No one has been looking at him seriously for the crime, why not just stay out of the spotlight?
Deletesorry I sometimes don't complete a word, I type fast and do so while thinking fast! I'm not as good at writing notes as John Ramsey.
DeleteGood point EG Anonymous. About John being tired, it was Christmas, etc. But.. what if it was premeditated? They were all going to be with family the next day in Michigan. If she was going to tell someone what had been going on that would have been an opportunity to do so. Perhaps her older sister might listen. She (JB) may have told her father she was going to tell. I'm not saying it was or was not premeditated. But it still was a crime of opportunity. And means. And motive.
DeleteInquisitive,
DeleteI think if JBR was going to out her father, she would've told her mother. If she wanted to do it in front of a group of people, they had just spent dinner at the FW's with a houseful of people.
The pineapple is significant because it proves that JBR ate it prior to her death which placed her in the kitchen where the bowl was, which had BR's and PR's fingerprints on them,
If there was some evidence or a history of JR molesting anyone, I would absolutely suspect him. But there isn't. Unless I am missing something here.
EG
"What do you base this on?"
DeleteFirst of all I base everything on the facts and logic outlined from the start, which tell me that John must be the one. As for the rest, who knows what was going on in his mind when he did this? I think he needed to silence her before the Xmas trip, when she'd be free to speak to relatives. I think the plan to kill her was foremost in his mind rather than abuse, at that time. But again, who can say? All I know is that he did it, he assaulted and killed her.
I cannot make sense of any of it below is my thought process....
ReplyDeleteIDI - there could be an argument that an intruder did it, if the intruder was a close friend or staff member.
a)no forced entry, they might have a key, they could be already in house by the time it was locked up? are the locks on the doors the type that you can lock and pull closed? meaning when the Ramsey's woke up nothing was open or unlocked.
b)broken window in the basement - If the window was freshly broken, why did john lie that he broke it 6 months prior?
c)ransom note - written on a notepad from the house, the intruder could have taken it previously to frame the Ramsey's, but that would mean they always intended on killing her, otherwise why frame the parents? or they could brought the note written on something else, they when it went wrong re-wrote it on the note pad in the house, but then why was there a draft of the note?
d)the body - if it was kidnapping gone wrong, after the initial blow, why stick around for another 30mins-2hrs later to ensure she was dead?
e)the next morning - why would you leave your surviving kid alone in their room, why would let that child out of your sight? Why would you ask what they might have seen or heard? how could he not be scared only 1-2 week later?
PDI:
a)ransom note - so called experts say the note was written matches her hand writing the most.
b)bed wetting - was there any evidence that JB wet her bed that night? if she did why was their pee at the place everyone assumes is the crime scene?
c)911 - why did she make the call, knowing that JB was dead in the house?
BDI - if he did, the either one or both his parents would have to covered for him.
a)assault to the body - i cannot picture any parent doing that to their child to cover for the other. - could BR have done that?
b)ransom note - given the length and contents of the note could a 9yr old do that?, if one of the parents wrote it why would they hand over a notepad with a draft cover of the note in it?
c)discovery of the body - could BR have hid the body and once all the cops became involved contact his dad (the missing 1hr) and told him everything??
The only one left is: JDI
a)why had over the note pad if he knew there was a draft version of the RN?
b)why tell the police there was no sign of a break in?
Have I missed anything.......
People make much of the fact that there were no fingerprints on the flashlight not even on the batteries. I don't understand the significance. I don't understand why there were no fingerprints on it. But JBRs head wound did not bleed so why would they clean the batteries? And why clean the flashlight and leave it in the house, some evidence was not in the house, it must have been removed before the police showed up. If the flashlight was the murder weapon surely it would have been removed too instead of just cleaned? Cleaning it makes it look suspicious. I don't understand.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous my theory was JR used the flashlight the rest of the night so as not to turn on any lights. The batteries could have gone out so he could have changed them, and wiped off the batteries and the flashlight. Remember he at first said he didn't recognize the flashlight. Then later said he was using it that night. Lies lies and more lies.
ReplyDeleteDidn't JR originally say that the flashlight must have been left by the intruders, that he didn't own such a flashlight? Then that was refuted by one of his relatives. Plus did anyone even suggest at the time the flashlight was the weapon? If the flashlight was supposedly left by the kidnappers, he would have to wipe it down because the police wouldn't find any fingerprints except the family's. How much later was it that both JR and BR stated they went downstairs, and JR used the flashlight to take BR back up to his room? Wasn't the original story everyone went to bed shortly after getting home?Now the problem is, no fingerprints on the flashlight even though he used it. No one mentioned JBR going downstairs and eating pineapple, so I guess the story is she went downstairs by herself and no one saw her. Guess I could try to look this up online, but I'm hoping someone on here might know
ReplyDeleteJohn stated INITIALLY that he didn't think JBR went downstairs on her own to eat pineapple because she was not strong enough to open the refrigerator...that even he at times had to pull hard to get it open.
DeleteGood theory about the flashlight. One would suspect that an intruder would use gloves so, therefore, that is why there were no fingerprints on the flashlight. Looking back now knowing that there was no intruder, it makes sense that the flashlight was the weapon and that the Ramseys were trying to make it look like the intruder used the flashlight.
Why on earth John and Burke would later confess to using the flashlight that night knowing it later was found to have no fingerprings is beyond me. Are they just trying to create confusion to deflect? The name of their game seems to be confusion at all cost.
Yeah, and if the intruders were dumb enough not to use gloves or wipe down both the flashlight and the batteries, the police would get their fingerprints and the case would be solved-LOL.! Yes, why have they now admitted to using the flashlight that night? Maybe something they and the police know that we don't know
DeleteHas anyone ever speculated on what happened to the evidence that was removed? And what was that evidence? I only know about half of the paintbrush handle, was there more? Seems unlikely JR or PR went out in their car in the middle of the night, so what did they do with it? Didn't the police search the surrounding areas, yards, trash cans, sewer drains, etc?
DeleteOh wait- were any of their cars searched before they had a chance to drive somewhere in them? If not, there's the probable answer.
Deleteok, wait a second...regarding the ransom note....
ReplyDeleteWhy would the detective make note of the fact that the ransom call did not come through? Regardless of John and Patsy's reactions, a detective made note of the call not coming through. So, apparently a detective was waiting for the call on the 26th.
The note did not give a specific day; it just said tomorrow. Who is to say that the note was not intended to be found during the evening? WE now know the approximate time of death, but John and Patsy wouldn't have if there was an "intruder".
Are you telling me that John wrote the ransom note to include the ransom call potentially coming in on the 27th - meaning if he didn't want Patsy to call the police, they would have to wait an ENTIRE day before they would be able to call the police (after the ransom call would not come through on the 27th)? All that time so, according to your theory, John could get JBR's body out of the house? What was he going to do with Patsy and Burke during that entire time? What was he going to do about the scheduled trip to Michigan? What was he going to do about family that was waiting for him in Michigan? It doesn't make sense that he would deliberately plan for everyone (John/Patsy/Burke) to sit around and steep for all.that.time. That would mean that JBR's body would be in the home for an entire day before he could take her out during his trip to the bank. It just doesn't make sense that John would leave the note for Patsy or Burke to find BEFORE he was able to get JBR's body out of the home. He HAD to know that Patsy would be looking for JBR as soon as she woke up to get the kids ready for the flight. And he HAD to know that Patsy would find the note as soon as she woke up. How did John expect to get JBR out of the house with a frantic wife? How was he going to explain to family and the pilot that he and his entire family would not be making the trip last minute if he was not allowed to contact anyone (according to the RN).
Why leave an entire day open with a wife and kid frantically sitting and waiting if he himself was going to be in and out of the house? All they (Patsy/Burke) would be doing is watching John...looking to John. That doesn't strike me as a good situation for a man who is trying to get his lifeless six year old daughter's body out of the home without anyone noticing.
Calm down, Ok. You're working yourself up into a state. All the answers can be found in the following posts: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-scenario.html
Deletehttp://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-note.html
Of course I don't expect any of this to satisfy you. But yes, I HAVE thought this through.
Yeah, I'd take a look at most of your thread introductions before you tell me to calm down.
DeleteLol, you are a piece of work.
Why do you get all up in the mind of John and Patsy and Burke and act like you know what they were thinking? If you can formulate a plot that was going on in John's head because his wife called 911 when she shouldn't have, then why is everyone else's theories WRONG? There are no facts in saying that John would (except from your post:
Delete"Convince Patsy to take Burke and go to stay with friends, so they would be safe while he dealt with the kidnappers. Then drive the car to the bank to collect the ransom. This would be the trickiest part, because the bank manager could get suspicious. But there would be no harm in informing him about the kidnapping and asking for his cooperation. Police could be called at this time as well, if necessary. He could insist that they NOT go to the house, for fear of alerting the "kidnappers."
He could then find a remote phone booth and call his home from there. This would represent the kidnapper's call. Assuming he had an answering machine, the machine would pick up the call to record the "message." Of course there wouldn't be any, but the call would now be registered in the phone companies records.
He would then return home and move the body from the basement to the trunk of the car. Since the garage is attached to the house no one would see him do this. That night he would dump the body in some remote wooded area, and later claim he was delivering the ransom -- and the note also, as requested by "the kidnappers." He'd tell the police that the kidnappers took the ransom and the note and left without returning JonBenet. Later her dead body would be found in that same area.
Pretty good plan, no?"
You sound like you are writing fan fiction rather than dealing with the facts like the rest of us are trying to do.
How does JR know that he is supposed to give the RN to the kidnappers ? He cant say the note told him too because PR has read it. Without a confirmed call there is no way to tell JR to give the RN back.
DeleteOK, good, you read those posts. And no, I don't know for sure what was going on in John's head. Maybe he had a different plan in mind. But there is no question that the writer of that note had a plan. What do YOU think it was?
DeleteOne of the things that got me excited as my theory of this case proceeded was it's strong explanatory power. While my analysis is frankly speculative, it's the only one I know of capable of explaining that note. Usually it's just been dismissed as utter nonsense, just nothing more than an attempt to make it look like a kidnapper was present. But if that was all there was to it, it could have been accomplished in three or four lines.
The note is carefully thought out, with very specific instructions, very specific timing ("tomorrow" definitely meant tomorrow), and very graphic threats. As I see it, the note had to be as long as it was in order to accomplish what it needed to accomplish: frighten Patsy into not calling the police; discourage her from searching the house; give him an extra 24 hours to complete his staging and arrange to dump the body; set up an intruder with a personal association with him and his family, and a very personal grudge; provide him with the perfect excuse in case he or his car were spotted in the vicinity of where the body was to be found: "I was delivering the ransom."
Once we recognize that John and John alone is responsible for this crime, then all the elements of the note fall into place and make sense. While my interpretation is speculative, it demonstrates how the note could have been used by John to accomplish the above tasks, all essential to his coverup.
If you have a better idea of what the note means, by all means post it. But please don't dismiss it as meaningless nonsense, because someone put a lot of time and though into creating it.
I don't know. Maybe I'm nothing more than a gifted crime writer. I'd rather give the credit to John. He's the one who deserves it, not me.
"How does JR know that he is supposed to give the RN to the kidnappers ?"
DeleteGlad you asked. Because this brings up yet another important feature of the note. By addressing the note to him, referencing his business, and stressing his name over and over, the "kidnappers" put John in charge of the situation. It is HE who is to arrange the ransom and deal with the kidnappers.
This, first of all, would make it relatively easy for him to insist that Patsy and Burke go to stay with friends, while he deals with the kidnappers. He could have smuggled them out of the house while heading for the bank. Once he is home alone he is in complete charge of the situation. And even if he can't get Patsy out of the house, his plan could still have worked because, once again, the note puts HIM in charge.
How does this relate to your question? Because once he's in charge he can spin the story any way he likes. If the bank didn't have $118,000 in cash, he could claim he bargained with the kidnappers and they agreed to take less. And as for the note, he could claim the kidnappers insisted that he return it. Since there ARE no kidnappers, John doesn't need to know that they expect him to do anything. He is free to improvise as it suits him.
As for the "confirmed call" read that post again. John could have faked a call from a phone booth to his answering machine. If Patsy were home he could have disguised his voice.
DeleteI suspect JR is a sociopath. Devoid of any real genuine feelings, he has to mimic them. His daughter existed to make him happy, to satisfy him as he wasn't being satisfied by his wife. Wonder what caused him to stray in his first marriage? Didn't feel the love there either? With someone for whom tragedy has struck three times - death of this first daughter in a car crash, death of his little 6 year old daughter and then death of his second wife he seems to be taking it all in stride. The one thing the sociopath does want to do is self preserve. AT all costs. IF that means allowing a handwriting expert to not rule out his wife, or insert some sentences in a ransom note that might sound like she could have written it, not cooperating with the police, giving pompous little interviews here and there still playing the lord of the manor he knows no one is going to take him on now and he knows he's smarter than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteMy theory:
ReplyDeleteJBR once again wakens Patsy in the middle of the night. Half sick, and tired of the every night routine of changing the soiled bed clothes, PR accidentally kills JBR while forcing her downstairs to make JBR wash her own bedding. Learn to clean up after herself if she is going to continually be doing this.
JBR breaks away from PR, and PR angrily reaches out to bring her back with the same hand she is holding the flashlight with, accidentally striking her in the head.
Ashamed and appalled at what she has done, she waits for JBR to regain consciousness, even shaking her at one point. But JBR's condition deteriorates, to the point where it is obvious she is near death.
After first trying to remove JBR's body from the house in the suitcase through the window, PR stages the kidnapping scene and writes the note.
The next morning, as JR is reading the note for the first time, he immediately orders PR to call 911. This she must do to maintain the cover-up that JBR has been kidnapped.
She has not told JR what happened, and never admits to him that it was her that struck JBR in a fit of anger.
JR comes to realize that PR wrote the note and staged the kidnapping, but believes that PR will eventually die from cancer. And she has never admitted to him what she did, so there is always the small possibility that he is wrong.
Out of love and compassion for PR, JR sides always with her, with whatever she says, not really wanting to know the truth.
Very nice blog, DocG, but why wouldn't this explain why Patsy made the phone 911 call, knowing all along that there was a dead body hidden in the house? She wanted the body to be found as a kidnap victim. She wanted JR to believe that.
Here is my problem with your logic, DocG. It assumes Patsy and John were thinking logically that night. And I think it's just as reasonable to think they were not thinking logically as it is to believe they were thinking logically. Patsy may have panicked and changed her mind about getting rid of the body and calling 911.
ReplyDeleteThe note was written by someone who was thinking rationally, no question. There is no sign of panic anywhere. And if Patsy had changed her mind she would certainly not have provided the police with a meaningless ransom note in her own hand, she would simply have reported a home invasion.
DeleteIf she didn't panic. That's my point.
DeleteHit enter before I was done... also since experts disagree on whether JonBenet was sexually abused it is not a fact. So John molesting her and killing her... well that can't be a logical inference from a faCT because it is NOT a fact that she was even abused.
ReplyDeleteNo. And it is not a logical inference either -- I've never claimed it was. But that does not mean it can or should be ignored. There were definite signs of prior abuse and the most likely abuser would be John. It's important because it suggests a motive. It's not necessary to prove motive, but it does help to provide a possible motive in a case like this. The evidence is compelling, by the way.
DeleteTo some experts and not to others. You are cherry picking.
DeleteThank You Megan. I have explained the same exact thing too many times.
ReplyDeleteAlso agree with Megan. Therefore Doc you cant say you have solved the case. You can say that you have a theory but that's all.
DeleteAlso answer me this. Why would he garrotte her when he could bang her on the head again or something? If his intension is to dispose of the body anyway.
CE
My claim to have solved the case is not based on the evidence of prior molestation, but on 1. the logic of the 911 call; 2. John's many lies, especially his story about breaking the window the previous summer, which would be easy to dismantle.
DeleteAlso answer me this. Why would he garotte her, put tape over her mouth and tie up her wrists when he could bang her on the head again or something? If his intension is to dispose of the body anyway.
DeleteCE
During the first search of the Ramsey home a police sergeant saw a copy of John Douglas's recently published "Mindhunter" in John and Patsy's bedroom. In the first chapter Douglas states that the personality of a murderer is reflected in his crime. I believe John went to school on that book, created a foreign faction, referenced beheading, and used the garotte because these elements are entirely alien to his cool, composed CEO persona.
DeleteCC
Good point, CC. Also, as I've suggested elsewhere, the "garrote" could have had an erotic function, completely unrelated to either murder or staging.
DeleteI read that, Doc, but this is one of the points on which we disagree. I believe the murder was premeditated, and that a neophyte murderer would not have the composure, much less the inclination, to molest the child again that night. Rather, I think the assault with the paintbrush was a desperate attempt to obscure physical evidence of prior abuse.
DeleteCC
I agree that the digital penetration (not the paintbrush handle, sorry I just can't buy that) could have been done to obscure signs of prior abuse. But that doesn't rule out an erotic component. There is something really bizarre about that "garotte" device and some sort of erotic fetish could explain it.
DeleteI agree that premeditation is possible and I've written a scenario that fits pretty well. But where do you get 8 days?
Hi just thought I would leave this here:
ReplyDeletehttp://motherboard.vice.com/read/memory-hacker-implant-false-memories-in-peoples-minds-julia-shaw-memory-illusion?utm_source=mbfbcaads
It talks about how easy it is to convince someone of a memory that hasn't happened being real. I still find your theory Doc to make the most logical sense. Frankly Burke doesn't come across as mentally disturbed psycho child as he does as someone on the spectrum who struggles with reading people and knowing how to show emotion appropriately. Also the fact that more experts have erred on the side of sexual molestation, combined with frequent bed wetting at 6 (huge red flag). I also know for a fact that some sexual abusers get a way with it and everyone on the outside says they are a great person. People can hide these things. I know this from personal experience sadly. Thank you for keeping these forums open for people to discuss. -SM
Thanks so much for that very interesting article. I do think it possible John could have implanted a false memory in Patsy's mind. Which would explain why he needed more time before he could permit her to be questioned.
DeleteNice link above poster. I would read anything Julia Shaw wrote(she is hot) lol. I do notice that mostly they talk about implanting false memories from long ago, before the age of 2 and a half or so not from weeks ago. Also sorry going to disagree that you can change the memories of the biggest incidents that occur in your life and if you can it is not for a long time. There are shows about this on discovery, I think 1 is called my messed up brain. It is very interesting, I just find it not to be the case here. Mrs Ramsey was lying about things that she was surely not gaslit about and I think they are exactly the same situation as the window, which tell me she was lying on her own. This is a case of someone who is desperate to hang on to their theory and find avenues around every fact and piece of evidence that comes up.
ReplyDeleteActually gaslighting isn't a necessary part of my theory. What's essential is what happened on the morning after the crime. So even if Patsy figured things out later, and agreed to go along with John's window story, that would not change the meaning of her 911 call, which demonstrated her innocence of both the crime and the kidnap staging.
DeleteMy reason for invoking gaslighting is based on my reluctance to believe that Patsy would ever have wanted to support John if she knew the truth. And also because of the very strange fact that she included someone in her story (Linda) whom she knew would refute it. That suggests to me that this was an implanted memory rather than a deliberate lie.
But no, either way it has no bearing on my theory.
One of Doc's recent post
ReplyDelete"...my case does not hinge on molestation, it hinges on what happened prior to the 911 call and the logic of that call.
"it is not a fact that Patsy would not have called 911 with JB's body still in the house."
No, but it is a clear logical inference. Aka: common sense. If she wrote the note, she was staging a kidnapping. If she was staging a kidnapping the plan would have been to get the body out of the house. If the body was still in the house, she would have waited to call the police until after the body had been removed.
But she called the police anyhow. Telling us that she could not have been a part of the kidnap staging. It's called a chain of reasoning. If you see a flaw in that chain, by all means reveal it. No one has found a flaw yet."
The flaw in the chain is the assumption that "If she was staging a kidnapping the plan would have been to get the body out of the house." Very wrong because you are not making a distinction between staging a kidnapping and an actual kidnapping. If you are undertaking an actual kidnapping the goal would be of course to get the target out but if you are "staging" this would not necessarily be the case possibly because of the fact that it was not a real kidnapping you didn't have a preconceived plan would out from the start.
CE
I can't agree with that. If you stage a kidnapping you stage a kidnapping. The most pertinent part of a kidnapping is the abduction, not the ransom note. Therefore this wasn't a staged kidnapping, it was an incompletely staged kidnapping. The only reason to incompletely stage a kidnapping - to begin such a staging without completing it - is a change of heart, or an interruption by unforeseen events. If John had changed his mind he would have removed the ransom note, as it would have been (and has indeed been seen as being) incriminating. The unforeseen event was Patsy's 911 call. By that time it was too late to remove the letter, she had seen it.
DeleteNobody sets out to stage half a kidnapping, or a kidnapping gone wrong. There's no point: you just stage a murder instead, break a window, put a garotte round the neck to distract from the blow to the head, etc. DocG is right: there is no reason on earth to do those things AND leave a long ransom letter involving foreign factions, hatred of America, John's business, personal insults and sarcasm, threats to behead the girl, promises of her safe return, a bunch of movie quotes, and a demand for a pathetic 118,000 dollars.
And if for some bizarre reason they did want to deliberately stage a kidnapping gone wrong, they would have made it more convincing than was the case here. (No evidence of intruder entry, and a kidnapper who inadvertantly garottes the child? The bang on the head might suggest a struggle or an attempt to subdue that went too far, but the garotte negates that impression and takes this in a totally different direction.)
Nobody stages a botched kidnapping.
Nobody stages a botched kidnapping.
Nobody stages a botched kidnapping.
Patsy messed up. Called and mentioned the note. Now they can't get rid of it.
Delete"Nobody sets out to stage half a kidnapping, or a kidnapping gone wrong." In an actual kidnapping the target is taken because there is a plan to that effect. In a staged kidnapping things go wrong because there was no plan to that effect from the start.
DeleteCE
Also the body showed a staged kidnapping with the tape over her mouth and the rope around her wrists. Would John have done that if he intended to get the body out of the house?
DeleteCE
The tape and the cord around her wrists could have been added after the 911 call. They would also be consistent with the condition of her body after she'd been removed from the house, why not?
DeleteIt doesn't matter when he may have done these but why he did them if he intended to get the body out of the house. I don't know what you mean by your second sentence, are you saying he did these just in case her body was found out side of the house? If so, that's sounds like you are reaching.
DeletePS: After the 911 call? So he quickly figure that he really needs to do these things just in case and goes and gets his gloves so he leaves no finger prints and finds tape and rope. All in a few minutes before the police come. Also according to you here wasn't even aware that Patsy would be making the 911 call. Another stretch.
CE
Well someone did it here so I guess that it worked well and fooled everyone. That RN and the pad it was written on were written in full confidence that the RN writer would not and could not ever be positively identified and to this day, 20 yrs later they have not so I would say that their plan worked very did it not ? Once you figure out that both PR and JR were BOTH a part of the staging then it takes a sexual assault killing out of the situation and leaves us with what motive ? Doc and a few others here on this blog that are more like groupies act as if Doc came up with some brand new genuus theory that no one has ever thought of. JR was the FIRST suspect in this case and LE and the rest of the world thought JR to be a guilty pedo, this was deeply investigated, as more info and evidence came out found not to be true. If you want to go by evidence PR has the most evidence against her not JR.
ReplyDeleteShe does not. Lies, if they are in fact lies, are not evidence. The real evidence in this case is ambiguous and open to interpretation - hence the myriad theories.
DeleteDoc has performed a valuable service by re-including John Ramsey as a suspect, and built a theory thereon. I support his premise, if not every facet of his theory, am thoughtful and well-reasoned, fully capable of independent thought, and not a groupie. I am also very tired of your constant repitition of a litany of unfounded suspicions and your slurs of anyone who disagrees with you.
CC
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIt fooled everyone? I must've missed that memo. The Boulder Police and the FBI guy in the house that day weren't fooled for one minute, and no serious investigator since then he been fooled.
ReplyDeleteThey got away with it because they were wealthy, had great lawyers, and were allowed to refuse to cooperate by a weak DA. Not because they staged an incomplete kidnapping.
It's a logical fallacy to suggest that because they got away with it, their actions were a deliberate plan, and worked. They got away with it DESPITE the note.
MHN
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. They fooled no one . Had they been Mr. and Mrs. Smith, they'd be in jail 20 years already.
EG
here it is the next day and we're still at it! Anyway getting away with it is a combination of many factors. JR had a mansion, he was able to disappear for hours to complete his staging. He was able to be up all night and begin his staging. Look at the Simpson case. A combination of ingredients of prior LA police beatings, an African American football and television commercial celebrity who's persona people loved and believed in, money for attorneys that could deceive a naive jury into looking right at evidence and see what they wanted to see to get their hero an out of jail card free, and one prosecutor who underestimated all of it. JR could just have easily not gotten away with it but all of the ingredients worked in his favor in the face of absolutely no one believing except for a very small few, that an intruder did it. He was immediately ruled out of writing the ransom note. Big mistake.
ReplyDeleteJR and PR learned from the OJ case. Everyone was inept, incompetent, out to get them and biased. No one knew what they were doing. When you add wealth to the mix, where you can buy the very best legal team, etc. you end up right where we are----nowhere.
DeleteMost of us here agree that it was an inside job. Based on the evidence or lack thereof, it could've been any one/two or all three of them. I believe the three of them were involved. From the initial accident (flashlight to the head- BR) followed by the staging-JR and PR.
Too many things don't add up:
1. You just found a note written by an intruder, that entered your house that night and kidnapped your daughter. a. You grab your remaining child and keep them close b. You call the police immediately because you don't know if that intruder is still in your house. c. You stay on the phone with 911 in case the intruder is still about. d. You ask your son if he heard or saw anything that night. e. The only thing your husband should do is get to his gun if he has one, and then stay with you and your son until the police arrive.
Instead, they left their son ALONE in his bedroom, PR called the police, then hung up, and we have no idea what JR was doing at the time. They obviously did not want their son questioned by police, by saying he was sleeping. As soon as they could, they whisked him away to a neighbors house. A possible key witness to a kidnapping, and you don't ask him a question and you send him away from the house. I wouldn't have let my kids out of my sight if one of them had been kidnapped.
And that was just the beginning.
EG
Well, I THINK we all agree that both JR and PR covered it up, whether PR got on board before or after the RN. There are good arguments for both sides. I think JR told her after she made the call that JBRs body was in the basement and that BDI. The police should have found the body, instead they let JR find it. Horrible bungle, among many!
DeleteIn fact, I think JR told her while she was still on the call. That would explain the "Help me Jesus", and other comments before the phone was disconnected.
DeleteI think PR wrote that RN while JR dictated it.
Deletea. Her handwriting couldn't be ruled out.
b. She lied about the handwriting in the photo album.
c. She changed her handwriting after it happened.
EG
Has anyone Googled Sibling Sexual Abuse? According to the articles, it's far more common (3-5 times more) than parent/child abuse. And it's still a big societal taboo that no one wants to talk about or report.
DeleteEG-that was my original thinking. Could be either one. It certainly looked more like her handwriting on TV.
DeleteYes, and that's been some of our points here. It goes on far more than anyone would like to admit.
DeleteThe parents were clueless. They had no idea what was going on downstairs. I believe BR and JBR getting up at night was a common occurrence. I think they often wandered into each other's rooms at night, as most siblings would do. Between JR taking sleeping aids and PR being ill, am sure they both slept soundly.
Under normal circumstances, that in and of itself wouldn't have been so bad, but BR obviously had anger/jealousy issues which I believe ultimately resulted in a terrible tragedy.
EG
I think Doc has a great theory, but maybe JR and PR weren't acting logically. If they were working together, they may have thought that leaving the RN would bolster their intruder case. So, they could both know JBR is dead, they then stage the murder scene with the garrot and to make sure the police don't think that someone in the house used the garrot, they create the RN to show it was definitely an intruder. So they make it look like a kidnapping gone wrong. I agree that staging the garrot was extreme and I don't know why that would've been done after an accidental death.
Deletea. Her handwriting couldn't be ruled out.
DeleteAgreed.
b. She lied about the handwriting in the photo album.
We don't know that. For all we know she could have been telling the truth. And if she recognized the writing of a family member she may not have wanted to reveal that for fear they too would come under suspicion.
c. She changed her handwriting after it happened.
NOT true. That lie was originally floated by Donald Foster, who is a known fraud. And then picked up by Steve Thomas and James Kolar, both of whom never bothered to check. Well I checked and it's not true. The "manuscript a's" she allegedly stopped using can be found in the samples she provided to the BPD. There are several instances, as I demonstrated earlier.
Sibling abuse may be common but I'd be curious to see the statistics on a 9 year old abusing a 6 year old.
DeleteNo one would stage a kidnapping gone wrong. The note is clearly intended to stage a real kidnapping and if Patsy hadn't called 911 the staging might well have succeeded.
DeleteAlso Doc G regarding sibling abuse: since the findings by qualified forensic scientists believe there was evidence of prior or chronic abuse, one would have to in the BDI theory believe that an 8 YEAR OLD was abusing a 5 year old. Possible, of course, but rare (statistic-wise).
Delete"No one would stage a kidnapping gone wrong." They tried to stage a kidnapping but it went wrong.
DeleteAlso your words like "no one" and "clearly" are inaccurate.
CE
I think not only the parents, but some family members were aware of it. I say that because of the self-help books that were given to the Ramseys by relatives (according to Peegee) "When Johnny Doesn't Know Wrong from Right" " Growing Up Too Fast". And the "incest" page dog-eared in their dictionary. They most certainly talked to Burke about it, maybe he said he'd stop. They should have separated Burke and JBR to protect her but perhaps they thought it wasn't that big a deal, just normal childhood curiosity. The Google articles say that happens a lot.
ReplyDeleteBgh..
DeleteI agree. Any way you look at it, the GJ got it right. The parents were negligent and refused to believe their son was dangerous.
Initially, I felt BR was too small, frail to be able to murder his sister. I was actually surprised to see how much bigger he was, than her. I read how the parents released only pictures showing a younger BR on purpose and that he was actually a lot bigger. BR was also a boy scout and had learned all about knot making.
EG
First off, I'd like to thank DocG for creating and maintaining this blog. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, respect must be paid to the fact that he has brought together all of us on this forum engaging in dialogue and bouncing ideas and theories off each other.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, my conclusions are that BDI with the coverup being done first by JR, who eventually told PR and who was included in the coverup. I've read a lot of past posts and I would like to offer some unique points:
A. I have many friends in the military and some in the Navy. Without knowing why I was asking, they all confirmed that knot tying is an integral part of basic training, with even more complicated knots being taught to seamen and SF. JR was in the Navy. The knot on that garotte was very sophisticated. Now, I'm pretty good at knots from rock climbing and what not, but even I would not know how to tie that knot on the garotte.
2. Speaking of the garotte, making a garotte is part of basic Navy training called emergency and extraordinary expense authority (E &E) . I also think other branches of the military do E&E training, but my Navy research has concluded that improvised garotte making is part of this training. Let's think logically- before hearing garotte in this case, had anyone ever heard of a garotte before? No, unless you are in the military and in that case you have. Again, JR was Navy and was well aware of what a garotte was and how to make one. That anyone else, PR, BR, or an intruder would have thought to make a garotte is far fetched unless they too had military training. Boulder is not a military town like for example DC or Norfolk, so you wouldn't expect your avg person to know these military techniques.
3. According to research on Autism ( Burke was confirmed to be somewhere on the spectrum) hitting others is a common issue because Autistic children have difficulty communicating. Hitting others is a fairly hallmark behavior to deal with this inability to "communicate feelings, get attention, or protect territory". Both parents and a family friend had confirmed that BR had previously hit JBR with a golf club on her cheek. I bet there was a lot of that going on by BR, particularly since BR likely saw how much attention his sister was getting from their parents and via the pageants.
4. In the same research on autism, feces smearing is another hallmark behavior of "low functioning" autistic children mainly used as a means to get attention (also due to their inability to effectively communicate). The fact that he smeared feces in JBR's bed and candy box is something worth thinking about. (Cont'd below)
Doc is the one who lashes out if you don't believe in this theory. Numerous people posting on here have been on the receiving end and then Doc goes on to formulate a new thread with his long, drawn out perspective.
DeleteThank You ! I agree. If you can dish it out then you should be able to take it too.
DeleteCome on guys try to see it from his point of view. He has invested a lot of time and effort into his theory which he think is brilliant and could possible be wrong. He talks about confirmation bias but suffers from it himself.
DeleteI have yet to hear a theory outside of Doc's, that makes sense, on here.
DeleteA majority of one, then?
DeleteSo to my conclusion - apologies for being long winded. They come home from the Christmas party and the kids are put to bed. BR admits he snuck downstairs to finish putting together his toy. JR admits he came down to help - likely heard or saw BR was out of bed. He came down with the flashlight, finds BR putting the toy together. He likely turns on the lights, PR maybe joins them to give BR a snack of ice tea and pineapple/milk. She leaves and goes upstairs. JBR wakes up (or is woken up by PR to brush her teeth or pee) and probably comes downstairs since she either sees lights or hears voices. I believe at this point, JR is not actively supervising BR with the toy anymore (perhaps went upstairs to help pack) and JBR grabs a piece of pineapple and BR hits her on the head with the flashlight JR had brought down/used when discovering BR has snuck downstairs to make the toy. He uses a piece of his train track (which was strewn all over the house) to poke JBR to see if she's ok. Autistic children have difficulty with sensory issues and may squeeze or touch others too hard. He prob jabbed her with the train track peice hard when she was being unresponsive.
ReplyDeleteHe goes upstairs, tells his parents. They realize he accidentally killed her. PR freaks out and is probably too shaken to do anything so JR takes charge. BR is told to stay in his room. JR, trying to save his son (before goggle and realizing he couldn't be tried being under 10) starts thinking how to stage that someone else did it.
When people are going through traumatic situations, they lose fine motor skills and decision making ability. JR was not thinking clearly of how to stage a perfect crime, he has no experience with crime, he was panicking.
He took her body to the basement and probably thought ok let's make this look heinous like something not accidental (i.e. Not just Bump on the head w blunt object) and goes overboard w duct tape, cuffs, garotte etc. he probably violated her a bit w the garotte in order to make it look like a sex crime (I'm sure he knew that JBR being so pretty, people's mind would jump to a sexual predator). Prob also went overboard Bc people would automatically think no way a family member could do that to their own kid.
Then he dictates the ransom note to PR who writes it and adds her own bits. But they run out of time for him to leave the house with the body. He still had to shower and clean things (like the flashlight) and coach BR about what to say etc. He probably also had second thoughts rethinking everything - ie what if the neighbors see me leave the house with the body. Maybe the sun was coming up.
So then they decide - ok let's get friends over to contaminate the crime scene and we will call the police and sound hysterical. Eventually they will find the body and it will looked like it was supposed to be a kidknapping but it went array and the intruder ended up killing her instead. They probably decided not to get rid of the ransom note because if the intruder was supposed to kidnap but accidentally killed, he probably would be freaked out and wouldn't want to go back upstairs to collect the note.
The parents also believe the note offers them some sort of out - pointing to them having money as a motive for somebody to kidnap.
BRs behavior in the interviews is telling, esp when asked about the pineapple. Unfortunately when people are in stressed situations they don't think clearly and that's why I think this case has so much confusion surrounding it. You'd think JR would have left a door open, or trashed the place a little bit to look like an intruder was there. You'd think they would have been smarter about the note. Everything really. But people panic and he wasn't thinking clearly and they were just scrambling to cover for BR.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
e
Some might find this of interest. I was looking up Dr. Cyril Wecht's findings and was led to a pbworks.com site "JB CAse Encyclopedia Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse." There were just as many experts, forensic scientists who found that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse as those who concluded there was no evidence of prior sexual abuse. However this was of interest: Dr. Werner Spitz concluded the injury to the hymen occurred at time of death (Schuler 1999:437); quote and source provided by Internet poster THE PUNISHER. More specifically, Spitz stated "The injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death - not eariler." The Punisher notes that "Notice tht Spitz did not say there was no prior penetration. He said there was no clear indication of prior penetration; he was cautious and undecided." Didn't Spitz just go on CBS and say there was no sexual attack that night? Wasn't he definite on that while sitting around at the table with the others at the CBS documentary? Also in this article the FBI stated that there was no prior sexual abuse and that the sexual attack was part of the staging. So conflicting reports abound. Another report said that the chronic bedwetting and fecal matter - get this, the fecal matter staining was found in all of JonBenet's panties! - could be evidence that molested children often exhibit in order to prevent the abuser from getting any where near them.
ReplyDeletePR stated in an interview that JBR often wouldn't wipe correctly after a bowel movement which could resul in the fecal matter stains in her underwear. I'm also wondering if the pressence of fecal matter caused some of the chronic vaginal inflammation
DeleteNot entirely correct, and there's quite a bit more to it than that, Inquisitive, but it's great you're doing your own reading and research. I've sent Doc an e-mail on this topic and asked him to print it. Hopefully that will provoke more thought.
ReplyDeleteCC
what part was not entirely correct - that Dr. Spitz said what he said in 1997 or what he said on the CBS documentary? I'm quoting from the article in 1997, but not from the CBS documentary. I just recall on the CBS piece they all ruled out a sexual attack prior to actual death - when clearly there was blood in her panties. And damage to the hymen, the vaginal wall and material found inside the vagina. Also many forensic scientists concluded that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse as well as Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Cyril Wecht believes that the penetration was digital. Also the birefringent material might have been talcom powder, not paint or varnish.
DeleteI was left slightly confused by what was being said in the CBS investigation: there was no mention of even the possibility of long-term abuse, and regarding the night of the murder I could not quite be sure whether they were implying that there was no sexual interference at all, or that there was an attempt made to stage some sexual abuse. At one point Dr Lee was suggesting that the birefringent material might even just be transfer from when she was being moved around (highly unlikely in my estimation but he's the expert), but when Dr Spitz talked I got the impression he was suggesting that there was *really* no sexual assault, in the same sense that there was *really* no kidnapping - ie, someone who fashioned the garotte may have briefly poked a finger into the poor girl to try to create that impression, but that a serious sexual assault would leave more unmistakable evidence than the miniscule amount that was found here. A couple of tiny particles, some very very slight abrasion, and a tiny drop of blood.
DeleteI'm no expert on what would be expected to be found after a pedophile has seriously sexually assaulted a child, and to be honest I'm quite happy to stay that way.
a tiny amount of blood in her panties - she had been wiped down and her underwear changed. At some point her heart stopped beating so no more blood would have been found
DeleteWithout typing out this whole article which I'm unwilling to do, the "others" I mentioned were forensic pathologist Robert Kirschner who said "the injuried to JB were consistent with long-term sexual abuse" and listed why he believed so after examination, as well as Dr. John McCann, clinical professor Dept. of Pediatrics who was contacted by the BPD for his assessment who found that "JB had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder." What was a surprise was that Dr. Spitz has contradicted himself from his 1997 findings to the recent CBS show. But hey, don't take my word for it. You can read what each scientist found and why they believe as they do.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, Inquisitive. It's almost as though this program had a predetermined agenda, and Dr Spitz was happy to go along with it in order to take part.
DeleteIf a 9 year old boy was curious and digitally penetrated his little sister, might the injuries be just as mild as those found on JBR's genitals?
DeleteBut then that would suggest that he had slivers of varnish from the garotte on his fingers. And that I don't buy for one minute.
I saved you the trouble, Inquisitive. I e-mailed the whole shebang, some further material from research I did last year, my sources, and my own (possibly harebrained) conclusions to Doc.
DeleteAgain, kudos to you for bothering to dig deeper.
CC
Thank you CC. I am an internet researcher, with a background in Psychology, have worked for P.I.'s in the past, I like to do my research. It's frustrating in all cases gone cold (but still remain open) that we are not privy to the actual case files, then we get assaulted with conflicting information, much of which is sourced by things like the National Enquirer or someone's who-done-it theory. Often "experts" cannot formulate definitive hypotheses, then one cancels the other out. But the science speaks for itself, deductive and inductive arguments and reasoning are used to form hypotheses and I think most people here are committed to answering as many questions for themselves as they possibly can, with limited information at our disposal.
Deletepostscript: I should not have put the word experts in quotes. They are experts.
DeleteI read the transcript from the Larry King show, where the Ramsey's were on with Steve Thomas. It was very interesting. PR kept referring to either "the child" or "that child". She never said "my child" or "Jon Benet". Anyone care to explain that one? I am not a psychologist, but to me, that is very telling.
ReplyDeleteEG
1 of the more interesting transcripts in this case for sure. I have tried to find the actual show everywhere but can not find it. It is not even in the Larry King rerun list as it skips over that episode.
DeleteFleet and Priscilla White were the 1s to point out that PR changed her handwriting after JBR's murder, as was BR's teacher who said later that PR started typing out everything that was sent to her and had never done that before. That is where LE got PR changing her handwriting. From what I know about the Whites I have very little doubt that they are liars and making this up. BR's teacher has no reason to lie either.
ReplyDeleteI found this on another blog. Just curious if this is the same C.C. as on here ?
Delete"Eliminated by the credible handwriting experts. Everyone among the credible suspects could be eliminated as the possible writer except Patsy Ramsey.
Patsy Ramsey wrote the Ransom note."
CC
Regardless of what Fleet and his wife might have claimed or what anyone else claimed, there is no evidence that Patsy Ramsey changed her handwriting after the murder. Nor would there have been any reason to do so, since her historic exemplars were available to the investigation team. The rumor spread by Steve Thomas that she stopped using manuscript "a" is easily refuted by examining her "London Letter" which contains several. There are other examples as well.
DeleteGiven the extraordinary attention being paid to Patsy's writing style, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that she would switch from handwriting to typing whenever possible.
What all this nonsense reveals is the extraordinary amount of confirmation bias leveled at Patsy once John had been ruled out. No one seems to have noticed or even cared whether John might have changed his style or switched to typing since he has ever since been off the radar.