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

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

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

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Evidence of "chronic sexual abuse" -- a guest post by CC

[NB: Since my inbox is now overwhelmed with comments I can no longer deal with any comment not found under the most recent blog post. So please try to avoid posting anywhere else. I appreciate all the many comments but lack the time to individually address every single one, sorry. If you've already posted something important elsewhere feel free to repeat it here. DocG]

An autopsy of the body of Jonbenet Ramsey was conducted on 12/26/96 by Dr John Meyer, Boulder County Medical Examiner,  and witnessed by Detective Linda Arndt of the Boulder Police Department.   Dr Meyer told Arndt that JBR had injuries consistent with prior  digital penetration of her vagina.   Meyer later returned to the morgue with Dr Andrew Sirontak,  Chief of Denver Children's Hospital Child Protection Team, who also examined the body and found the hymen "shriveled and retracted", among other old injuries to her vagina, and agreed that JBR had been sexually abused prior to the night of her death.
In September of 1997 a panel of medical experts was shown the autopsy report, photographs and tissue samples.   This panel consisted of:

John McCann, MD - Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, UC Davis, acknowledged to be the foremost expert on child sexual abuse in the country;

David Jones,  MD - Professor of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, UC Boulder;

Robert Kirschner,  MD - University of  Chicago Department of Pathology; 

James Monteleone,  MD - Professor of Pediatrics at St Louis University School of Medicine and Director of Child Protection at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital;  

Ronald Wright, MD - former Medical Examiner,  Cook County,  Illinois; and

Virginia Rau, MD - Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner. 

They observed,  among other chronic injuries,  a hymen that had been eroded 
over time and a vaginal opening twice normal size for a six year old.  All stated they observed "evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse".  Dr Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, in a separate assessment,  concurred.

I could find only two medical experts who, in separate reviews of the evidence,  had anything approaching dissenting opinions:

Dr Michael Doberson, Arapahoe County, Colorado coroner, said only he would need more information before coming to a conclusion.   Dr Richard Krugman,  Dean of University of Colorado Health Services,  has not denied evidence of prior sexual abuse,  but said "Jonbenet was not a sexually abused child.   I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone", to which Cyril Wecht responded "What is Krugman talking about?"

JBR was taken to her pediatrician 27 times in 3 years.   Five of those visits were for vaginitis, but Dr Beuf had never performed an internal exam.  On 12/17/96 Patsy Ramsey called Dr Beuf's office three times between 5:00-6:00 PM.  Eight days later, Jonbenet was dead.  I do not believe an experienced mother of two would make three after hours calls in sixty minutes to her child's pediatrician for a routine cold or sore throat.   I do believe it likely that JBR had yet another vaginal infection,  and  Patsy had finally become alarmed and was demanding answers - answers that could only be determined by a full pelvic exam, information Patsy would have shared with her husband. 

Dr Beuf was a mandated reporter, required by law to report any abnormal findings to Child Protective Services.   JBR was not killed to prevent her tattling, but rather because when the family returned from Charlevoix and their cruise on the Big Red Boat,  there was a pelvic exam in that child's future, the sexual abuse would be discovered and reported,  and the perpetrator thereof would face public humiliation,  loss of his company,  his social standing, his family,  and possibly his freedom.

My sources are Schiller, Thomas, Kolar, The Jonbenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia, acandyrose,  and a book called "An Angel Betrayed".  

Many of you posting here have mentioned "conflicting experts' opinions".  I can find none, other than the two lukewarm ones from Drs Krugman and Doberson.  I think you may be merely repeating vague assertions you have always heard in conjunction with this case, but please, if you have such information,  post it, referencing your source and citing chapter and verse.

CC

159 comments:

  1. CC - many thanks for this excellent contribution. That more or less puts the abuse issue to bed as far as I'm concerned.

    So much for those 'wild, unfounded assumptions'.

    And even those who won't accept your inference regarding the timing of the murder in connection with the forthcoming examination must at least concede it's plausible, it's logical, it makes sense. But just to be clear and to have full transparency here: am I right to infer from what you write that there is no actual evidence or testimony concerning the specific reason for those repeated out-of-hours calls on the 17th, and that the imminent full pelvic examination that spooks John into horrific action is therefore mere (if reasonable) supposition?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no evidence or testimony and yes, it's entirely my construction.
      CC

      Delete
    2. One could still theorize that Burke was the one who was sexually abusing JB. I don't think he was, but this article, that Patsy called her doctor after hours, that an internal exam was preeminent,does not lead to JR had to kill his daughter. One could say only that "someone" may have been.

      Delete
    3. I have no opinion as to whether there was a pelvic exam in JBR's future. Short of her demanding it, the family MD was clearly NOT going there. Those after-hours calls could just as easily be explained by PR in a crescendo of panic--which she ultimately chose to tamp down and/or deny, etc.

      That said, I find the evidence of prior sexual abuse convincing, without question. IMHO, the events of that night could just as easily be explained by an impulse blow to the head followed by a cover-up/murder to confuse what an emergency room visit--or autopsy--would expose about the sexual abuse. I would bet my bank account JBR died to muddy the waters re. prior abuse.

      Professionally, I know Hal Haddon better than I'd like from my time in CO politics. HST, Gov. Roomer, Sen. Hart were all former clients. The Vanity Fair JBR expose? Vastly underestimates his pull and proclivities as a fixer, shot caller, etc. His firm--and their control of a power struck Alex Hunter--is why no Ramsey was ever charged for JBR's murder.

      Delete
    4. MHN: it might pay you to be better informed before posting in such a mocking tone [assuming that was directed at me]. What I posted was that DocG's theory that JR molested his daughter is 'a wild assumption' [or something similar]. That still stands. Nothing CC has posted incriminates JR (particularly given that JBR was paraded around like a precocious, tiny seductress, whether intentional or not).

      As CC has so generously explained previously, there would need to be evidenced traced back to one individual. General evidence that JBR was molested could, legally speaking, be traced back to any individual/s. And, I don't doubt that. I just don't see any evidence it was her father. She was in pageants and would have attracted many paedophiles in her midst. And, as we know, John and Patsy Ramsey were not vigilant about security - of which I been critical.

      Unknnown

      Delete
  2. Doc G if you are saying I am the one who said "conflicting reports" I took it direction from the article I found that was just sent to you that you just commented on. Dr. Werner Spitz, from the very JB case encyclopedia you were just quoting, concluded the injury to the hymen occurred at time of death. This is not what Dr. John McCann concluded, that JB had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. He contradicted himself - during, or before. Dr. Spitz said the injury to the hymen occurred at time of death, then said there was no prior penetration - then he says something else entirely different on CBS. Also it would be helpful if when you are calling out one of us here you specifically say who.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't blame Doc for this one, the above was all me, and I was not calling you out - many, many people over the years have used those very words on this blog.

      I dunno what's up with Spitz. I question whether he ever had access to the photos and tissue samples, as I've never seen his name mentioned as a consultant; he may have just been offering incompletely i b firmed opinions, then and now, as a celebrity doc.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Ahh, okay. Spitz contradicts himself, as does McCann. Just read the article. The article threw Spitz in there, it's possible he did not examine the body. He certainly was not allowed to examine the skull in the Casey Anthony trial yet was paid as an expert and put up there on the stand to comment on it. He was discredited by the prosecution in any event. The pisser is that Spitz went along with the others as recently a the CBS doc. that sexual abuse didn't even occur. Now that I'm not sure about - I don't have any direct quotes from there but I believe he was confounding and confusing. Let's go on to read more of the pbworks JB case encyclopedia. There may be more information there. In regard to Doc's comment above you still can't make the leap from Patsy's distress calls to their pediatrician, that a pelvic was forthcoming, to that JR had to kill JB. All we can say is that someone was abusing her and that it may have been found out.

      Delete
    3. Again, let me emphasize that you cannot blame Doc. Please note the disclaimer in the title of the thread "...a guest post by CC". Doc was kind enough to give me the use of his forum to ride my own particular hobby horse.
      CC

      Delete
    4. okay, then, have it your way, I will blame you. ha. Why didn't you share that info with us sooner, when we were all going in a circle in regard to whether she was previously abused. A year ago doesn't count.

      Delete
    5. Kolar states in FF that Dr Meyer and Boulder authorities canvassed the opinions of a range of leading experts on sexual abuse, child abuse, brain injuries etc - and lists Spitz among these experts as having 'conducted extensive studies on the wounds caused by the application of force and was considered a leading expert on the topic'. He cites Spitz's expert opinion on the timing and sequence of the injuries. He mentions no opinion from Spitz on whether or not there was prior sexual abuse.

      The most upsetting aspect is the testimony of the neurological experts, who note that the swelling and edema subsequent to the blow to the head would've taken time to develop, and that JBR was alive a minimum of 45 minutes after the head blow. Further, petechial hemorrhaging observed on the skin and in the eyes was evidence that she was at least technically alive when garroted.

      So that's interesting: there is a gap of 45 minutes minimum between the head blow and the garrote.

      Delete
    6. She lived for a minimum of 45 minutes after the head blow, before the garrote finished her off.

      That's an "intruder" with a hell of a lot of time on his hands, folks. We're lucky the ransom letter was only two and a half pages long....

      What a confident guy he must've been. So much for the idea of a kidnapper intruder accidentally killing JBR and panicking, leaving the body and the note and escaping in a panic.

      That boat don't float.

      Delete
  3. I was also the one who found that article and referenced it to CC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you did; however, the above post is a consolidation of several I made and posted here a year ago, based on research I did at that time.
      CC

      Delete
    2. A fine job both of you. Many thanks.

      Delete
  4. Wouldn't the quickest way to ensure a full pelvic examination was carried out and given worldwide media exposure be to murder and garotte the child in your own home?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly MHN. Also I am surprised that John didn't kill her 27 time over 3 years. Must have been really sure that a pediatrican wasn't going to found out.

      CE

      Delete
    2. I believe the assault with the paintbrush was not for sexual gratification, but a desperate attempt to obscure the physical evidence of the prior abuse.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Again, CC, no proof the assault was made with the paintbrush. Dr. Wecht believes penetration was digital, and that perp was wearing a glove. No splinters inside, no paint inside, birefingent material was likely varnish, paint, or powder, on that it reflected when a special light was used. Had it been the actual broken paintbrush handle there would have been a lot more damage to the inside of the vagina, not just erosion due to chronic previous abuse, but tearing.

      Delete
    4. Dr Sirontak, the only other physician to examine the body, concurred with Meyer that "a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of Jonbenet's vaginal orifice, and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o'clock [sic] position."
      CC

      Delete
    5. It was found to be cellulose material consistent with the wood of the paintbrush handle, located at the hymeneal opening.

      But given how small a sample that was, and how little damage was done, I would guess that the foreign object was a finger that had a tiny sliver of the wood still on it, not a recently snapped paintbrush handle.

      Delete
    6. According to the second paragraph on the fourth page of the. JBR autopsy report, there was blood on the labia majora, some watery blood in the vaginal vault, hyperemia, abrasions and other injuries. Abrasions and hyperemia from a gloved finger? Really?
      CC

      Delete
    7. We're not talking a lot of blood here, we're talking very small amounts. Hyperemia sounds impressive but isn't necessarily a big deal - it just means increased blood flow, right? You get hyperemia to the genitals whenever they are stimulated or aroused.

      I don't want to get too revolting, or too revolted, but an adult finger in a possibly rough unlubricated glove causing abrasions and a small amount of bleeding in a small child's private parts? Yeah, sure. Why not?

      On the other hand, a recently broken piece of wood leaving only one tiny piece of almost microscopic cellulose material in the vagina? I'd be surprised.

      I might be wrong. But I'd be surprised.

      Delete
    8. If he'd used the more pointed end of the paintbrush rather than the broken end there'd be less damage than from the broken end, and little microscopic cellulose material.

      I take your point and agree it's very much open to speculation. I like the paintbrush because it supports my theory that he was trying to cover up prior abuse with new abuse, but a roughly gloved finger works just as well.
      CC

      Delete
    9. If there is no intruder and was premeditated murder to cover up sexual abuse, then there were potentially things that led up to reason JBR murdered in the manner she was/when she was: - @08/96 doctor's visit contains reference to JBR asking about sex roles (innocent in itself but if she were abused, it means she was of the age where she would have awareness of inappropriate touching, and I would think her mom would discuss stranger danger etc and telling someone); her medical records by themselves may not indicate abuse, however JBR had uti/vaginitis, instance(s) of stomach problems, including bloody stools, bed-wetting/soiling issues, cold sores, chronic cough/bad breath-could have been behavioral/psychological stress related. Plus she was murdered and violated in her genital region, so combination of factors potentially indicate abuse; panel of experts believed she had prior sexual abuse; I think @12/96 missed pageant due to sickness (what was she sick with?); 911 phone call on 12/23/96 (what if JBR called 911 b/c she was being abused and of age where she knew it was wrong, did LE record phone call or determine why call made?). Did LE/Medical doctor ever give physical exam to family/household member(s) for signs of defensive wounds, bruising, bites that JBR may have inflicted on perpetrator? PS - If perpetrator wanted money/ransom why didn't they just burglarize the home, instead of elaborate set-up/assault and no monetary return?

      Delete
  5. What I wonder though is what prompted those distress calls from Patsy to the pediatrician? Any theories on that? If BR was I'm going to use the word "violating" his sister as it's hard to apply a sexual component to a 9 or 8 year old, I think JB would have ratted on him to her mother. But if it were her father she may have been told to keep mum, don't you think? Doubtful Burke could come up with any kind of consequence for JB to keep her quiet. What was he going to do, smear feces on her new doll?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I think JB would have ratted on him to her mother." Maybe she did. Maybe he didn't like that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CC and Inquisitive, thanks for that excellent info, it's very compelling and convinced me that JBR had indeed suffered chronic sexual abuse. I believe it was Burke because of the reasons I've listed before. For the poster who commented about an 8 yr old molesting a 5 yr old--of the REPORTED cases, 16% of juvenile sex offenders are under 12 yrs old. Investigators surmise that the younger the child, the more likely it won't be reported, so it's probably more. There weren't many actual cases given as examples, of the ones there, the abusers started at six yrs old. Burke was almost 10, JonBenet was 6.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great post by CC. You really did your homework. That whole CBS series was a sham and its unreal how many sleuths are parroting every comment from it as if it were the bible.

    Slightly off topic but doc says to comment on the most recent blog postings. I have a question for those who swallow BDI hook, line, and sinker. I also know there are some people here who know the ins and outs of the legal system and hopefully they weigh in.

    Here's the GJ true bills:

    On or about December 25 and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

    On or about December 25 and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennet Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

    ----

    This begs a question...

    How can Burke be this third party when he is technically by law incapable of murder much less first degree murder and child abuse?

    I think Doc's theory has a few holes in it but this BDI theory that has become the flavor of the day is off the rails on a crazy train. Some people believe CBS answered all the questions when in reality it just added even more questions to the mile long list of unanswered questions.

    CBS had to ignore most of the case to get people to swallow the bitter pill of BDI. I am not surprised in the least that the show is leading to a lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, James.

      You're more or less correct about Burke and the GJ findings. There exists on the statute books in many states a process called "direct file" whereby a prosecutor may elect to transfer a case from juvenile to circuit court. The threshold age in Colorado in 1996 was 10. Burke was a month shy of the that threshold.

      Delete
    2. Having said that (in the interests of full disclosure), it's highly unlikely Alex Hunter would have availed himself of this device, as he could not bring himself to try an adult for homicide, preffering instead plea bargaining with an eye to counseling or other rehabilitation.
      CC

      Delete
    3. "The threshold age in Colorado in 1996 was 10. Burke was a month shy of the that threshold."

      Yes and the GJ knew this. LIke everyone says, Burke was "off limits". If so, the GJ would not be able to charge him or even insinuate he is/was responsible for first degree murder and child abuse.

      Some believe that the GJ was simply unable to point the finger at a specific Ramsey... being unable to know who did what and when so decided to charge John and Patsy with the same thing(listed above). However, we have this mystery third party which BDI always assumed was Burke. We do not know exactly what evidence the GJ was privy to(I assume most of it) but it makes you wonder who this third person is. Is it simply a case of the GJ not having a clue so just threw that out there or do they know of a smoking gun we are unaware of?

      I am in the group that doesn't buy BDI for a second and CBS and various sleuths don't even come close to making a believable case for it. They keep pointing to these GJ bills as if its some sort of proof and IMO the GJ is not referring to Burke.

      BDI likes to have it both ways. When its convenient, say its Burke but when something doesn't point in his direction, they say due to CO law he cant be mentioned, charged, or even a mere hint that he did anything that night. The GJ claims this third person committed first degree murder.

      So who committed first degree murder? No matter who this person is, listing first degree murder is very bold and I'd love to see the evidence that made them reach that conclusion.


      "Having said that (in the interests of full disclosure), it's highly unlikely Alex Hunter would have availed himself of this device, as he could not bring himself to try an adult for homicide, preffering instead plea bargaining with an eye to counseling or other rehabilitation."

      Alex Hunter is just about the worst thing that happened in this case. Neck deep in corruption and his handling of the Ramseys and their attorneys should have landed him in jail. Massive conflict of interest and JOnbenet never had a chance at justice thanks to him(and many others).

      On the subject of Dr. Beuf, I have always been suspicious of him. Strange character and he needed to be fully investigated. He was there that morning and keeping Patsy heavily sedated. He also told BPD Patsy was in no condition to speak with them. Its not his job to be doing either of those things. He was the pediatrician for the victim of a "kidnapping" at that stage, who obviously wasn't in need of a house call by her doctor and he morphed into a drug store for Patsy. Once it turned to murder, his services as a pediatrician really weren't needed.

      I'm amazed that his presence that day and what he was doing didn't raise any red flags.

      While not a doctor, Arndt could have been on your list as well. She claimed Jonbenet's genital area was "shocking" to look at. I don't remember the source for this comment. It might have been PMPT or one of her interviews.

      The so called "experts" on the CBS should be forced to look at your post. Its deplorable how any of those "experts" could claim with a straight face that she was not sexually assaulted or abused. I guess since it didn't fall in line with their simplistic BDI theory they didn't want to highlight too many facts.

      Its also disappointing how RDI always complained how IDI documentaries and books would leave out evidence to suit the IDI theory yet they lap up this BDI stuff that is doing the same thing.

      IMO some people are more interested in hanging on to a theory for dear life and to hell with the evidence.


      "On 12/17/96 Patsy Ramsey called Dr Beuf's office three times between 5:00-6:00 PM. Eight days later, Jonbenet was dead. I do not believe an experienced mother of two would make three after hours calls in sixty minutes to her child's pediatrician for a routine cold or sore throat."

      THis incident always needed to be investigated more thoroughly.

      Delete
  9. okay, going back to the pbworks.com JB case encyclopedia webpage I invite others to read the wealth of other information that can be found in the righthand margin. As to Timeline for Dec. 25-26,
    10:00p.m. Dec. 25 JB put to bed
    2:00 a.m. Dec. 26 neighbor hears scream
    I'll skip over the time Patsy awoke and called 911
    7-8 a.m. JR searched the basement area alone. (by the original account). Saw broken window and suitcase seen earlier by Fleet White. Said suitcase belonged to his family but was normally stored in a different place. In his 1998 testimony JR provides several different times for when he searched the basement on his own. First he says 7-9 a.m. Then 10-12 a.m., then he says before 8-10 a.m. when reminded that he would have wanted to be near the phone when the kidnapper called. But - GET THIS - Officer French says he found a chair in front of the train room door and that there's no good reason to believe White or French would have reblocked the door with the chair after they entered the train room. If so, John's trip would have been before 6:00 a.m. Some further staging perhaps before the police get there?

    ReplyDelete
  10. One more post here for a while - researching Sibling Abuse - In a study (posted on wikipedia) by Rudd and Hertzberger brothers who committed incest were more likely to use force then fathers who commit incest (64% vs 53%). Similarly Cyr and colleagues found that about 70% of sibling incest cases of sibling incest involved sexual penetration. Substantially higher than other forms of incest. Bernon Wiehe of the U of Kentucky estimates that up to 53% of children have committed at least one act of severe aggression toward a sibling, making sibling abuse more common THAN CHILD ABUSE BY PARENTS and spousal abuse combined.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for the new information, as it clears up the inconsistencies regarding the sexual abuse. However, it doesn't change my mind regarding my theory. If anything, it reinforces it.

    It's interesting that PR called the doctor three times in an hour. It's common for both children to have the same pediatrician. Is it certain she was calling for JBR? Could she have discovered something which led her to suspect BR or was BR becoming more aggressive, etc and PR wanted a referral for a therapist or something along those lines?

    If JR wanted to shut his daughter up, he would've dumped her overboard on the cruise ship--there have been instances of people being lost at sea.
    There is still nothing to indicate JR had a history of this. I do not believe he started or would've ended with his daughter.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is why I looked up sibling abuse EG. Because I'm torn again as to whether or not BR was doing the abuse or JR. And I understand what you are saying here why this particular night for JR to shut his daughter up. Maybe because after the cruise she was due to have a pelvic exam, but just maybe events, inexplicable events the night in question was some sort of accident, and then the staging to make it look like a sexual assault too place. Since the experts all disagree as to whether or not the vaginal trauma was chronic or not then we don't know if covering up sexual abuse was any kind of motive for murder or not.

      Delete
    2. Inquisitive,

      We don't know if she was due for a pelvic exam, as we don't know why PR called the doctor. Did they question the doctor as to what that call was about? That information would be key.

      I just can't make that leap to JR being an abusive father, without a history. According to the gardener, JBR loved her father very much and she told him how much she missed him when he was away. They were loving parents according to friends and family. There was a problem with BR, that we know.

      EG

      Delete
  12. Okay, if a child has bedwetting issues, wouldn’t you make sure she went potty before you put her to bed? YES. Or, at the very least put those pull-ups on her (‘hence’ the large panties)? YES. (i.e. the police photo/video of the open cabinet in the hall right outside JB’s room with the pull-up package hanging half out, plus the inside/out red turtleneck [that she wore to the Whites] laying on her bathroom counter indicates she changed in there). With an early rise, I’m sure mom didn’t want to have to deal with changing and washing bed clothes. So, that indicates that JB was awakened when they got home. So, then she says she’s hungry, so mom gives her some pineapple (that was one large bowl of pineapple though ….but dad says [during interview] she could eat a whole can by herself, and maybe she liked a big spoon to scoop up the milk with the pineapple). Oh, while I’m thinking about it, the police had a photo of JB’s coat laying in the backseat of the car, but JR says he took her coat and shoes off when he put her on the bed. He also read to both kids before bed, and then said he didn’t. So at this early stage of the murder/accident/coverup, WHY LIE? I don’t know why, but I just have a feeling that something happened in the car on the way home or shortly after they got home because that’s when all of the lies start. Is it possible the JB was being inappropriately touched and was telling mommy about it that night, and all hell broke loose? What was more important to Patsy, JB or the wealthy lifestyle? If JR goes to jail PR has nothing. Just some thoughts…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Humiliation, embarrassment, loss of friends, loss of status, loss of income, no more designer clothes, no more fancy jewelry, no more fancy parties, no more fancy house, shunned. That wouldn't do for a beauty queen. Can't show off her crown and dress during Christmas open house anymore.

      Delete
    2. I have a problem with that JB wet the bed that night and Patsy cleaned her up. In the timeline on the website JR says he puts her to bed and then goes to bed himself around 10 p.m. He says he never saw here alive again. PR goes to bed later but doesn't say what time. BR goes to bed later but doesn't say what time. If JB did wet the bed - or was taken to the potty before she was allowed to sleep through the night, then why the urine stained long johns? As well as the puddle of urine found on the basement floor. Wouldn't her bladder have already been emptied? I think her bladder gave way during or after being murdered.

      Delete
    3. Good point, but maybe she was told to go to the bathroom, but she couldn't go (adding to PR frustration). I believe the AR said the urine stains were on the front of her long johns indicating she was on her stomach at some point. Another thing that I can't get off my mind is that her hands/arms were in rigor above her head. If tucked in the blanket, wouldn't mom or dad tuck her arms in too, unless they couldn't because of the rigor? Did BR drag her in there by her arms and leave her that way, and then mom/dad found her and rigor was already set?

      Delete
    4. Another thing that I find very odd for a parent (among many, many other things in his case) is that when JR brought JB up the stairs after he found her, he was holding her at the waist with both hands and was holding her away from him.

      Delete
    5. No Anonymous, her arms were tied together at the wrists over her head down in the basement. Coroner couldn't affix time of death. A rectal temperature wasn't taken, for some reason, which would have pinpointed time of death a lot more accurately. All he could say was death occurred sometime between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (quite a time span!), but then modified that and said more like around 12 midnight to before 6 a.m.

      Delete
    6. But why do that (with 15" of rope between her wrists)? If she wasn't in rigor why not just tie her hands together in front of her waist -- that would have been a lot easier.

      Delete
    7. who knows why JR staged the way he did, in any event the rope wasn't tight. But he may have seen something done that way in some movie

      Delete
  13. I think it's slightly unfair to accuse Patsy of being willing to overlook the sexual abuse of her daughter because she had a wealthy lifestyle. I think in those circumstances she would get custody of the kids, the house, and as big a cut of his income as she wanted, no?

    More likely - IF she knew that something was going on - was that she was determined to cling to the illusion of happy marriage, happy family, beautiful kids. It's tragic how many people (females especially) are willing to live in wilful denial of truly vile situations rather than admit that the family life they have constructed is a actually a slow-motion car crash in which lives are being ruined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHN...I think it's a little or a lot of both. From what I've read about PR all of the things that I mentioned and you mentioned would be fair.

      Delete
    2. MHN I think P may have had her mother radar going off that something was going on, and if Burke was doing it and she suspected it she would be more likely to believe that than if her husband was doing something. In otherwords she would be more in denial if it was her husband - think of that horror and what it would do to her standing in the community! But if it was Burke then she would want to get both of them help. Which she tried to do - all of those trips to the pediatrician and later getting Burke psychological help - for two years of therapy afterward! The golf club accident happened not that long before her death. And Burke makes light of it on Dr. Phil but the pageant photographer and friend of Patsy's said Patsy told her Burke intentionally hit his sister. Violence escalating. So look at me, going back to the BDI theory again. Doesn't mean JR didn't do the strangling and coverup, but B struck the blow.

      Delete
    3. You forgot about the feces smears. That is beyond abnormal.

      Delete
    4. Both children had issues with dirtying themselves.

      Delete
  14. I was just daydreaming and found myself thinking-through the CBS/Kolar theory again.

    Imagine: John Ramsey calls an ambulance, he has found his daughter struggling to breathe, unresponsive. They arrive too late to save her. It is found that her 9 yr old brother had hit her in the head, not meaning to kill her. He gets visitations from child psychologists etc for a few years, is never prosecuted, grows up fairly normalish for someone on the spectrum. Nobody beyond close friends ever hears about the case, the name JonBenet Ramsey never makes the headlines.

    OR

    John Ramsey finds his daughter unresponsive, struggling to breathe, in the basement. He determines his 9 yr old son had hit her, not intending to kill her. He does what any normal loving dad would do: he protect his son by fashioning a garrote and finishing his daughter off, then inserts a foreign object into her vagina, and writes a two and a half page letter to himself to throw the police off the scent. 20 years later the name JonBenet is still a household name, and a major tv network airs a three-hour special accusing his son of murder. His son has to appear with Dr Phil to get his side of the story out there, and the whole world is horrified to see how disturbed and unusual he is, and wonders if maybe he did it after all.

    Nice work, dad!

    Not buying it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this is a test, I pick #1, since #2 is just absurd! And that's one of the things that I just can't get past, is that a father or mother could do that to their child (surely there are other ways to stage a crime scene).

      Delete
    2. And you have Burke's own words as a child showing the therapist what he think happened. That someone hit her over the head as he smacks his fist down hard on the table.

      Delete
    3. The therapist asked Burke what he thinks might have happened to his sister and Burke stated affirmatively that he KNEW WHAT HAPPENED. The therapist bypassed it and asked him "what do you think might have happened" as a hypothetical. Watch the video again.

      Delete
    4. True, but is it not possible that in the two weeks prior to that interview he had overheard a few details here and there?

      Also, the hammer is his second guess. His first is that she was stabbed with a knife.

      Delete
    5. Reminds me of the way Detective Lange questioned O.J. Asking a question and then answering it himself!

      Delete
  15. How come it didn't raise any red flags for the detectives and police that the pediatrician was called to the home? Why would he be called to the home? To offer what support? Support to whom? Would he mingle awkwardly with Patsy and John's longtime friends? What did Patsy and John tell their friends about her having called over the pediatrician?

    If Patsy WAS at the point where she was going to have JBR get a pelvic exam, you don't think it would be suspicious on both the Dr.'s part and Patsy's part that JBR ended up dead in her home with a garrote around her neck? I know many on here like to think Patsy had no mind of her own and was not bright enough to put two and two together for the entire remainder of her life, even after seeing all the evidence and medical report that claims JBR had possibly been sexually abused, but come on. If anything, this information points more towards BDI than anything else. It gives more credence to the parents covering up for Burke and his possible afflictions to JBR's private areas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. The pediatrician couldn't be there just to dispense drugs to Patsy. THere were two murders there that night - one person struck the flashlight blow, the other the strangulation. Two murders, one victim, two murderers.

      Delete
    2. It did raise red flags...that's the little island of information that their lawyers protected all these years (medical records). The pediatrician gave Patsy Valium, that's why he was there. I'm not positive, but I believe a family friend called the pediatrician to come to the house. They were all friends.

      Delete
    3. Cont'd...That was at the Fernies, not PR/JR house.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, what is your source re. the MD's 8/96 note that JBR asked about sex roles? My understanding was the medical records were not shared, only excerpted?

      I would respectfully disagree that it was 'normal' for a 6-year-old girl to question an unrelated adult male--Dr. or not--about sex. And even more unusual w/Mom in attendance. Short of no Mom in the equation, girls that age don't go coed on sex talk.

      Delete
    5. I read it on another blog http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?830-The-Doctor-is-IN!/page4 It doesn't look from timeline in blog that JBR asked the pediatrician but that her mother, Patsy indicated JBR was asking about it to mom. Unable to verify information posted in the comments in link.

      Delete
  16. Is there any information about the time the pediatrician arrived at the Ramsey home that morning? Was it before or after the police/detective arrive for the first time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ill check the website again with the timeline

      Delete
  17. Dr. Beuf was not present at 15th Street. He treated Patsy late that afternoon/evening at the Fernies.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where Burke was also, I presume?

      Did Patsy not have her own doctor?

      Delete
    2. Don't know about her own doctor, but 27 visits to Beuf in 3 years would have made her comfortable with him when in extremis.

      Burke was there. The Whites, the Fernies, John's brother, Patsy's sister, and Mike Bynum have all spoken publicly about that afternoon/night, and none have mentioned Beuf treating anyone but Patsy.
      CC

      Delete
  18. I think all of the evidence (tape, rubber gloves, rope, etc.) literally got flushed down the toilet (bit by bit). I wonder if the septic system was ever checked, or maybe they had city utilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boulder has a sewer system.
      CC

      Delete
    2. And storm drains in the street, I would think.

      Delete
  19. okay, just checked timeline noted by police that morning. Rev. Hoverstock arrived at Ramsey home at 7 a.m. same time Burke was removed from the house and taken over to the White's. No mention of pediatrician being at the house. I don't know where people got that Patsy was medicated at the house. It was obvious she was medicated on the CNN television show but that was later. Much later. Also this site said Burke was interviewed by police at 2:30 at White's. He said he slept through everything. As for the tape there is an interesting account of that on the website. Looks like it didn't come from a roll from the house. It was just one piece of tape and it was taken in as evidence and processed. They did figure out where it came from too.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Both John and Patsy were given medication at the Fernies by the Pediatrician, I believe that same evening after they found the body.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I believe BR had been molesting her for a long time. She either told on him or threatened to tell. If she told, then PR and JR were furious and upset with him and trying to figure out what to do.

    If she hadn't told yet, then he panicked, thinking she was about to. He woke her up, ate some pineapple with her, then killed her. I'm going to suggest that maybe he knew how to make the garrote as well. He put the paint brush in her also. He probably hated her due to jealousy. The parents discovered what happened and came up with the whole story to protect him.

    Kids can be mean. Especially crazy kids. Young boys can also be interested in sex. It's all very plausible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's amazing what a caring father would do for his little boy when he discovers he'd been abusing his little sister and about to be caught. Why he'd even be willing to kill his own daughter, or at least jam a paintbrush into her vagina and strangle her with a cool garotte he learned to tie in the navy. And no, mustn't say anything to his mom, cause she wouldn't understand.

      Delete
    2. What? He didn't say John did all that. He said Burke did. John and Patsy wrote the RN.
      Also who's to say that the knot on the paintbrush wasn't already done and it had been used for something else and was laying around down there when Burke used it? Burke didn't have to be the one who tied it.

      CE

      Delete
    3. Maybe it descended from the sky.

      Delete
    4. Locks of JonBenet's hair were found entwined in that knot. It was tied right on top of her. And no it's not credible that Burke would have done something that awful and gotten away with it. His parents would have been horrified and he'd have been placed in an institution. It's one thing to claim his parents covered for him because he didn't really mean to kill her when he hit her over the head, and quite another to think they'd cover for a psychopath.

      Delete
    5. Again you are making statements that I have not seen before. I am looking at the knot and see some hair there but it is certainly unclear whether it was entwined in the knot and whether the knot was tied right on top of her.
      So the garrotte descending from the sky is more plausible to you than it being already tied and there laying around?
      Also we can be sure why Burke put the garrotte around her neck. It could have been to try and move her body?

      CE

      Delete
    6. Sorry that should read "cant be sure"

      CE

      Delete
    7. CE, every source I've ever read on the case - Schiller, Thomas, Kolar, DocG - all mention that her hair was entwined within the knot. That's news to you?

      Delete
    8. Thanks MHN. I thought that meant hair entwined when the garrotte was used not that some hair got entwined when the knot was actually tied?
      I am looking at the references but its not that clear.

      CE

      Delete
  22. I was busy watching the Steeler's game this PM and then watched 60 Minutes (VERY scary), so I'm seeing all these comments for the first time now (around 9:30). Very interesting discussion.

    I want to thank CC for her thoroughly researched and clearly organized presentation, which will for many reading here be an eye opener. Also, I think the idea that John may have decided to do away with his daughter out of fear for what the pediatrician might find after the trip to Charlevoix to be extremely insightful, and well worth considering as a possible alternative to the motive I came up with, yes indeed.

    In that case, we can consider the possibility that the murder could have been premeditated -- which is no longer as serious a problem for me as it was initially. If you're curious as to my current take, do a search for my blog posts on that term. The topic is also covered in an Appendix of the new edition of my book.

    As I see it, the notion that Burke could have been responsible for the abuse is a huge stretch that would probably have been totally ignored were it not for Kolar's book and the sensational CBS show, which seems to have become a huge influence on the popular notion of what happened, despite all its obvious faults and shortcomings.

    When you see evidence of sexual abuse in a child of that age, the logical culprits would be the adult males in the house, not a frail, skinny and socially awkward nine year old kid. And if something WAS going on between them, they'd have been together a lot, holding hands and enjoying each other's company. By all reports, however, she was the sociable one, comfortably interacting with friends and family, while he was usually off in his room playing computer games.

    In any case, given the clear signs of sexual abuse, I remain puzzled at CC's insistence that there is no evidence on which to build a case against John. When we combine this with the fibers from his shirt found in her groin area, his many lies, the logic of the 911 call, and the note itself, which could have worked only for John and no one else, plus the mountain of evidence pointing away from an intruder, I'd think a very effective circumstantial case could be made. Even if you'd prefer to see Patsy as in some sense a collaborator, or enabler, that really wouldn't matter, given the evidence of sexual abuse. The key would be thoroughly debunking the intruder theory, NOT figuring out who penned that note.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let's not forget that whoever abused JBR the night of her death either wore gloves or used a "foreign object" to penetrate her, as he left no DNA - more evidence, to me, of careful premeditation and further proof that it likely was not Burke.

    My adamant stance on the inability to prosecute is purely lawyerly - there is an overwhelming likelihood that John was her abuser, but not one whit of hard evidence. To my great regret.

    Thanks for the use of the hall, Doc.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  24. All right point one: Some of the experts from the pbs.com website which I found and suggested to CC could not agree that there were signs of prior molestation. The FBI said there was not. If you want to think that JR did this then you would need to believe that there was prior sexual molestation and that an adult male in the house would be the logical culprit. However the other study I pointed to earlier on this page cited by researchers, say statistical research points to incest more frequently committed by a male sibling than a father (65% to 58% I believe it was). So it's not out of the arena. What was done to her, if you accept that the abuse was chronic Burke could have been the culprit but it may not have been "sexual" but rough play, expressing itself in a very disturbed way from a disturbed child. He resented the hell out of her. All of the attention went to her. He swung a golf club at her (just because he tells Dr. Phil it was an accident doesn't make it so). The pageant photographer said Patsy told her it was no accident. Okay, let me have it now. It's not a leap to think that Patsy knew something was wrong with both of her kids. JB for being violated by Burke and her recent return to bedwetting and fesces smearing, and Burke for striking her and molesting her. They were not close. No hand holding. If Burke is such a normal frail skinny 9 year old who just loved computer games why put him in therapy for two years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate that you're excited by your research today, and again congratulate you on looking further and digging deeper, but you pointed me to nothing I had not discovered, researched and posted on a year ago. Wait 'til you discover a candyrose, a real repository of useful information.
      CC

      Delete
    2. I never said he was normal. He showed some signs of Asperger's, yes. And kids who fixate on computer games and hang out in their rooms a lot all alone worry their parents no end. But there are NO indications of aggressive behavior on his part, or any interest in girls, which would certainly have been picked up on by family members who had no problem discussing the size of his penis.

      As for the golf incident, here's how Judith Phillips was quoted in at least one media report:

      "A family friend, Judith Phillips, said she'd been told Burke had hit JonBenet with a golf club about a year and a half before the killing.

      "I think Burke had a bad temper. It's like he had a chip on his shoulder, " she said." see http://news.anotao.com/link/nz/20160901109646/www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/84484884/CBS-documentary-on-JonBenet-Ramsey-murder-points-finger-at-brother-Burke

      Some posting here claimed that the reference to having a bad temper came from Patsy, but in this report it comes from Phillips herself. Does anyone have a transcript of the entire show -- it would be useful to straighten this out.

      Delete
    3. So you are saying that after I mentioned it early this morning and you then forwarded it to Doc G that you just happened to have thought of it a year ago as well? Why hold out on us then. Here for days we have been going in circles as to prior sexual trauma, broken hymen, erosion. Dr. Spitz, whether she was chronically abused or not and I find a site that cites all of the forensic scientists opinions as well as the FBI, that some contradicted each other and their own selves, I type out a synopsis of most of it and post it and it ends up today as your find. I get it, you found it a year ago. But you are just now sharing it with the rest of us right after I told you about it. I also know where the tape came from. Did you read that on the site too? If so please share that with us.

      Delete
    4. McGucken's Hardware.
      CC

      Delete
    5. Steve Thomas made a pretty good case for McGuckin's based on register receipts and Patsy's credit card, but I don't know that it was ever conclusively proved. Or that it matters.
      CC

      Delete
  25. It is possible that John had previously molested JBR, but as CC states, there is simply no evidence of that. I wish there was...then Doc’s theory would skyrocket in value and it would be obvious that JDI.

    In my eyes, I believe 100% that John penetrated JBR with the paintbrush as part of the staging (regardless if BDI or JDI). I do find it strange that John did that, if it was just to cover for a kidnapping gone wrong. He could have performed the kidnapping gone wrong without pulling JBR’s pants down at all. So, that tells us that John “may” have stuck the paintbrush in to try and hide and previous molestation. So let me be open to that notion for a few minutes...

    If there “was” prior molestation, then it was from John or Burke. Either way, Patsy was completely in the dark because she took JBR to her pediatrician 27 times in 3 years. So, if BDI (the flashlight whack to her head), how did John know that Burke had molested her in the past? He would have had to have seen this first-hand, without Patsy knowing. He may have even had a father-son chat about this. I guess this is possible.

    On the flip slide, if the prior molestation came from John, well the staging makes sense. This is also possible. So I guess we can’t rule out any of these...but without evidence, we will never know.

    BDI (and John staged) with no previous molestation whatsoever is still my favourite though.

    I think it’s obvious that John did the staging either way though...surely there is enough evidence to find him guilty of that and that only?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed very well reasoned and argued. This is basically what I think too. It would be interesting if we could expand on this.

      CE

      Delete
    2. We tend to think that events happen in a continuum. First this happened, then that, then that - linear thinking. I'm going to suggest that Burke had JB down in the train room, tied her up in that primitive fashion in which she was found, with her hands bound and then poked her with the train tracks and pulled down her pajamas and used a stick or his finger and assaulted her. He hadn't killed her, she was merely tied up. She she screamed (possibly at 2 a.m.) he hit her over the head. She's not moving now. Forensics said she appeared to have struggled prior to the hit over the head (same website pbs.com) and that the garrot around her neck appeared to have been adjusted. Strangulation first attempt was in another location on her neck, final imbedding of chord in another location around her neck. It may not have been for sexual gratification, but a hateful violent act. Does a father who is molesting his daughter want to draw blood? That's one way to never be allowed back into her bed ever again. Why if you think it's John would he have turned so violent this one time? IT looks like the bungling of a disturbed 9 year old. He's not so frail that he can't tie up his 6 year old sister with patsy's paint brush handle and tighten the noose. Since the experts, at least early on could never agree whether the blow came first or the garrot I say they were almost simultaneous. Partial choke and rape with finger or stick, her resisting and scream, then flashlight which was handy as they would have used it to go down to the basement. He is the only one in that house that admits he was up later than the rest of them. He puts himself there at the time of death. John then completes the staging. He has to. One child is dead, the other will be taken from him.

      Delete
    3. Inquis, The neurological experts state that analysis of the bleeding and edema (swelling) of her brain indicate that she lived for at least 45 minutes after the head blow, possibly up to two hours. She was alive when the garrote was applied, and it was tight enough to kill her.

      Given those facts - and they are facts - I can't quite figure out why the garrote would've been placed on her neck 'almost simultaneous' with the head blow, but not used to kill her for another 45 minutes to two hours.

      Delete
  26. All of the JDI by himself advocates have a real Patsy problem to make their theory hold any water

    -Due to the odd language or lack there of on the 911 call, along with hanging up, it seems much more likely that call was scripted

    -John's window story was crap. But I wont even listen to an argument from anybody on here that claims PR wouldnt have known about a broken window in her basement for the past 3 months. If she wasnt in on this then she KNOWS 100% JR is lying

    **THIS is the big one. DOES PR BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THE RN TO BE REAL?

    -If she believes its real, she sure didnt try to arrange an earlier pickup of her daughter like the letter said. She invites friends over to what is a crime scene for a kidnapping. Seems to me an awful lot like she was treating it as a funeral. A MOTHER wouldnt leave their only living child (Burke) upstairs by himself if she truly believed it was a kidnapping. The Big one is that the evidence seems to point to PR as the write of the note..NOT John.

    The entire JDI theory is based on PR NOT being involved. If PR is involved then John didnt do it by himself. This is simply my opinion but if as a lot of you are claiming, that John was covering up his prior sexual molestation of JBR...then PR absolutely NEVER makes that 911 call. No chance, no way! John is 100% not going to leave it to chance that PR goes downstairs before him and may or may not call 911. He would have taken control and told her that they are obeying the note and not alerting authorities.

    The reason so many of us are on the BDI train is because...wait for it..BURKE DID IT!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great J. I am waiting to see the answers to these questions also from the JDI people.

      CE

      Delete
    2. Your post is full of assumptions and personal opinions, based on what you think is proper behavior for someone reporting a kidnapping and caring for her children. Others have very different opinions, including yours truly. You've been taken in by a dubious investigation that was rigged from the start by clear confirmatiion bias. That's not only my opinion. You should check the media reviews.

      I'm truly fascinated by the change of heart produced by one single blockbuster TV production. For years I've been swatting the Patsy dunnits like flies -- now no one is talking Patsy anymore, it's all Burke. If tomorrow there were a show implicating this character Oliva we'd be seeing all sorts of comments from people absolutely positively convinced he must be the one.

      Delete
    3. I'll repeat what I wrote above, with respect to speculation that Burke could have fashioned the "garrote," just in case anyone missed it:

      And no it's not credible that Burke would have done something that awful and gotten away with it. His parents would have been horrified and he'd have been placed in an institution. It's one thing to claim his parents covered for him because he didn't really mean to kill her when he hit her over the head, and quite another to think they'd cover for a psychopath.

      Delete
    4. A lot of people believed BDI way before the CBS documentary.

      But yes, this forum was mainly trying to buy into your theory (and hoping you were correct so the case could be put to bed) or disbunking those Patsy theories (which I always thought were ridiculous).

      The CBS documentary wasn’t brilliant (the whole 911 call element was just silly and a waste of time) and I’m sure a lot of people “have” jumped on the BDI theory as a result. But, for a lot, it just cemented in the theory and everything fell into place. That documentary wouldn’t have aired, without them being extremely positive.

      Delete
    5. instead Burke was placed in therapy for two years. He did do something that awful and he did get away with it. With a little help from dad.

      Delete
    6. "But there are NO indications of aggressive behavior on his part, or any interest in girls, which would certainly have been picked up on by family members who had no problem discussing the size of his penis." Doc is accusing others of being full of assumptions and opinions, isnt that hypocritical ?! Like you or anyone would know if BR was interested in girls ? Then you claim BR had no history of violence. What ?! This after Judith Philips was told by PR that BR lost his temper and whacked JBR in the face with a golf club. No, i dont know if there is a transcript but did you not just watch the CBS show ? If not you can watch it free with the CBS app or probably find it on youtube.

      Delete
    7. Judith Phillips is an extremely unreliable witness, as she had a serious falling out with Patsy. The whole story is hearsay anyhow and could not be accepted as testimony in a court of law. Some who began as sympathetic to Patsy turned on her and came up with the most absurd stories, and Judith is one of them. Her husband, Thomas C. “Doc” Miller, was one of Darnay Hoffman's "experts" and wrote an indignant book on the case in which he argued for Ramsey family involvement. My assessment of the report he provided to Darnay can be found here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-4.html

      One anecdote, related by an unreliable witness does not make Burke a violent child. It would not surprise me if he bore some resentment toward all the attention his sister was getting, but if there were a history of violence beyond that one incident we'd have heard of it I'm sure.

      Delete
  27. As most of you are aware, I strongly believe that BDI (the initial head blow and nothing more).

    John and Patsy both “staged”...with Patsy being involved in the RN and nothing more.

    There is no hard evidence of John previously molesting JBR. Now, Doc will say there is no hard evidence linking Burke to the head-blow either...and he is correct. But we KNOW that pineapple is Burkes (to me that is a fact), we KNOW that Burke most likely fixed this himself (due to oversized spoon and him admitting he snuck downstairs), we KNOW his fingerprints were on the bowl, we KNOW the flashlight was nearby. We KNOW JBR was at that kitchen bench at some point in time and ate some pineapple. We KNOW that whoever started eating that pineapple, didn’t eat much because they were interuppted. Burke admitted that he “may” have eaten pineapple that night...which in Ramsay language is a yes. We KNOW Burke (11 years old) freaked out when he saw a picture of that pineapple...the change in his body language (he was very cocky up until that point) was remarkable! It’s very, very likely that the marks on JBR were from the train tracks...that very much has Burke all over it. I don’t believe John witnessed the headblow (due to train marks on JBR), but I believe Burke woke him up or John heard something and came downstairs. Burke told him what happened with the torch and probably wept saying it was an accident. John (and Patsy) then decided to do something about it...and one of them wiped the flashlight clean (very thoroughly) and probably didn’t realise it would be linked with the murder as there was no blood. They most likely didn’t realise JBR had eaten pineapple and therefore didn’t clean up the bowl with Burke’s fingerprints on it. They would have had so much on their minds, the bowl probably wasn’t something they even thought of.

    There is much more evidence (albeit some of it circumstantial) that links Burke to the headblow (and not John). The whole prior molestation (which is possible) is just a much larger tangent to go off and BDI is much more practical. Of course, Doc and others may disagree but it seem the majority of people (including the experts on CBS) agree.

    But as I have said, John did the staging (or in Doc’s theory, it wasn’t staging it was part of the crime) regardless...I believe this could be argued beyond doubt. Mainly be DISPROVING the intruder theory and then PROVING that no one else would have performed the garrote/paintbrush to JBR...unless John wants to throw Patsy under the bus. I actually think this wouldn’t be very difficult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Zed it is an easier tangent that gets us to BDI than JDI.
      Also I use to not think much about the 911 call but having gone through it several times now (ie the CBS enhancement)it definitely sounds like a man's voice straight after Patsy thought she hung up and he says " we are not talking to you" which can only be directed at Burke so we don't even need to be sure that the last voice is Burke's to put all this together. This adds much to the BDI agreement.

      CE

      Delete
    2. Red Herring.
      Jon

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

      Delete
    4. Ill be honest CE and I don't hear any words in the 911 tape. It may very well be, but like Doc says you can hear what you want to hear. As an example, listen to it again but instead of listening for "we are not talking to you", listen for "we like digging for poo" (i just made that up on the spot).

      Delete
    5. Fair enough Zed. I have the cbs show recorded and have listened to it many times and definitely hear a male voice straight after when Patsy thinks she hangs up.

      Delete
  28. Cool...well, yes im so stupid for falling for a 4 hour special done by 7 of the leading experts in their field. Talk down to me all day, but why dont you answer any of my points. The reason people are having a change of heart is because their case makes complete sense

    Since Doc doesnt want to answer...for ANY of the JDI people out there

    DO YOU BELIEVE PR BELIEVED THE RN?

    In order for your JDI theory it really all boils down to this simple question

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have replied over and over to the BDI theory. The same allegations keep getting repeated over and over, so I refuse to respond to each and every post.Maybe you are suffering from early onset Alzheimer's.

      And of course I believe Patsy believed the RN to be a real RN from a real kidnapper. Not only that, I've demonstrated that no other possibility is credible. Where have you been?

      Delete
    2. He J - Doc has stated since the start of this blog that he believe John wrote the RN. Again, it’s possible. But once again, it’s a much bigger tangent than Patsy writing it. Just like it’s a much bigger tangent that JDI than BDI.

      I’m not saying the elements of this case are simple, but Occams Razer! BDI and Patsy wrote the letter.

      As I’ve said for a while now, Doc’s theory actually fits in quite snugly with BDI. Even the RN, because although I believe Patsy wrote it, I do believe John was telling her what to write (at least some portions of it).

      Delete
    3. Doc: "And of course I believe Patsy believed the RN to be a real RN from a real kidnapper. Not only that, I've demonstrated that no other possibility is credible."

      Mate, you seem like a very intelligent bloke and a good person to boot. But honestly, that above quote is full of nonsense. I'm sorry, I've read this blog from start to finish and that line you just wrote is pure hogwash. Sorry.

      Delete
    4. PS. Not saying Patsy was in the dark (maybe she was), but that just means that John staged Burkes crime without Patsy knowing. But it makes far more sense for Patsy to have been involved in the writing of that RN!!!

      Delete
    5. If she'd been involved she would not have called 911 when she did. It's really that simple. And much harder to refute than you might think. But, by all means, be my guest, give it a try.

      Delete
    6. Ive refuted it (and so have others) about a hundred times on this blog. I'm not going to post it again.

      Delete
    7. Zed, don't bother, it's useless. DocG is so vested in his theory, anyone who disagrees with such a flawed conceptual ground clearly has a comprehension problem. He has also resorted to censorship now. Foreigner.

      Delete
    8. I've never resorted to censorship and never will, so long as the comment is free of personal attacks. I'm tempted to delete this post as well, so be warned.

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

      Delete
    10. Perhaps you ought to warn yourself. If Lin Wood comes by this blog, there could be trouble. It's not the first time bloggers and forum owners have been warned by lawyers. I doubt you would be any match for him, even with CC's assistance. Good luck. I've got more productive things to do than falsely accuse others of murder without a scintilla of evidence.

      Delete
    11. I've already tried to contact Wood, but never received a response.

      Delete
  29. Zed, thanks...Im completely aware of Doc's theory as I have read most posts over the last few years. yes, I am suffering from alzheimers......you have a blog dude, doesnt make you Sherlock Holmes. You are completely entitled to your opinion, but you show a complete lack of wanting to even entertain anything new that has come to light.

    For the people on this blog that actually want to get to the truth, I highly recommend the Jim Clemente podcast "Real Crime Profile." 2 parts have already been released and there will be 1 more that is in great detail, even more than the CBS special. It should help answer lingering questions that I know I had.

    I just beg people to look at PR's actions starting with the 911 call and beyond and REALLY determine for yourself away from this blog if you believe Patsy Ramsey truly believed the Ransom Note.

    I keep saying I was going to stop writing on here and kept getting sucked back in. In the past week its become clear to me that the writer of this blog has lashed out and become increasingly disrespectful to the people who comment on here...IF they disagree with him. Thats no way to do things......so in conclusion.

    BDI, both parents as sick as it is, covered up the crime to protect their only living son. Such a tragic story and a shame she could never live her life past the age of 6. Im out, good luck to anybody still searching for their own conclusions.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Red Herring!!
      Jon

      Delete
    2. PR did, at the least know. Her 911 call is a total sham. She was caught in many many lies red handed by LE which in my opinion is why they honed in on her. Almost every key piece of evidence she was asked about she was caught lying or could not recall. Doc will tell you that PR had no reason to lie (laughable) and just kept catching that darn amnesia bug over and over.

      Delete
    3. Re: Anonymous,9/25/16 "You are completely entitled to your opinion, but you show a complete lack of wanting to even entertain anything new that has come to light.". Read the blog from the beginning. Doc has addressed every thing you think is new.

      Delete
    4. -J

      For what it's worth, I agree with you.

      EG

      Delete
  30. Thanks J. I will definitely look at that podcast.

    Also hope to see you back.

    Regards CE

    ReplyDelete
  31. CC - excellent post, and thank you for all your hard work and research. I don’t agree at all with your conclusion however that because sexual abuse was about to be reported, that it must be JR as the perp. To my mind, this is unlikely for all of the reasons below:

    1. there is no known evidence that JR ever exhibited paraphilia

    2. no one has ever publicly linked JR to a crime

    3. no one has publicly ever linked JR's youth with the MacDonald triad

    4. the cops never found a single bit of porn, on John's laptop, or his other computers, or anywhere in the house

    5. the police never found a BTK style cache (crime photos, wigs, nylons, ropes, cuffs, crime scene “trophies”) that could be linked to JR

    6. renowned FBI profiler John Douglas found NO physical evidence tying John and Patsy to the homicide (from The Cases That Haunt Us, John Douglas)

    7. there WAS physical evidence near JonBenét's body suggesting an unidentified person had broken into the home (from The Cases That Haunt Us, John Douglas)

    8. there was no reasonable motive for the Ramseys to kill their daughter. The bed-wetting hypothesis was so outlandish as to be an absurdity – it flew in the face of historically established conduct by Patsy (from The Cases That Haunt Us, John Douglas)

    9. prior to the murder there was a total lack of evidence so far as physical abuse, neglect, sexual molestation, or serious personality disorders among the Ramseys was concerned – in contrast to what investigators almost invariably find in cases of children killed by their parents. (from The Cases That Haunt Us, John Douglas)

    10. John and Patsy Ramsey after the crime acted in a manner consistent with that of innocent parents of murdered children (from The Cases That Haunt Us, John Douglas

    11. nobody yet known in American society, having achieved the economic / social rank of CEO, with the intellectual and physical demands this type of work would typically require, has ever been documented to also exhibit paraphilia

    12. JBR is said to have stated that she missed her father when he was away.

    The only scenario that makes sense to my mind is IDI…. It must have been somebody who knew her (thus why she was found covered in loving blanket) and somebody who had continuous access to her (sexual / paraphilia aspect). Gary Oliva, Santa Bill, FW, FW’s boarder, Michael Helgoth come to mind. Don’t tell me LE went over the candidates thoroughly, there’s nothing yet about Boulder LE that has been “thorough” !

    CC2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Red Herring!
      Jon

      Delete
    2. Are you JR....or do you work for Lin Wood? No way did IDI. NO way.

      Delete
    3. to ANON at 11:29am

      I am not JR, Im a private citizen on US soil with no link to this case, just a burning desire for justice.

      I am not defending JR, only reasoning with intellectual minds here on this blog. I absolutely, unequivocally seek justice for JBR and others so wronged. I have no connection to JR's lawyers whatsoever.

      If you can prove me wrong, with words and logic (or more) as eloquent and thought out as has been done by DocG / CC / and others here, I will be happy to say "thank you for your hard work, I was wrong, you are correct". Im sure JBR will thank you from the grave as well.

      CC2

      Delete
  32. CC2 - thank you! I was the lone wolf on this blog. There just isn't enough evidence to convince me that the Ramseys did it is legally safe. I don't think it was a random sadistic killer though - I think it was someone she knew and who had a warped affection/sick love for her.

    Sadly, as JR himself has said, they made a grave error in allowing her to be paraded in those ghastly pageants. She was too visible. And if they wanted, they could have beefed up security in the home. They were reckless in that regard.

    Unknown

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And how did the intruder get in?
      When did they write the RN?
      Why didn't they take the body?

      That's 3 questions out of 20+

      Delete
    2. Zed - here you go:

      This was a paraphilia case for sure. The obvious documented evidence, presented by Doc and CC and others on this blog, quantify its veracity. My theory is IDI as a “love affair kidnapping gone wrong”.

      Q - how did the intruder get in?
      A - the Ramsey's handed out keys to bldg. maintenance "personnel" and others. This was an 11,000 square foot, five bedroom residence, with at least 30 windows, some of which are documented to have been left open (to allow Christmas lights to be plugged in). (Two windows were open slightly, allowing electrical cords for the outside Christmas lights to pass through." (Glick et al. 1998).)

      No doubt a bunch of different people, of possibly questionable background, were involved in its maintenance. Certainly there was nothing unusual in hiring out skilled and unskilled labor for its upkeep, as was also done in the Smart case, and in hundreds of thousands of residences across the globe this practice is employed daily. You take your chances with handymen (severe in some cases), unfortunate but true... Read up / review the Cary Stayner case for the gritty detail.

      "The Smarts sought to help unemployed people in the community by paying them for odd jobs or handy work around the property.[24]"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping


      Q - when did they write the RN ?
      A - it was written before the assault for sure. Its also been reported that John's bonus amount may have been exposed on printed paper within the residence. The RN may have been pre-composed on a computer as is suspected by many here on this blog, I’m not convinced of this by any means however. Its lengthy, rambling character, merely meant to disguise and confuse LE, was amateurish in execution, but not in intent.



      Q - why didn’t they take the body ?
      A1 - panic. Something startled the perp, my suspicious is JBR’s loud scream, heard by closest neighbor Melody Stanton, who was less than 100 feet from the house
      A2 - less chance of detection from neighbors
      A3 - less chance of waking up house occupants with noise
      A4 - a perp can always move faster and stealthier on his own

      CC2

      Delete
    3. Panic? The scream? Neurologists state she was alive but unconscious for a minimum 45 minutes after the blow to the head. It was at least 45 minutes before that garrote was tightened sufficiently to kill her.

      Your scenario cannot be true.

      Delete
    4. MHN -

      JBR could have screamed at the threat of being woken, being removed from her bed, at the sight of the garrote / rope, Mag flashlite, perp exposing himself, removal of perps hand over her mouth, etc.

      Surely you can see that a scream could have occured at any point in the evening from young JBR, especially if she was frightened. A perp silencing the scream with a garotte, mag flashlight, would not be beyond plausible by any means...

      CC2

      Delete
  33. And DocG: I noted your condescending post on the previous entry and, you can repeat yourself ad nauseam. But I won't subscribe to your theory and legally speaking, have rebutted your grounds from where your theory descends into speculation/conjecture - in my opinion. If you don't accept that, I understand, but there is no need to condescend to me by stating that I don't understand, as though my comprehension is lacking. I can assure you, my comprehension is sound. But I won't engage with every single step in, to my mind, [legally] manifestly hopeless theories, of which there are many.

    Perhaps I've spent too much time in courts and my mind is conditioned differently to yours. And I think I've got a lot of support: in 20 years, no member of the Ramsey family has been arrested, much less ordered to stand trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was also appalled Doc resorted to ad homs.

      Delete
    2. It saddens me that, despite the famously brusque, rude, no-holds-barred style of discourse favored by the Romans, the only Latin phrase commonly used online these days is, ironically, 'ad hominem', an accusation whipped out at lightning speed by those delicate, sensitive types who like to debate brutal child murders, and who prefer the Latin because it cloaks their sensitivity in a mantle of unimpeachable philosophical authority.

      Funny old world, isn't it...

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

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ok, once the censorship starts on perfectly polite posts, I'm out. I thought that people in the US were big on their right to freedom of speech? Obviously not. I hope the blog admin enjoys his work of fiction and his fans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The post I deleted was not polite. It contained a personal slur and was deleted for that reason. I will not tolerate attacks of a personal nature, on me or anyone else posting here. This is exactly the sort of thing I am tempted to delete -- so clean up your act or get out.

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

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

      Delete
  36. I spent the past weekend binge reading this blog and I have to say that I am now convinced that JDI. Do you have blogs on any other cases? I would love to hear your thoughts on the murder of Caylee Anthony. That case puzzled me as much as this one did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What little I've read of that case is fascinating. But I've never researched it sufficiently to develop a theory. My obsession with the Ramsey case takes enough of my time, thank you.

      Delete
  37. "I'm truly fascinated by the change of heart produced by one single blockbuster TV production."

    Me too. Its unreal. The show left out many aspects of the crime yet people think all questions were answered. Also the fact that the case made for Burke rests on a vert flimsy foundation.

    "A lot of people believed BDI way before the CBS documentary."

    Not true. It was a small minority on the crime sites that swallowed KOlar's theory. Now thanks to this show, many have done a complete 180 to the point they ignore evidence they themselves have discussed for years.

    For the 25th anniversary, a series could claim the whale from Free Willy killed JOnbenet and you'd get a certain segment of people on these sites parroting that.

    Its asinine for some to claim Doc is censoring people. if he was censooring people, this blog would be nothing but JDI people talking to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James Lofton - re: censoring - 100% agreed.

      CC2

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

    ReplyDelete
  39. With all due respect, Doc, how do you reconcile accusing someone of early onset Alzheimer's with your judgment re. the politeness of others?

    In no particular order:

    -the evidence suggests BR was the feces-smearer, not JBR. VERY different behavior.

    -The behavior of PR & JR, including & after 911 call, is entirely @ odds w/parents who believed JBR would live or die based upon their choices and actions. Entirely inconsistent w/parents who believed their child was alive, while I'm @ it. They organized a veritable and immediate parade @ their home & were uncooperative w/LE from the get-go. The idea that PR believed ransom letter was real is incomprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Alzheimer's remark, as I see it, was not an attack, but a feeble attempt at humor. Also a means of demonstrating how amazed I was that a regular on this blog could still ask such a question.

      As for the rest, all I can do is repeat my mantra: Patsy would not have made that call if she were staging a kidnapping. Maybe that's incomprehensible to you, but not to me. If you'd care to refute my logic with an actual argument I'd be happy to consider it and respond in kind.

      Delete
  40. @Unknown- Yeah the Alzheimers comment might have been a bit out of line. I've seen much worse comments on these Ramsey sites.

    Sometimes debates on these sites get very heated. Also see a lot of posts dripping in sarcasm. Obviously Doc doesn't really think you have Alzheimers. Maybe he was just getting frustrated at having to continually repeat himself.

    I doubt he's trying to run you off the blog. Its his blog. I assume if he wanted you gone he could just ban your IP or delete your posts the moment they are posted. I'm the admin of a music forum and have been for 10 years. Its easy to make people disappear.

    As far as "every single person who doesn't agree leaves the board", that's an exagerration and besides, this site is obviously pro JDI. At some point a portion of IDI or BDI are going to get frustrated and leave because a lot of people here think those two theories are complete nonsense. WEbsleuths is becoming very pro BDI. Go read that site. People who aren't BDI are either being drowned out or aren't posting very much. IDI isn't even allowed there.

    Its the nature of the beast. The JBR sites continually evolve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, James. I have never banned anyone from commenting on this blog. But I do reserve the right to delete comments containing personal attacks. Websites like this tend very easily to get of out of hand and degenerate into flame wars and I won't let that happen here.

      Nor will I tolerate continual whining about me and my policies.

      Delete
  41. James:

    1) I didn't know about the Alzheimer's comment, but agree it is inappropriate.

    2) I'm aware that my IP address can be banned - anyone who uses a computer knows this. My posts must belie my intelligence.

    3) I'm not the first person to exaggerate on a forum where one is expressing an opinion. I'm not sure why you made that submission. However, the majority on here support the blog owner in one way or another, and almost no one supports the IDI.

    4) It's not so important to me to post opinions on this tragic case. I don't plan to post elsewhere. I just thought that this blog had a higher calibre of posters. Maybe I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always happy to entertain ideas and criticism from people who still seriously consider the intruder theory. But I won't tolerate posts that are consistently dismissive and rude.

      Delete
  42. DocG - Do you still maintain your theory from the 'case solved' part of your website? If so that's kind of ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have a problem with it, please spell it out. "Ridiculous" doesn't cut it.

      And yes, of course I still maintain that position. Why wouldn't I?

      Delete