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.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Lawsuit

This just in! Lin Wood has announced he will be suing CBS over their investigator's allegation that Burke killed JonBenet. Read all about it! Here's what I just wrote in response to the news:

Oh, that is RICH!!!! Hoo hah! If only this actually wound up in court we'd have the most sensational trial since OJ. I have a feeling CBS will settle out of court though. Because their investigators have proven nothing, it's all conjecture and they know it. However, if they are brave enough they'll fight it in court anyhow and I'll tell you why they should: 
(Is everybody listening????) 
While BDI can't be proven, IDI most certainly CAN be disproven. And if CBS's lawyers aren't sure, they should consult this blog. 
The CBS strategy should be to begin by going after Lou Smit and his precious intruder, and what they would need to emphasize is the LOGIC rather than the evidence. Because once you get stuck on the evidence then there will be no end of red herrings to contend with. The evidence tells us nothing useful about this case because all of it is inconclusive. It's the logic that enables us to prove there could have been no intruder. 
Are you listening, CBS????? 
Once it's established that there could have been no intruder, Wood will fold like a sagging accordion. Because: if Burke didn't do it, and there was no intruder then . . .   
I'll let you fill in the blanks, folks. This is going to be VERY amusing.
Oh and by the way. I hope everyone reading here will take the time to check out 3 Big Ways 'The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey' Got It Wrong, in Rolling Stone. Very similar to my own take on that "investigation," I'm pleased to note.

NB: Since the other posts are filling up with comments, please post all new comments here. Thank you. 

214 comments:

  1. Is this on account of the 3rd episode that was also deleted from being aired? I'm wondering about that...or do you think CBS may respond to the lawsuit putting the 3rd episode for evidentiary purposes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem is they are always going to point to that pesky DNA

    ReplyDelete
  3. And Lou Smit is dead..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lou Smit worked up until his death on this case. Everything is archived and all data is saved. I believe he left all of his work with his daughter on this investigation.

      Delete
  4. Opening up Burke to a deposition where he will be asked the right questions, not like Phil did with no follow up ones. That would be very interesting. Though BR may not remember much, he does recall certain things that show he was awake the evening in question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry if I'm not liked after saying this but Lin Wood is a pompous $$$. He prides himself on being the attorney of the damned! He's always complaining about anyone who may have theories different than the IDI...yet he has made a ton of money off of the tragedy of a little girl murdered! Have JR go to the powers that be and demand everything be restested for DNA.. garrot/ flashlight/batteries all of it! It can be done even better than before! I suspect that won't happen because as JR stated that the real story wasn't that a child had been murdered but how he was treated afterwards!!! Appalling if you ask me! $$$ oh the evil it can do!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Furthermore I think Lin Wood and JR are two peas in a pod! I would love to see it go forward! Those depositions would be interested to say the least and unlike Dr.phil the questions would be more thoroughly asked and any inconsistencies would be followed up on!! P. S I never cared for peas...

    ReplyDelete
  7. DocG, I found your book compelling. It answers more of the riddles than any other theory, it makes sense of certain things that otherwise remain bizarre anomalies. So please don't think it hostile that I try to pick holes in it - any theory concerning a real murder should of course be tested to destruction, I'm sure you agree.

    You argue that Patsy was innocent. You point out the different versions of whose idea the 911 call was. Yet in all of those versions they are together when the call is made, (or at any rate, together when the decision to call is made) and in none of those versions, in none of her statements or interviews, does Patsy at any time, however innocuously, make even passing reference to a conversation between herself and John about whether calling the police was going to endanger the life of JonBenet. It's not enough to say she didn't read the whole note - John was there with her, but she has never even suggested that any conversation took place concerning whether or not the police should be called.

    If John had tried to persuade her not to call them I have no doubt this would stay in her mind, and maybe even arouse later suspicions on her part. If that conversation did take place but she deliberately makes no mention of it then on some level she is 'in' on the cover-up too.

    But there is nothing like that. I find this to be the biggest Achilles heel in the theory: that he constructed this plan and as far as we know never wasted a word trying to persuade her not to call the police.

    Of course, we can't ask her that specific question now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have no way of knowing what was said between them that morning. My guess is that they probably did discuss what to do and may even have argued over it. John's opposition to the call would not have looked suspicious to Patsy, because of all the many threats in the note.

      What we DO know is that there are at least two very different versions of what happened prior to the call, which should make us suspicious of the version presented in their book, where he tells her to make the call. For details see the third post in this blog.

      For me, the bottom line is that she made the call and he did not. Which I find incredible on its face, since she was hysterical and could barely get her words out and he was the cool headed CEO of a big company who should have known better than to call 911 in the first place. You call your lawyer, you call the FBI, you call the chief of police, NOT 911, inviving uniformed officers to your home in marked vehicles.

      I think the plan was to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, but she panicked and called them anyhow. This may well have been a spur of the moment decision after skimming only the first part of the note. Or possibly a more thought out decision after discussing it with John. In any case: Patsy made the 911 call, which she would NOT have made if she were involved in a plot to stage a kidnapping. It's really that simple. All else is conjecture.

      Delete
    2. I agree with almost all of that.

      And I'm disappointed that CBS's dramatized pseudo-investigation (ie, simple presentation of the contents of the Kolar book but through the currently fashionable format of having a crack investigative dream-team pretending to be discovering all of this on camera for the first time) didn't grapple with the basic conundrum: if an intruder would not have left a ransom note AND her dead body, because that's illogical on the face of it, then why would two parents seeking to protect Burke attempt to *fake* such an illogical intruder? Not a single word was devoted to trying to explain this, they seem to think it's enough to use the anomaly to discredit the intruder theory, but never seem to address how the ransom note/corpse combination is equally damning to the 'parents protecting Burke' theory.

      Delete
    3. "We have no way of knowing what was said between them that morning. My guess is that they probably did discuss what to do and may even have argued over it. John's opposition to the call would not have looked suspicious to Patsy, because of all the many threats in the note.

      What we DO know is that there are at least two very different versions of what happened prior to the call, which should make us suspicious of the version presented in their book, where he tells her to make the call. For details see the third post in this blog.

      For me, the bottom line is that she made the call and he did not. Which I find incredible on its face, since she was hysterical and could barely get her words out and he was the cool headed CEO of a big company who should have known better than to call 911 in the first place. You call your lawyer, you call the FBI, you call the chief of police, NOT 911, inviving uniformed officers to your home in marked vehicles.

      I think the plan was to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, but she panicked and called them anyhow. This may well have been a spur of the moment decision after skimming only the first part of the note. Or possibly a more thought out decision after discussing it with John. In any case: Patsy made the 911 call, which she would NOT have made if she were involved in a plot to stage a kidnapping. It's really that simple. All else is conjecture."

      I see you have read my posts about the 911 call but didn't bother to respond on the other thread. No doubt it had some impact on your take on the situation.

      You never answered if John stated if he read the ransom note in its entirety since Patsy said she didn't. And if Patsy said she didn't read the note in its entirety before calling 911, when was John going to point out the oh so important detail that if they called authorities then JBR dies? If your theory is correct, did he ever fill her in on that info? Did she get upset with herself afterwards for calling 911 or with John for not stopping her from making the call?

      You also never answered why Patsy didn't respond to the no ransom call. You state that it was because "tomorrow" meant the 27th, but wasn't the house phone bugged for the call? Did anyone discuss with each other which day to expect the kidnappers to call? Did they prepare for a 26th AND a 27th ransom call? How were they to know which day the note was written for them to know which day to expect the call?

      Delete
    4. You seem really confused. Since you are posting anonymously I have no idea what your previous post said, or whether or not I responded. What I presented in my response just above was based on conjectures I've had for a long time and expressed several times on this blog in various places.

      Also you seem to have two situations mixed up in your mind. Patsy would not have expected a call from the kidnappers on the 26th if John's plan had worked and she had not called 911. He would have explained that the note said "tomorrow" and not "today."

      However, when she called 911 anyhow, which trashed his plan, the police decided "tomorrow" must mean "today" and set up a system to trace the "kidnapper's" call.

      You seem to have gotten both scenarios boiled down into one.

      Delete
    5. How did the police determine "tomorrow" meant today? How was Patsy supposed to know the exact time the note was left there in order to determine which day tomorrow was supposed to be? How would John have known? Wouldn't that be suspicious if he knew what time the note was written and what time it was left on the steps?

      Delete
    6. Also, you don't answer any conversations anyone had regarding the expected day "tomorrow" meant.

      Patsy found the note at 5 am. How did they know the note was not left at 11:30pm on the 25th?

      Delete
    7. Oh my. I really have to spell it out to you? You can't figure it out for yourself? Read the note again and you'll have your answer.

      Delete
    8. One reason we know it meant the 27th is because the ransom note tells John to get some rest, because the delivery will be exhausting. If the note meant later that morning, he wouldn't have time to get rest. He also probably wouldn't have time it get the money.

      Delete
  8. Suing CBS would be the stupidest thing since Oscar Wilde sued the Marquess of Queensbury. (He lost, and not only lost, but went to jail. Or gaol, I suppose it was).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It all depends. If these investigators try to convince CBS that they can prove Burke did it, then CBS would be wise to settle. If, on the other hand, they put Burke on the back burner and concentrate on the absurd intruder theory they'll be in a position to put "the Ramseys" on trial, and Lin may well lose.

      Delete
    2. DocG. Is there nothing we can all do no matter how all of our theories differ to put pressing someone to retest and retry this case? So frustrating when I see big name stars rally to get wrongfully convicted people set free but I don't see the same passion and push from people who are blessed to have such platforms unite and at least try to do something for justice in this baby girl's murder. Anything we could all do? Petition or pressure the higher ups? Would love your opinion.

      Delete
  9. Thanks to TCOJBR, CBS just found a grapefruit sized ball of feces in their bed...and yes, its Burke's... very interesting development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol..if it takes disscussing fecal matters(cmon, thats clever) to get a response from THE Doc...ill do it..

      Delete
    2. Last inappropriate comment from me in this particular matter (fecal)..Burke was a little sh!t in how he answered investigators in 1999...it upset me to the point of me looking for my own maglite and a one way trip back east to visit him. Either way JBR has indeed become a footenote in her own murder.

      Delete
  10. Well! This is amazing news! I had a feeling Lin Wood would swoop down - if this CBS investigation had pointed their crooked finger of fate at JR then I thought Lin would come running, but pointing it at Burke and forcing JR into a lawsuit, complete with depositions, might get somewhere. I suspected something critical was left out of the last two hours, which were promised and then just left out and not communicated as to why. May be something Fleet White said. Then they had to go with their BDI so as to "wrap up" the show. So apparently CBS didn't consult with Lin Wood before they aired their show. Good for them! But Dr. Phil probably did. Lest someone jumps to the wrong conclusion that Lin Wood is suing (JR doing the suing) CBS because they suggested it was Burke it's not because they are saying it's Burke. IT's because it could get to John by having John have to to over the night in question again and try and cover up whatever lies he told in the beginning, and later in his book. It's all about the narcissist John Ramsey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and if you take their theory to its logical conclusion, then you have John Ramsey tightening the noose around his daughter's neck, thus finishing her off -- while "only" trying to protect his son. Which would turn him from accessory to murderer. No statute of limitations on THAT!

      Delete
    2. John would have to say his son had nothing to do with it and how would he know that? And then we go back to the pineapple...... We'll have to see what lengths John would go to protect his son. CBS has a right to put out their own theory, I hope they don't settle!

      Delete
  11. I assume they're going to stick to the outside intruder story. If that fails, they can always throw Patsy under the bus! She's no longer here to defend herself, and she was the police's prime suspect in the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I hope CBS doesn't cave. They even ended the show saying there were a bunch of theories out there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Rolling Stone article claims that John was in his study that day when he went missing. Where did they get that from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I noticed that. The writer takes John at his word, which is a huge mistake. No one knows where he was but John and that should have been clear. He could have been anywhere, inside, outside, in the basement, in the kitchen, wherever he needed to be. He was SUPPOSED to be in the sun room with the others.

      Delete
  14. Lets look at facts and focus on the initial "head blow".
    We know it wasn't an Intruder.
    We know it wasn't Patsy. JBR was her pride and joy. Patsy never so much as spanked those kids or even give them a tap on the wrist. And that was for 9 years as her being a parent. I'm sure JBR and Burke would have made her pull her hair out at times (every parent knows that feeling) but Patsy was never an aggressive parent. So to say she suddenly snapped that night and delivered a blow to JBRs head is unimaginable.

    That just leaves John and 9 year old old Burke. One of these delivered the initial blow.

    Let's start with John. If it was him it was either premeditated or not premeditated. Like Patsy, John never struck those kids that we know of. So it seems a long shot he would also snap and then deliver a blow. So for John to do this, he had to be molesting JBR. The only evidence of him doing this would be the reports on JBR. As we know the talk of previous molestation is "up in the air". Some experts say it happened, some say it didn't. I think you really need to look at other factors to see if it was a possibility, such as:

    1. John has never molested anyone else.
    2. Johns other daughter has said he is a tentative father and he would never, EVER do anything like that.
    3. It would have been extremely risky for John to have ever done this. He went away for work often and to risk JBR saying something is a huge risk.
    4. JBR went to her doctor something like 32 times in the past 2 years. Do you think John would risk her going and the doctor not discovering something? Highly unlikely

    This coupled with the fact that JBR had yeast infections and other issues with her private area, suggests there is more than likely better reasons why some experts said previous molestation was possible. And even if there was previous molestation, there is a better chance it was from Burke or maybe even JBR herself. The more I think about it, the more unlikely John molested her in the past. And if there was no previous molestation, then the head blow did NOT come from John. Although Doc will disagree, I think it's safe to rule out John as the person who did the head blow.

    And that only leaves Burke. Sure, it can't be proven 100%. But it is very much the most likely scenario. And there is evidence such as John walking Burke back to his room with the torch (most likely after Burke whacked her...although possibly before). Burke obviously was the one who served himself Pineapple with the oversized spoon. Pineapple which we KNOW JBR ate. We know the torch was nearby. We know that kids can "strike out" without realising they can seriously injure. Everything points to Burke. As I said, it can't be 100% proven, but I feel intruder, John and Patsy can be DISPROVEN and there is enough evidence to link Burke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are making the mistake of relying too heavily on the evidence, which, no matter how you look at it, is inconclusive. To me the case can only be resolved by concentrating on the facts and the logic. Focusing on the evidence alone will get you nowhere.

      And no, it is not a fact that John was molesting JonBenet. It's consistent with the evidence of chronic vaginal inflammation but it is not a fact. And no it is not a fact that Burke was with JBR when she ate that pineapple. The CBS people make an interesting case for that as a possibility, but it is far from being a fact.

      And so:

      FACT: Patsy is one who called 911, etc., etc. -- and I won't say any more on that because we all know the mantra by heart. But it can't be dismissed. It tells us they could not have collaborated on the kidnap staging. And since Patsy is the one who made the call, then logically the writer of the note must have been John.

      So now we are left with the LOGICAL question: Did John write the note for his own benefit or could he have been covering for Burke?

      And at this point we need to ask: what makes the most sense? If Burke did it, I see no reason why both parents wouldn't have known about it -- but the FACTS tell us Patsy could not have known about it, or she would not have called 911 with the victim still in the house. So we are left with John deciding to keep this from Patsy -- and that is very hard to understand.

      Moving on, if we want to assume that Burke struck the blow that killed her, we have to consider the aftermath. If Burke did this and John knew about it, the rational thing to do would be call 911 and report an accident or a tiff between two children that resulted in an unfortunate head blow. Or else call his lawyer, who would have informed him that Burke could not be charged.

      FACT: JBR's vagina had been penetrated, drawing blood.

      FACT: JBR had been strangled with a garotte-type device.

      Instead, we are expected to believe that John would have 1. staged a sadistic pedophile attack involving the penetration of his unconscious child's vagina AND strangulation with a garotte, of all things. And 2. staged a kidnapping, by writing a long 2 1/2 page "ransom" note. Which is it, by the way? A pedophile or a kidnapper? Why the overkill?

      So I leave it to you. Yes, it's possible one sibling might strike the other over the head out of anger or jealousy. But no, it is not believable that John or any other decent person would do what was done after the head blow, if the aim was simply to protect his son. What sort of protection would that be to subject his son to the sight of his raped and strangled sister?

      Or maybe I'm just being too logical for you?

      Delete
    2. I'm not understanding your point. If JR didn't do the staging, who did? There would be no reason for Burke to see it

      Delete
    3. And I'd just like to make it clear-I think what JR did was far more despicable than what Burke did. Burke won't be charged with anything, regardless. That doesn't mean he'd be willing to admit it after all these years.

      Delete
  15. CONTINUED....

    Everything else (911 phone call, "train" marks on JBR, whether she was struck in basement or kitchen) is just "noise" that we don't really need to go into. What we know is that Burke didn't write the RN and didnt make that garrote so wasn't involved in the staging. We know Patsy wouldn't be able to do this to her pride and joy either. So we know John did the staging, including the suffocation which ended up killing her (although she was already brain dead). Who wrote the RN? Could be Patsy. Could be John. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter when it comes to John. Based on what I have posted above, he can be found guilty for the staging and killing his daughter (despite her already being brain dead). The only outstanding question for me, is if Patsy is 100% innocent and was completely in the dark...or if she was involved in the staging with the RN. If I had to pick, I would definitely say she was involved. I can't imagine Burke and John keeping her in the dark. Plus the RN to me looks like Patsy wrote it, whilst John through her some lines along the way. And the fact that Patsy said something along the lines of her not being able to go on without Burke, was nearly her confessing (without confessing).

    This, to me, after considering all theories and changing my mind throughout the last 5 years, is the ONLY acceptable scenario. There is enough evidence to PROVE and DISPROVE and ensure John is convicted!!!!!

    Thanks for listening :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my post just above. I see no reason to suspect Burke -- and permit John to get off on some lesser charge that may already have been nullified by the statute of limitations. If Burke had killed JonBenet there would have been no need for staging. John should be put on trial for murder one.

      Delete
  16. The whole business about John not molesting anyone else does not mean that he didn't molest JonBenet. That's the crux of this case. The good Christian man didn't touch his daughter. No one wants to consider it. And that's why he's gotten away with murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure that sure people don't want to consider a "christian man" touching his daughter. If anything people would love to add that intrigue to the story. It is just that there is not a lot to go on. I am perfectly willing to consider it and it could very well be the case- it is just that there isn't a lot of evidence for it. Sorry but going on business to trips to Amsterdam just isn't evidence to me of a child molestation.

      Delete
    2. Again, this is why I have little use for the evidence. We don't have to prove motive in a court of law, only guilt. The FACTS of the case point to John and John alone as the guilty party.

      Delete
    3. There is not a single fact that ONLY points to John. None whatsoever. I get that you have this theory and I get that you and all of us want to get John into a courtroom and up on a stand but you are really reaching.

      Delete
    4. Yes there is. The intruder theory can be disproved on the basis of the fact that no conclusive evidence of an intruder was ever found, and the fact that the note was written on a pad from the house. Patsy can be discounted because of the fact that she was the one who called the police. Burke can be discounted because of the fact that JonBenet was not only clubbed over the head, but sexually assaulted and strangled, something no parent would do under the circumstances proposed in the absurd CBS documentary.

      That leaves only: John. Who discovered an open window in the basement, which he then closed without telling anyone. Who attempted to arrange a flight out of Boulder shortly after finding his daughter's body. Who contaminated the crime scene by carrying his dead daughter upstairs. Who lied about the Butler door. Who lied about "7 open doors and windows in the house." Who went AWOL for over an hour prior to the discovery of his daughter's body. Who lied about breaking the basement window the previous summer, to cover for his breaking it the night of the crime to stage an intruder breakin.

      Delete
  17. Sorry, your scenario does not make sense. How do you account for the sexual assault? Did Burke do this to his sister before he hit her over the head, or after. Did he persuade her to accompany him down to the basement where he could do this to her without her yelling bloody murder - literally. Did Burke hit her over the head and then run and tell his parents that by the way you might want to wipe her down really well because I assaulted my sister sexually, enough to have John know to wipe her down and change her panties and get rid of the panties she was wearing. There was also a swipe of blood on her thigh that the light found at autopsy. Read the autopsy report, in full. Especially the passage on trauma to the vaginal area. "The smallest piece of tissue from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial EROSION with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material." And if those of you out there believe John added a sexual assault as icing on the cake for his staging for his son Burke then you will believe that CBS left the sexual component to this crime out because they didn't know what to make of it (which is partially true).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe he did just that. His original plan was to stage a kidnapping where JBRs body would be found somewhere else- beaten, strangled, and sexually assaulted. As we all know, that plan went awry when Patsy called 911 and mentioned the ransom note. Don't know if it was because she really didn't know JBRs body was in the basement, or if she was so hysterical and distraught she just wasn't thinking clearly. Whatever the reason, there was no longer a possibility of getting the body out of the house. So they just had to wing it from there.

      Delete
  18. Usually, lawyers sue for shows like this to not be developed and/or aired in the first place.

    The Dr. Phil interview did Burke no favors. If anything, it hurt him as he smirked and smiled too much and he brought up details that make the CBS investigation more believable, such as him going downstairs to play with the toys (placing himself downstairs where his sister's body was found) and John and Burke going back upstairs with the flashlight.

    Very crafty of Lin for placing Burke downstairs and then John and Burke walking upstairs with the flashlight (obviously now determined to be the murder weapon) in order for them to see where they were going.

    Was Lin always John's lawyer, even at the time of JBR's death? John must have had lawyer help from the very second JBR was found dead. What is astonishing is that none of the Ramseys sweat bullets at any point of time when investigated or interviewed. Even an 11 year old Burke when asked about the pineapple. Wow. Just Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe Lin Wood came aboard later. He is known for being able to handle the press. John still has problems with his ever changing stories. At first he said he didn't recognize the flashlight, it was "dirty looking" he said. Now he's saying he handled it? Then why were there no prints - and no prints on the flashlight batteries? Dr. Henry Lee said batteries were a good surface for raising prints. Patsy would have no reason to sweat bullets, she had no idea what happened. CBS did do some interesting things - Dr Henry Lee tested a pair of clean new panties that were handled by gloves by the investigator, for DNA. And found DNA. Quite a bit of DNA. Multiple samples of DNA, which shows that "ruling out" the Ramsey's and pointing to an intruder as having left DNA is bogus. So Dr. Henry Lee proved that.

      Delete
    2. John changed his story and placed himself with Burke and the flashlight that night to deflect any responsibility on Burke's part. John is willing to change his story to defend his son. He has been doing this since December 25, 1996.

      Delete
    3. Or John changes his story to protect himself.

      Delete
    4. Maybe he'll confess to protect his son. Now THAT would be impressive!

      Delete
  19. Your comments are also my theory of what happened. I agree there was no evidence of previous molestation by JR or anyone else. According to Doc, there was vaginal bleeding and part of the hymen gone at the autopsy. Isn't that consistent with being penetrated with the paintbrush handle as part of the staging? Esp since there were wood fibers and varnish in the vagina and blood drops on the panties? I don't understand all the back and forth that's gone on about this issue. JR did not hit JBR with the flashlight, Burke did. JR did the staging. I don't think Patsy knew about that but I do agree she was involved with the RN. Not sure it really matters at this point. To us, the evidence seems clear but the courts may not agree and there will be a whole lot of lying going on! Can't remember where I heard it, but Burke said some time later that he left the front door unlocked that night. That explains the impossibility of someone coming and going through that window in the basement, with its thick layer of dirt and cobwebs undisturbed, and the outside grate covered in undisturbed vines. Be assured they will have an answer for everything! Hope CBS doesn't get hammered for expressing their opinion based on the evidence. Would be nice if the truth would come out, but I'm not counting on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I caught that little comment about him leaving the door unlocked! So conveniently throwing that comment in there...but he cant remember much else!? BS ...stinks of the same shit we've all been fed by this family. Ugh I agree I support CBS and I really hope they stand their ground.

      Delete
  20. Thanks BGH. Yep, its the only rationale scenaroo!

    RSmith said:

    "The whole business about John not molesting anyone else does not mean that he didn't molest JonBenet. That's the crux of this case. The good Christian man didn't touch his daughter. No one wants to consider it. And that's why he's gotten away with murder."

    You are just making stuff up mate. There is no evidence whatsoever of John molesting JBR. You and Doc just dreamt that up and suddenly its become a reality in your own head. But Docs theory, as I have said before, still ties in nicely with BDI. Plus John was still the one who "killed" her with the staging...even if he was unaware at the time.

    The only sexual molestation on JBR was the staging. And the paintbrush which was inserted explains a large part of that. Everything can be explained with a rationally. Making up some bogus story and painting John as a pedophile is just ludicrous. You may as well say that John is a serial killer and kills little girls. There is no evidence of him killing anyone before JBR and good Christian men don't become serial killers and thats why John got away with it. Thats exactly the same as what you are saying.

    Is John guilty? Absolutely.
    Did he ever molest JBR (not including staging) and strike her in the head? Absolutely not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you have no problem with John sticking a paintbrush handle into his dying daughter's vagina? As STAGING? Because he's only a really great father trying to protect his son? And then strangling her with a garotte? Is that your idea of what a "good" father would do? Maybe we should take a poll of fathers and ask them if that's the sort of thing THEY would do? I certainly would not.

      Delete
    2. When did I say he was a GOOD father???? Once again, you are seeing things that arent there!!

      All I said was that there was no prior molestation from John before that night.

      In his mind, he had to protect his son and the only way to do that was to stage a kidnapping. A decision was then made not to get rid of the body, so he did the unthinkable with the staging. Hes a BAD man.

      Delete
    3. Who said he's a good father? As I said above, he's despicable and I hope he'll be charged with at least manslaughter, obstructing justice, abuse of a corpse, and numerous other charges

      Delete
    4. Do you need to see a tape of John molesting someone to believe he's capable of doing that?

      Delete
  21. http://www.photosjoy.com/p/KtQtKV ... An Appropriate quote

    ReplyDelete
  22. Did'nt we closely watch the CBS investigative show? There was NO MOLESTATION--previous or otherwise--according to the consensus of their forensic pathologists. Which indeed casts doubt on the entire foundation of Doc's JR theory, does it not?

    And doesn't little BR remind us of any other Autism-Spectrum youngster who also hid in his violent video games day and night until he off'd his mom and then headed to off his school ? Connect.i.cut the dots, people.

    Oh, and JR worries to White that the police during the kidnapping search would discover the basement golf clubs. Why? Because he presumed one would reveal evidence of BR's prior "disciplining" of li'l sis maybe?

    CBS got it right, though almost nothing new was revealed.

    And so did the grand jury for that matter.

    Suing CBS, my ass. Bring it on Linbo!

    --Clueso out

    ReplyDelete
  23. No way! Mr Narcist JR would not do that bizarre cover up to protect his son. JR is looking out for himself. Even in his panic he must have known that the cover up would make things very ugly. The parents, especially the father is always suspect. Even if he had managed to get the body out of the house, it would have looked suspicious with him driving around probably at night to "deliver the ransom' the strange RN, not notifying authorities immediately etc never mind the fact that it didn't happen and her body was still in the house bizarrely staged. BR accidentally killing his sister would have been bad but a cover up like this always creates more scandal and ugliness. This cover up must have been for something worse than the public knowing BDI, worse for JR. What could be worse than that for JR? JR in prison because JDI.

    Remember if BDI and they wanted to protect their son they would have worked on making sure her death was seen as an tragic accident and JR would have focused on avoiding an autopsy keeping publicity to a minimum making sure BR was seen as a victim too and things like that. Doing a cover up like this could only make thing far worse for BR if BDI. And JR, who was known as Mr Ice, would have realised this. . But the cover up was not for BR it is for JR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Anonymous we're on the same page. I think because CBS provided us with a visual "recreation" some tend to believe it. It seems possible. For one they used a ten year old to strike the blow. If they were really doing a scientific experiment they would have used a boy age 9, same height and thin almost "frail" weight as Burke. They also gave us a visual of Burke eating pineapple in milk, with a big spoon, Jon Benet reaches for a piece and he grabs her arm, then chases her and presumably clocks her. Then just when did he insert his finger or a paint brush handle into her vagina? After that? Or no, John did that later to make it look like a sexual assault that lead to murder. Then why wipe her down and change her panties? Why not just leave it like that? Later on John and Patsy send Burke back to school, even though he has a terrible secret in his mind that he could spill the beans on at any second, to a teacher, a kind counselor, a friend. That didn't happen. I admit on the CBS show they had a clip of Burke leaning over to closer inspect the bowl of pineapple and was hesitant to say what it was. That was odd. But there are many ways to explain that. One possible was is it triggered something that happened soon after, something he doesn't want to remember - or disclose to a stranger (the counselor). We don't know. So there are those that will always think BDI and those that are convinced JDI but at least some of us are moving away from PDI, that's good, no? Just keep in mind that television is a very powerful tool for make believe, for making us believe something by giving us visual cues, coupled with experts (who actually couldn't agree - Spitz and Lee had different ideas about the skin membrane and how it reacted to the blow, etc. In my gut I know it was John. All of it.

      Delete
    2. Why do people feel so strongly about what CBS portrayed through and not about what A&E portrayed?

      Delete
    3. Sorry guys, you're kinda missing the point. I frankly thought the CBS show was disappointing. So no, I wasn't brainwashed by TV.

      The point is, using logic, and forgetting everything else, such as molestation, as questionable at best, what happened that night and by whom? I believe the most logical interpretation of the KNOWN facts points to Burke. Sibling fight, just like last time with the golf club.

      CBS's pineapple scenario makes the most sense if we don't allow ourselves to become biased by suspicion of evil ole JR or who we project he was. Burke--violent, autistic. Yes. JR evil. Maybe. Occam sides with Burke. That's logic, Doc.

      OK. So NOW we deal with the "coverup". Who did it and why?

      This is the logical way to proceed. Not by going backwards to make it all fit and therefore projecting abuse as the "motive". The coverup probably MAKES NO SENSE because no one was sensible at the time! Exhausted in the Christmas extreme, probably still tipsy or stoned, there was no "logical" thinking going on in the foggy, realtime coverup that happened thereafter! As Patsy (think about that name, ironic?) said in realtime "OK we've called 911, now what?" (paraphrased from 911 tape)

      If we bend to "molestation" -- we bend toward passion and not logic, since molestation is only wishful projection and not fact. Pineapple is fact. Golf club to the head is fact. These we can use.

      Cheers, Clueso

      Delete
    4. No one believes the intruder theory and people are more willing to believe Burke killed his sister rather than the saintly father molesting his daughter. "Where's the evidence John molested her?"

      Are you freaking kidding me? Molestation victims stay quiet because they think no one will believe them.

      Delete
    5. Yes, Rsmith! My grandfather molested 2 of his granddaughters (sisters) while they were visiting for the summer. He never, ever touched any of his other 6 grandchildren. He had never touched his own daughter, who believes the granddaughters and says she would never cover up for him, ever. One relative claimed that after he had a heart attack, he was never the same and this relative believe thats when he started the incest. I believe that he caved to fantasies that he'd had his whole life when an opportunity presented itself to do this when he thought a) no one was looking, b) these 2 girls were more easily manipulated, c) the parents of these 2 girls were divorced and not paying much attention to their girls, which is the reason they were farmed out to the grandparents for the summer. He was supposedly a nice, Christian man, a deacon in the church. Fact is, he was sick, and he took advantage of the situation. There were no "priors." As far as me and my sibs - our parents never left us alone with other people. Incest is real, people. Incestuous people don't mess with potential victims unless they know for sure they can manipulate the child and will groom them and make them believe that what is being done to them is "affection."

      Delete
  24. I truly think JR thought very highly of himself! You know he had to be a book smart and savvy man to accomplish what he did in his business life...however I've met many a book smart man with absolutely no common sense...some of us have both and can see right through his BS! He is a narcissist that lived to control everything and I for one think that whatever JR said went in that family was how it goes! Everyone walking on eggshells to keep JR happy. His calm presentation was probably only on display for the public...when in reality my guess is that he was not so nice in private. Just a feeling I get when I see and hear him talk. Make no mistake I'm no educated profiler , just a normal person who knows from experience that even the best humans on the outside can seem a delight when in fact they're a scary nightmare in private.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This lawsuit is the best thing to happen to the Ramsey case. CBS, unfortunately, likely gets out on an early motion to dismiss.

    The ONLY way Burke can win (since he will be deemed a public figure after voluntarily interviewing with Dr. Phil) is, among other things, PROVING that CBS' accusation that he was the murder is false, and that they knew it was false.

    To do so, both he and John Ramsey will have to be deposed or stand trial as witnesses. Burke likely drops this lawsuit or the court dismisses it, for shame, would love for them both to be forced to testify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too Dog..me too!

      Delete
    2. Idk why anyone thinks CBS would settle. They honestly have no reason to. They didn't do a thing wrong.

      (As a lawyer, the only reason they settle is because they choose not to pay defense cost ... but insurance money is likely paying for the defense anyway ... so there truly is no reason to settle).

      Delete
    3. I sure hope they won't back down. They may be the only hope we all have of getting justice for jonbenet. At the very least perhaps they can get the ball rolling.

      Delete
    4. Whether he actually files will be very telling. I'm praying he does. Please, please get JR and BR deposed under oath. I know Lin Wood, JR and BR want no part of that.

      Delete
    5. That's two prayers...and you know what they say about prayer! I think no matter the differences in all of our theories the one thing we all wish for is the truths to be told and justice for Jonbenet.

      Delete
    6. Burke will not have to prove he's innocent. All he needs to do is argue that the CBS show was biased against him and offered no real proof while at the same time concluding he was guilty. If CBS thinks they can win this case on the basis of the feeble "investigation" presented by their "experts," they will lose - or more likely settle, for a large sum.

      If, on the other hand, they downplay the Burke angle and concentrate on debunking the intruder theory, then Lin would be forced to back down. Very interesting situation.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, DocG. Please let the lawyer give you the correct law regarding a defamation lawsuit. I never said that Burke needs to prove he's innocent (even though he kind of does). What I said is that to prevail, Burke would need to prove what CBS aired is FALSE (that he committed the murder) and they KNEW it was false.

      Delete
  26. I don't believe for a second they'll sue CBS. The agenda here is to carry through a few news cycles, counter content of the special, let JR play the poor victim card--'oh, will that poor man's suffering never end'--yet again. And give defenders of the Ramsey's innocence something fresh to cling to. Bullshit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. I'll tell you what - if Lin Wood chooses NOT to sue, then you know exactly who did it. If Lin Wood does not sue, then it's clear as day that BDI.


      If Burke didn't, then there's no way you let CBS reach that conclusion and get away with it. I think this honestly gives us an answer one way or the other.

      Delete
  27. DocG - with all due respect, for your JDI theory to hold true, you better hope Lin Wood follows through with the filing of this lawsuit. If he later backs off and never files, it's truly because BDI. If he doesn't, your JDI theory just got blown to hell. You, my friend, have a lot invested here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read the Rolling Stone piece (see link above). It says just about the same thing I've been saying. The CBS show was a travesty. But there are people whose beliefs are guided by the latest thing they've seen on TV or the Internet. If it's fresh in their minds, they'll buy it.

      Delete
    2. Nothing about it being fresh. Its just the most obvious scenario where most arrows line up

      Delete
    3. Exactly Zed. Doc, please get some sleep. Print media like frat-house-rapist Rolling Stone is no better, even as it is "fresher."

      Let's stick to your mission statement for this great blig--facts and logic--not prejudice or bias as to who else may support any given conclusion, CBS or TV, print, or Oliver Wendell himself.

      Cheers, Clueso

      Delete
    4. Rolling Stone may be right that CBS missed things. That will be for Burke to prove in a court of law. CBS doesn't have to prove anything, the burden isn't on them. The burden is always on the plaintiff to prove their case, not for the defendant to defend itself.

      Delete
    5. Not sure how it works in the US, but in my state in my country, defamation is a little different. There is a kind of reverse onus of proof in that the defendant needs to make out "specific" defences, which are prescribed, thus often hard to prove (also with exclusions). There is still some burden of proof on the plaintiff of course, that the communication amounts to defamatory imputations, but it's not dispositive in that there is no burden to prove damage.

      Delete
  28. No matter your theory DocG...you keep it up!you're one of the people keeping this case a thinking, debating, relevant work in progress & i say cheers to you and your hospitality and time to discuss all the possibilities! Night to all and perhaps we could all light a candle tonight in memory of that little jonbenet!

    ReplyDelete
  29. And yes, right or wrong Doc, it means little. The only thing that matters is justice for JBR. Thanks for the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  30. People are saying JR can't be a pedophile because he doesn't have a known history of pedophlia. Apart from the fact that this is dubious on several levels, it doesn't need to be about pedophlia, it could be about a fetish.
    He married a beauty queen, there was a rumour about a girl who said she had been his lover and he made her wear beauty pageant stuff, and now he has a relationship with a woman who creates these beauty pageant dresses. Maybe JR has a pageant fetish. And JBR was doing all these pageants, no doubt practicing and dressing at home for them, maybe this triggered JRs fetish, and she became sexually attractive to him, not because she was a child but because of the pageant stuff she was wearing and doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is saying he can't be a pedophile, just that there's no evidence of it.

      Delete
  31. The majority of that Rolling Stone article is pure garbage and reminds me of all of Lou Smit's red herrings. There is no comfirmation bias on the 911 call, what has been claimed to be said is exactly what was said. The show hit it dead on. The forensic farce Rolling Stone claims is more nonsense, even claiming that we do not for sure it was already on the underwear is almost as much of a joke as Lou Smit's red herrings. If you believe what Rolling Stone is saying then you can never ever be 100% be sure how dna got on anyone in any case ever. Like I said on a post before the show started, blog owner will soon be disagreeing with every expert on the show whose theory is different or in any way obstructs his theory, and sure enough here we go , and boom ! He somehow manages to find a red herring article from Rolling Stone none the less. Call me psychic...

    ReplyDelete
  32. You're psychic.

    Now call me a cab... to the nearest fictional Rolling Stone frathouse gangbang.

    Clueso

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't think a network such as CBS would have aired this without consultation with their legal team. All the claims in the doccie can be backed up with science... The Burke theory does not seem that far fetched to me...

    ReplyDelete
  34. I want to know if the Boulder detectives were watching. John is now a proven liar. Now he's saying he handled the flashlight. The same flashlight that had no prints. There are two things Burke can do. Reveal what he saw that even John doesn't know. And reveal that his parents argued before and after the phone call.

    ReplyDelete
  35. New here. This has to be the most lucid and economical theory yet regarding the case and the only one which conforms with Occam's Razor - "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It seems to me that most discussion has been bedevilled by (a) over-emphasis on random details, which may not even be accurately reported and (b)amateur psychologising. Its important not to confuse a probable or possible motive for a crime with the facts of the crime itself. Technically speaking, you do not need to prove a motive at all to establish someone's guilt, and that is where I think commentators are going wrong when they obsess over whether JR met the profile for a child abuser or not. That is not really the point - possible motives abound in this case, but what is needed is a theory which fits the facts themselves, not the typical behaviour of jealous siblings, stage mothers, incestuous fathers etc. Thanks for your work.

    ReplyDelete
  36. No person with any legal mind ought to support the CBS so-called documentary. It was tantamount to reality TV fantasy, offensive and disgraceful a perversion of the rule of law. The USA, more than any other country in the free, western world, prides itself on being the 'land of the free' and its enshrined bill of rights (a real privilege). How can you reconcile that with a young man being convicted on a TV show, absent a proper trial in a court of law? His life is in ruins, he might get so disturbed as to harm himself. For what? So some unconscionable, opportunistic people can make some quick bucks and cash in on an innocent child's vicious death. Give me a break regarding any fiction that these people were on TV to help JonBenet get justice. It was a witch hunt. I would never have watched had I known they were going to name Burke Ramsey as JB's assailant. On that note, where is CC? His/her posts were informative from a legal technical point of view. I hope the Ramsey family sues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While you're completely entitled to your view, the special merely named a suspect - there's nothing criminal about that.

      Delete
    2. I'm here; I've just been taking it all in, watching the sheep follow whatever nonsense they're spoonfed on television. And I agree - the CBS show was a travesty from every possible point of view, most especially that of Burke. I too hope they sue, and think it's an easy win; cold comfort for that young man.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Thank you CC, your measured post in support means a lot because I know I'm in the minority. I suspected that being a lawyer, you wouldn't have appreciated the expose of Burke, especially without any right of reply. Dog: I never said that CBS committed any crime, but they may still be culpable for a civil wrong.

      Delete
    4. The Ramseys will not sue. That would mean actually entering a courtroom and answering a question. That won't ever happen.

      Besides, didn't they say JR had no money left. Unless Lin defends them for free. Doubtful

      EG

      Delete
    5. Time will tell. Since they've been long-term clients, their lawyer might put this one on the house, you never know.

      Delete
    6. Burke had every right of reply; he and JR were both contacted passed on participation. In Burke's case, he opted for a cushier venue to speak, so it wasn't a matter of privacy--just control of the questions & message.

      Delete
  37. What you have to focus on here are the facts that cannot be explained away.

    Fact # 1 - PR's change in demeanor the moment she thought the phone was hung up on the 911 call. (Forgot the words they THINK they said)
    Fact # 2 - PR claimed she didn't know who wrote beneath the photos in the family album. WHO doesn't know that?

    I do not believe PR or JR were involved with killing their child, but I do believe they wrote that RN. JR dictating and PR writing throwing her own lines in here and there.
    That RN was written in a way to disguise the handwriting. WHY????

    These are FACTS - these answers tell the story.

    As far as parents doing horrific things to their children and/or parents going to great lengths to protect a child--we have both instances here in this house on that night. JR thought JBR was dead, and for all intents and purposes, she WAS dead. He needed to make it look absolutely horrifying so as people would say exactly what they said. "How could a father do that to a child".

    We've seen parents do far worse. Susan Smith strapped her babies in her van and watched it sink into a lake. Hard to understand as a mother, but she did it nonetheless.


    EG

    ReplyDelete
  38. This was sent to me by someone who wasn't able to post it here for some reason and asked me to post it anonymously:

    If BR hit JBR with the flashlight, why would the parents then strangle JBR? She would have still been breathing, so wouldn't they have taken her to hospital? The CBS show stated BR hit JBR with the flashlight, but didn't intend to kill her, so if he didn't intend to kill her he wouldn't have been the person who also strangled her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said he did strangle her? 'BDI' is a misnomer for those of us who believe BR struck that blow, but JR finished her off. If so, then JR is the murderer.

      Delete
  39. Here's another comment from someone unable to post it here:
    If the garotte knot is untangled and DNA found, I'm sure it will be JRs. However, I'm of the school that believes Burke did it, and JR covered it up (with Patsy's help later). Burke first told JR, (we don't know how much later,) and JR immediately got to work on staging the body to make it look like a sex crime. He strangled her and penetrated her, probably with the paintbrush handle. He probably thought she was dead, I doubt she was showing any signs of life by then. A horrible thing to do? Yes! But it happened, and it sure wasn't done by a 9 yr old or an outside intruder! DocG stated in an earlier blog that the hymen was partially gone and there was vaginal bleeding. If there had been long term sexual abuse wouldn't the hymen be completely gone and no bleeding? Yes, yes, I know JR could have been abusing her without full penetration but there's no real evidence to back that up! Even if it was true, the bizarre events of this case don't suggest to me that JR hit JBR with the flashlight that night to cover it up.
    I'm trying to imagine a scenario where JR decides he's in the mood to abuse JBR after a long, tiring Xmas day. He goes to her room, or finds her in the kitchen eating pineapple with Burke. He gets the flashlight out of the kitchen drawer, takes Burke upstairs to his room and tells him to stay there. Then he gets JonBenet, starts abusing her, she complains for the first time, and he hits her with the flashlight to silence her. I don't buy it. If that was the motive, he would have put his large hand over her small mouth and either strangled or smothered her.
    The motive was to cover up for Burke. Hitting JBR was NOT an accident, it was deliberate. If Burke had been a couple of months older, he could have been charged with something. Don't know if the Ramsey's knew that but it really doesn't matter. If they reported it there would have been serious consequences-a huge scandal, criticism of them as parents, and exposure of Burke as a seriously disturbed and violent child. I agree with a previous poster who suggested they decided to convince Burke he hadn't done anything wrong, so he could just move on with his life as if nothing ever happened. I, and most of the people on this blog, wouldn't have done that, but these people were weird-Burke was obviously a big problem, but he was the only child they had left.
    The original plan was for JR to dump the body and stage it as a kidnapping. There have been plenty of cases where the kidnappers have decided getting the ransom is too risky, so they just kill and dump the victim and disappear. The ransom note is a joke, I agree JR dictated most of it, PR wrote it down. PR refused to have the body dumped, so they just stuck with the kidnapping scenario, except that the kidnappers accidentally killed JBR before they could get her out of the house, then panicked and left. Ridiculous? Yes! No one believed it, but law enforcement was too scared to press charges against the Ramsey's.
    I'm 100% convinced Burke hit JonBenet that night but there is no way to prove it unless someone speaks up. But, if JRs DNA is found on the garotte knot, and it's proven JBR was alive when she was strangled, JR can be charged with murder, in addition to many other charges. The overall vibe I got from this family the day the police were there?
    "JonBenet's dead, there's nothing we can do about it now, so hurry up and finish your investigation and get the hell out of here so we can go on our trip to Atlanta." Disgusting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somehow PR is null and boid of this in your mind ? She doesnt pick up on why JR is planning an OJ like getaway ? Here is where the true flaws in your JDI theory become blatantly obvious.

      Delete
  40. Trouble is, your so-called "facts" are just weak circumstantial evidence, if anything at all. I applaud the blog owner's ingenuity and compelling, articulate writing, but I'm assuming that inference/logic doesn't win criminal convictions in the US. In any event, with respect, I think the theory is an overreach, flawed and doomed from the first premise, which is mere speculation and descends into further conjecture. I admit that many facets about this case are strange, to say the least, but concocting theories like writing a novel won't solve it. The Ramseys wouldn't have been behaving in any manner most people could imagine because most people wouldn't have to endure such a tragic event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Question: Why would someone deny their own handwriting in a family photo album?
      Answer: Because they're handwriting matched the RN.

      Or did an intruder enter the home and paste and write the captions beneath each photo?

      I guess that's a possibility along with a broken window for months and house keys given out like candy on Halloween.

      EG

      Delete
    2. "Trouble is, your so-called "facts" are just weak circumstantial evidence, if anything at all."

      No. Facts are not the same as circumstantial evidence. Facts are facts. The facts I've chosen are incontrovertible. No one has ever disputed them. Now the case I've developed IS circumstantial, yes. This is the sort of case that could only be circumstantial, no matter what your theory might be. But for anyone capable of following a logical argument, I do think it's solid.

      Delete
    3. "Question: Why would someone deny their own handwriting in a family photo album?
      Answer: Because they're handwriting matched the RN."

      The question you SHOULD be asking is: how could so many so-called "experts" accuse someone on the basis of such flimsy evidence, little more than a few photo captions and a couple posters.

      The captions are not obviously Patsy's work by any means. They could have been written by Aunt Pam, Nedra, even Burke. And no, they do not by a long stretch match the ransom note. It's all too easy to cherry pick for individual letters that "match." Why wouldn't some letters be similar in two documents using the same "manuscript" style? I've seen a similar attempt to "match" Chris Wolf's handwriting with the note. And I've done something very similar with John. As has Fausto Brugnatelli.

      One thing that gives these "experts" away as frauds is their failure to recognize that "Rainbow Fish Players" was obviously written in a different hand from all the others. Real professionals would have caught that.

      Darnay Hoffman never made a serious attempt to identify the writer(s) of those captions. He simply assumed he knew. As do you.



      Delete
    4. With respect, I know the difference, as most people do and was referring to the inference derived thereof. But you can't turn facts into proof of murder, no less, by mere speculation. They are not, in and of themselves, dispositive necessarily. And, believe me, they can be used out of context. Otherwise, I accept the latter part of your post. However, are you proffering that a theory based on circumstantial evidence can win a conviction in a court of law?

      In any event, I was referring to the poster above, EG. In answer to those rhetorical questions, if people are under pressure and advised by their lawyers, they may deny many things. If you have either been a litigant or a lawyer, you would know that even "facts" can be put into a context which can be incriminating. Your answers are speculative, which is another reason why the Ramseys may have chosen not to answer certain questions. How do you know that the Ramseys didn't give out many keys carelessly? Plenty of people do it, apparently, so I was advised by a locksmith friend of mine.

      Delete
    5. Just to add: Patsy seemed like a friendly, rather generous woman and I could imagine that she was a too trusting of many folk. She did, after all, allow people into her home for Christmas tours of her decorations. She obviously wasn't someone concerned about security, which, obviously, was her mistake.

      Delete
    6. "are you proffering that a theory based on circumstantial evidence can win a conviction in a court of law?"

      Happens all the time. Most cases that make it to court are based on circumstantial evidence. Smoking gun cases are usually plea-bargained.

      As for the keys, I never claimed it could not have been someone with a key. It's issues such as this that make me reluctant to make a case based on evidence alone. If you try do make sense of all the evidence, which is universally inconclusive, you become mired in what I've called "the morass." Only the facts and logic can get us out of that mess and onto a solid footing.

      Delete
    7. Doc,

      So, if Aunt Pam, or Nedra or Burke wrote the captions, why didn't PR know that? If my mother, or my sister or my son wrote something that was in my house, I'd be able to recognize it. Why couldn't she?
      The point is she was vague in all of her responses. When asked about similarities she mentioned that the "b's" both had holes in them. I mean, come on! If that isn't coy and cunning, I don't know what is. When asked if she saw any similarities, she said. "not particularly". I believe the word "particularly" was in that RN, too. A monkey would've seen similarities, but PR couldn't? I find that hard to believe.

      Unknown - I understand that about taking the lawyer's advice. I just don't understand how a person doesn't know who wrote something beneath a picture in their own family photo album.

      But then again, as a parent, I don't understand a lot of things about PR and JR. From the pageants to the son's aggressive behavior towards JBR, to the feces, to the multiple trips to the doctor, to the telling friends and neighbors not to speak to the police and on and on and on.

      None of it makes sense to me. No matter who did what, these two parents were negligent at the very least. the GJ got it right.

      EG

      Delete
    8. DocG: I think our responses are getting out of sequence. Anyway, we had a case recently, where a mother with a very respectable profession and family was convicted of murdering her newborn daughter, though the body was never found. She lost all her appeals. She was a vile excuse for a mother based on her history, which no doubt swayed the jury. Speaking to a criminal lawyer I know, he was appalled because I suppose it was circumstantial based on the facts of the case. However, there was no body and it's a different jurisdiction ...

      Also, there is no evidence that JR was a child molester or that he had "fetishes" or whatever.

      EG: I would never have made most of the choices the Ramseys did either. I detest exploitation of children in any guise, even for modelling. I just don't think it means the Ramseys are guilty. JR did admit to the pageants being a mistake. But I was also critical about their lack of security in their mansion, especially given their wealth. Open house tours, flaunting their money? Really unnecessary and dangerous. And both children slept on another floor. Weren't those poor children scared? I wouldn't have slept a wink in a house of that size, with its labyrinth structure! No wonder JB and Burke sometimes slept together. So yes, the Ramseys were odd but maybe it was because they had wealth I can only dream of, although I can't see that I would ever be so reckless regarding health and safety of my family, rich or poor.

      Delete
    9. Unknown - You're right. I've thought that same thing about not having wealth of that magnitude, therefore not being of the same mindset regarding the raising of children. Maybe you're so used to other people doing things for you, that you assume your house is secure and your children safe one entire floor below you? Maybe you hire other people to write in your family photo albums and maybe you don't fix broken basement windows because you assume they will magically get repaired by the hired help? I have no idea how or what they were thinking. I do know that they cared about their public image because they spent a great part of their fortune protecting it.
      EG

      Delete
  41. The response of Lin Wood and of John Ramsey reminds me of the competitors response to the nugget debate in the Burger King commercials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as I mistrust Lin Wood, his lawsuit is, imo, justified. And if the CBS "experts" had made a truly convincing case against Burke he would never sue. You can't convict someone on the basis of linguistic and behavioral profiling. Such evidence is usually not permitted in court in any case, and for good reason. It is far too speculative.

      What I see happening in the wake of the CBS show is the same sort of bandwagon mentality that led so many to assume Patsy killed her daughter "accidentally" over bedwetting. Steve Thomas wrote a book based on that theory and suddenly most following the case decided it HAD to be her. No question.

      Now we have a broadcast on a major network where the villain is Burke -- and suddenly no one is talking anymore about Patsy as the killer. Burke is now in the spotlight and the bandwagon is moving in HIS direction. Patsy has been demoted to stager-in-chief.

      I can only shake my head in disbelief at how easy it is for certain people to be manipulated. To me, BDI is totally unconvincing. Not because Burke could not have done it. But because the over the top coverup required in order to make the evidence fit the theory is bizarre beyond belief.

      Delete
    2. I really appreciate your honest post, given that you are not a supporter of IDI theory. I agree about the 'bandwagon mentality' and you make some valid points. Burke was a child, granted who gave rather odd responses, but who can remember themselves at that age? Who knows how we would respond. So-called expert opinions are usually just part of the secondary evidence, not dispositive. You obviously have some legal training.

      Delete
    3. The fact that you aren't even considering that BR could have done this just shows you would much rather be right with your theory then truly step back and try to find out who did it. I think you really need to ask yourself what your motivations are, because to dismiss the BR theory the way you are has me perplexed to say the least. The BR theory is actually supported by FACTS as opposed to a theory involving a pedophile father covering up his sex acts that has no facts to support it.

      Delete
    4. It isn't "bandwagon" mentality when more facts are presented for people to form opinions. There are simply more facts that point towards Burke!

      I had an open mind for any of them being the killer; I would go back and forth between all of them, but I always thought Patsy was involved in the cover up so I suspected either she or Burke had accidentally killed her. With the flashlight wiped down, it being touted as the most likely weapon (however, I wonder if there is anything else in the home that could match the same shape as the flashlight), the fingerprints on the bowel and glass, the train tracks matching up to fit the marks on JBR, it all steers me more towards Burke, but I felt he did it long before this show came out.

      I am not, however, claiming that John didn't do it because I don't believe in the abuse allegations. I believe she could have been abused, but we are not even sure that it was John who could have abused her. Didn't they find the older son's DNA on a blanket? There is a lot of conflicting reports on whether or not JBR was sexually molested. However, given that the staging was not simply a rope or piece of cloth tied around her neck, but rather a garrote, I think the staging was done to make it look like a sexually based killing.

      Let me ask you this. If John WERE abusing her that night and as you claim "things got out of hand", why would he leave the garrote on her for police to discover!?!?! Why not get rid of it with the other evidence?

      Delete
    5. When Patsy called 911, John was caught with his pants down, so to speak. He had a lot of fixing to do and may well have run out of time to deal with every single thing. Don't forget, there were deep furrows in her neck. How was he going to undo THAT?

      Delete
  42. A little background on Dr. Spitz and Dr. Henry Lee. Dr. Lee was hired by the "dream team" during the O.J. Simpson case to analyze the blood evidence, the shoe print, etc. at the crime scene. He looked right at the shoe print and interpreted something else so far out there that no one believed it or got it. He was asked again during the Michael Peterson case (the author who purportedly pushed he wife down the stairs) and refuted that she was bludgeoned by Peterson and instead all of that blood spray on the wall was if she was "coughing" up blood turned to the stair well wall. Dr. Spitz was brought out of retirement to testify at the Casey Anthony trial, was not allowed to examine the skull, but went into great detail as to the mandible, how it was found, and that duct tape couldn't have been used - even though the coroner and forensic scientist, Dr. G., who actually saw the remains and examined them was convincing otherwise. I get that the former FBI guy and the Victimologist were committed to solving this case but what they came up with was extremely flawed, and incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. postscript: Michael Peterson SAID Cathleen fell down the stairs. She neither fell or was pushed. She was bludgeoned to death before she got UP the stairs. All of the blood spatter on the side wall was explained by Dr. Henry Lee doing a demonstration with ketchup in his mouth coughing onto a white board of some sort. Dr. Henry Lee should stay in his lab and not be allowed to come out and speak. And Dr. Spitz is past his prime.

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

      Delete
    3. LOL. I must say that some people who have held positions of authority have a hard time in retirement and for all sorts of reasons, want to remain valid. Although, in this case, it might cause some question as to to professional reputation. Overall, I wasn't impressed with the spurious conclusions, but I do concede that Dr Henry Lee seems to be exceptionally intelligent in his field. In fairness, he did make the comment that he wasn't a lawyer and I think he felt uncomfortable forming opinions, to be honest. He earned my respect there.

      Delete
  43. Thank you for that background information. It puts it into perspective. Often, expert witnesses give favourable opinions to those who pay their typically huge fees. I'm not saying that occurred here, but I know it to occur in my country. For example, a medical Dr will give written evidence that a person on workers' compensation is not sick at all and can return to work, yet an accused is mentally ill and is not responsible for his/her actions. It depends on who is paying.

    ReplyDelete
  44. CHALLENGE: ANYBODY who has any doubts that BR did this, PLEASE go watch CBS special Part 2 when BR is being interviewed by the detective. Specifically when he is asked about the Pineapple Bowl.....Burke's reaction to a very simple question is silence......then he says "OH" followed by a nervous laugh. He then proceeds to say its cereal. His fingerprints are on the pineapple. He admits to being out of bed...we KNOW JBR had pineapple in her system and was killed shortly after, so a simple question about what a bowl of pineapple is shouldn't have garnered the response he gave. He looked and sounded in that moment like a kid who was caught doing something he wasn't supposed to.

    Also, after listening to Jim Clemente's podcast, its obvious to me now that PR was definitely involved somehow, someway in the cover up. I can't explain her calling 911 with the body in the house...it doesn't make sense to me, but these behaviors are too odd to just have some innocent explanation:
    * 4 minutes after calling 911, she calls family friends
    *She leaves her son in bed by himself. Anybody that is a parent knows you would immediately get your other child and not let them out of your sight
    *She said she didn't read the note, and testified that while she was on the phone with 911, JR was reading the note on his hands and knees. THEN how does she know it says SBTC VICTORY if she didn't read the note and it wasn't in front of her?
    *The note says they could have arranged an earlier drop off of the money and gotten their daughter back EARLIER, yet neither JR or PR seemed eager to do that whatsoever.
    *A normal mother in this situation would be tearing the house apart looking for ANY sign of either JBR or a break in.

    BR seemed odd with Dr. Phil, but the clips of him just after the crime are even stranger. He tells the Detective he was a "real deep sleeper who wouldnt hear anything while he sleeps" What kid says something like this???? He says "he was going on with his life" a week and a half after his sister is murdered.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke no doubt said some odd things, but he had just endured an horrific, unspeakable tragedy in this family's life. The fact that Burke said such odd responses, far beyond a normal 9-year-old leads me to believe that he was coached - not for nefarious reasons, but in order to protect him. Why would he deny that pineapple is pineapple? It makes no sense to deny it in light of what happened.

      Delete
    2. I have always argued that Burke must know more than he's let on. And yes, some of his behavior seems consistent with deception -- but that doesn't make him guilty of murder. The expertise of the CBS "experts" seems to be in the art of jumping to conclusions.

      When we consider ALL the evidence and ALL the facts, on the basis of logic and even just plain common sense, BDI is totally unconvincing. Yes, I do think he knows more than he's admitted, and yes I think that guilty knowledge is probably apparent in his behavior. For all we know he may have been present when JBR ate that pineapple. If his father was also present, then he may have been warned not to say anything about it.

      Delete
    3. I tend to agree. He seemed quite confident when he was a child, which seems vastly different to his presentation now. I can imagine he could be trusted to refrain from talking about matters as instructed. I really feel sorry for him. The death of JB and Patsy and media harassment has really given him an awful start to adulthood. No wonder he's got problems.

      Delete
  45. OH I forgot to add that he tells the therapist he wouldn't tell her secrets that he had. Too strange, too weird to be innocent.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or perhaps he was just enjoying the fact that he was getting some attention and knew he held some power as kids do? It in no way points to guilt of anything.

      Here is another legal trick judges can use: they only consider evidence for which they accord any significant weight. They twist facts to support their bias and put together a judgment which is very convincing because the public usually doesn't get a chance to read the submissions and hear oral argument to get both sides of the story in full. The same could apply here: what were Burke's responses to the full interview? Was he crying, distressed at some point? Was he really scared? We were never shown, so we are left to be open to his guilt. It was a very poorly constructed and executed show from start to finish. I sensed it at the beginning, but stuck it out since we haven't had any other docs here.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I do believe he had some secrets. Still does. The problem with the CBS people is that they never consider even the possibility that Burke could be covering for his father, rather than vice-versa. Rather than think Burke might be covering for John with a simple lie, they prefer to think that "the Ramseys" would cover for Burke with a complex, dangerous and bizarre coverup involving the rape and strangulation of their own daughter.

      Delete
    3. Burke also stated in the interview that he knew what happened to his sister but the interviewer/therapist didn't pick up on this. Burke literally said "I know what happened" and the therapist must have either not picked up on it or didn't want to pick up on it. She followed up with "what do you think could have happened".

      Delete
    4. How about Burke's reenactment during the interview, while saying JBR was either stabbed or hit on the head?

      Delete
    5. First he mentions stabbing, then being hit on the head. She was not stabbed. Suggesting he actually did not know what happened.

      Delete
  46. -J

    I agree with all you wrote. That's exactly right on all points. As a parent, if you thought an intruder got into your home, the first thing you'd do is protect that other child and bring him downstairs. You'd be afraid the intruder was still there.

    Parent of murdered children live in the police station, awaiting any leads, etc. These two hid from the police, shielded themselves because they could, they were wealthy. If this was me or you, we'd be in jail 20 years already. It's a total travesty.

    There is no doubt in the minds of most people and in the proof and evidence that was brought forth by professionals who do this for a living. Are they ALl incompetent? This reminds me of OJ. Noone knew how to do their job, everyone was a racist and he hid behind rich lawyers because he was wealthy.
    It makes me sick.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  47. A comment about our justice system, it is flawed. Some say it's the best there is, I"m not so sure about that. For one the prosecution has to come up with some theory that will sell to the jury. They then are locked into it, whether the evidence suggests otherwise or not. Chris Darden did his best to say that O.J. had a history of spousal abuse and stalking. But the jury just couldn't buy that, and if they did they thought it's not uncommon in their community to want to keep your woman in line. In the Casey Anthony trial the prosecution said Casey didn't want to be a mother, she would rather party, Caylee was in the way so she used chloroform on her and then smothered her with duct tape. But there was no proof of that. The jury couldn't buy that because they couldn't imagine a young attractive mother who had been attentive and caring with her daughter by all accounts, could do such a thing (and there was no evidence of where she would have made the chloroform). So same here. Not likely JR will go to any kind of trial. And if he does, after all these years, a prosecutor would have to present hard cold evidence to indicate he would have wanted his daughter out of the way. THe Grand Jury passed down two recommendations for indictment, but as we all know Alex Hunter did not think he could prosecute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What we know for sure is that the Grand Jury did not buy into Lou Smit's intruder theory. Or any intruder theory for that matter. They felt sure someone in that house killed the little girl. But they had no way of telling which one did it. As for Burke, as has been said many times: he was never a suspect.

      Delete
  48. It's really the same here, but our juries seem to be less vulnerable to issues of race and other prejudices. Most of the high profile cases recently have resulted in convictions. One conviction of murder was overturned on appeal and downgraded to manslaughter, but murder was reinstated by our highest appellate court. So I suppose that would be barred as "double jeopardy" in your country. Other cases are appealed over sentencing (too lenient).

    The OJ case has been big news here too; we had that recent series with John Travolta, but I think people were over it going on so long. With that case, I think the forensic evidence was compelling, let alone the circumstantial case. He got lucky but karma got him in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  49. sorry, one more comment. I don't believe Lin Wood/JR will bring forward any lawsuit against CBS. I think it's just more manipulation of the press by JR and further posturing. Righteous indignation, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lin has sued several times in the past. He even sued Steve Thomas. And basically he won every time. Every suit resulted in a settlement.

      Delete
  50. As I said, time will tell ... I don't find JR a particularly warm and loving man, but I don't know him. In fact, I find him unlikeable in interviews, he seems to cold. I'm not sure why his lawyer doesn't advise him to cease and desist because it doesn't do him any favours. But that doesn't make him a murderer.

    For this theory to stick, DocG relies on JR being a serial molester of JB and that Patsy wouldn't have called 911 with the ransom note and body in the house. Those two grounds are so flimsy, to the point of lacking all legal merit, with respect, no matter how "logical" so defined. I don't disparage the way it was articulated and perhaps I need to re-read posts, time permitting. But I can't in all conscience, accuse anyone of murder based on, IMO, a manifestly hopeless premise. It unsettles my sense of justice.

    This is the only blog I read and now post because I find the posts to be of a very high standard. There is a vast difference between this blog and others I've merely scanned. Most posters are usually respectful of each other.

    If I am truthful, I have to say, I don't know what happened to that poor little girl, but it breaks my heart. JB seemed like a lovely child, friendly and not affected by her privilege and beauty. I am still open to any reasonable theory but I'm inclined to think that it was someone the Ramseys knew, rather than a random intruder and sex offender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really know what John's motive was. The forensic evidence strongly suggests that she had been molested in the past, and if that's the case, John would be the most likely offender by far. But he may not have been molesting her and could have had some other motive. Perhaps she saw something she was not supposed to see.

      My conclusion that John killed his daughter and wrote the note is not based on motive, but fact and logic. We know there could have been no intruder because no intruder scenario makes sense. We know Patsy must be innocent because she is the one who called the police. That leaves either Burke or John. Burke could not have written the note. That leaves John.

      We also know that John lied about other aspects of the case as well, notably his story about breaking that window on a previous occasion. So there is no way John could be just an innocent bystander.

      Now as for Burke, yes he might have had the strength to deliver the fatal blow and yes there is some possibility John could have written the note to cover for him. But when we consider the totality of the evidence, including the sexual assault and the garrote strangulation, then no. That's not something any parent would do to the body of their child, even he believed she was dead. It is also highly implausible that Patsy would not have known what had happened if Burke did it. And as has often been remarked, the sensible thing to have done was call 911 for help, not stage a bizarre coverup.

      Delete
    2. With respect, your theory is not just based on 'facts and logic' but many assumptions. It must fail in a criminal court of law, with the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. Our legal system is essential the same in that respect.

      I'd like CC to provide his/her expertise here, because I'm not from the US. But I'd like to know if this could get charges laid. We use different terminology here, so apologies if my wording is incorrect.

      I definitely don't believe Burke had anything to do with it. That poor young man is innocent. As I said, I hope his lawyer files suit on his behalf. That show was a disgrace and those so-called professionals ought to be ashamed. If they thought they had it solved by accusing Burke, why not just take it quietly to the authorities? No, it was just about greed from the network and perhaps the participants also.

      Delete
  51. Here's another problem with the ransom note. Patsy told the police that she didn't even know how much John made or that he had gotten a bonus. John mentioned it to her that morning of the 26th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy caught the amnesia bug alot and much more than JR caught amnesia. 1 has to do nothing more than watch her depo and read her interview transcripts to realize that she was deceitful many many times

      Delete
    2. I don't agree that Patsy was deceitful at all. But we can't rely on what a suspect tells us without outside confirmation. On that I agree.

      Delete
  52. Lin Wood is a defamation attorney based in Atlanta, who often takes cases on a contingent fee basis. The going rate is 1/3 of any recovery, and by his own admission, Wood has made a fortune from the seven prior defamation suits he's filed on the Ramseys' behalf, all of which settled prior to trial for undisclosed sums. If Lin Wood has done well on his 1/3 of the take, John Ramsey has done twice as well, and is far from penniless.

    There is no downside for Wood or for Ramsey in an action for slander against CBS. CBS's insurance carrier will force a settlement before trial, and Ramsey has had twenty years to hone his answers to any questions put to him in deposition.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not if I ask the questions.

      Thanks for the legal opinion, CC. I agree.

      Delete
    2. Thanks CC! I wondered if lawyers do that kind of professional fee setting in the US. Here, we call it "delayed professional fees" or "no win, no fee" - but the latter is almost always reserved for cases that are bound by statute for which there is a guarantee of win/settlement (only quantum is unknown). Car accidents is but one example, but other big name civil liability/personal injury cases also.

      Delete
  53. Well John has gone from not using the maglite to now using it. His story has changed many times over the years. Or he doesn't recall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His recollection is as agile as it needs to be. Lets never forget how he demanded copies of BPD police reports and related notes before agreeing to talk. Thats just evil.

      Delete
  54. Doc, i still have no idea how JR (Teflon Jon) has escaped any real sustained scrutiny...where is that break down? JR is literally just like Kaiser Soze' here..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was "ruled out." For some reason that finding had a magical effect, enclosing him in a suit of impenetrable armor. Even Steve Thomas was willing to give him a "pass." It's amazing how the most obvious things get overlooked and the most obscure and inconsequential things (such as the pineapple evidence) become elevated to great importance.

      Delete
  55. The only scenario that makes sense for both parents to be involved in a cover up is to protect Burke. No spouse would ever cover for the other in a situation like this.

    The problem I have with this is that I have hard time believing Burke was molesting his sister at the age of 9 and it doesn't explain the extreme nature of the cover up. The only explanation is that John was molesting Jonbenet.

    What possibly took place is that the family comes home, the parents go to their bedroom, the kids stay up a bit longer to play with their new toys. There is an argument between the kids and Burke kills Jonbenet. John and Patsy probably hear it but ignore it because it has happened so many times before. Burke probably didn't even know the extent of what he did. Patsy comes down and finds a lifeless body and then finds Burke playing in another room. She wants to call the police immediately.

    John however realizes he can't have an autopsy done on JonBenet until he cleans up her body. So he tells Patsy, look I don't want to lose Burke, I just lost another daughter a few years ago, so we have to stage this like an intruder took her which will take the heat off Burke. Patsy, the good wife, agrees. She just had cancer, so she wants to spend as much time with Burke as possible too.

    John tells Patsy to write the ransom letter. John then cleans up the body and makes it look like a horrible monster was the intruder, something no parent would ever do to their child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what I think. Burke kills JBR either by accident or not and John doesn't want the autopsy to reveal findings. Parents cover it up. Maybe John was molesting both of his children?

      Delete
    2. How do we keep circling back to JBR was being sexually molested by Burke or anyone else? There's no evidence of that at all except the paintbrush handle the night she died. That was part of the staging to make it look like a horrible monster abused, then killed JBR, not that she was just hit in the head for no reason.

      Delete
  56. I wonder if this is how JR makes his money now. Filing lawsuits left and right.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Its also bizarre that John shows no emotion whatsoever, not even of a murdered daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This is where PR peeking at LE through her fingers comes into play. She is upset but without a doubt putting on a show for LE. She seems to me to be a self centered drama queen so maybe that is why some people bought into her acting skills.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Its also bizarre that John shows no emotion whatsoever, not even of a murdered daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The fact of the matter is not if Darnay Hoffman truly figured out if PR wrote the captions in the scrapbook or not. It doesnt even matter of PR wrote them or not..The point that matters is if she did not write them then she knows who did. It is a scrapbook of HER IMMEDOATR FAMILY IN HER HOUSE. She lied and there has to be a good reason for it. Common logic here. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Next comment will be something about JR secretly scrapbooking behind PR'S back and him adding the captions himself so PR never knew anything about the scrapbooks. That is the kind of logic used by blog owner here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. PR knew who wrote those words and yet denied it. She also knew there were similarities in the letters shown to her, but her response was "not particularly". If you don't know who wrote in your family photo album, then you have given too many spare keys out to too many strangers. It's absurd. She knew she was covering for herself and her part in writing that RN.

      The broken window is the key here, I believe. Did they question anyone else in the house about whether or not the window had been broken for awhile. I would think in Colorado, in the winter, you'd notice a broken basement window. Especially that time of year, since the decorations were stored down there and PR hid presents down there. Wouldn't you feel the change in temp from the window being broken? Did they question the housekeeper as to whether the window was broken or BR? Just curious.

      EG

      Delete
    2. The housekeeper was not aware of any broken window.

      Delete
    3. Also, the kids played down there. It would be too cold if that window had already been broken.....

      Delete
    4. I thought the story was JR locked himself out of the house all of the time, he initially broke the window and didn't have it fixed so he could continue to use it to get in. At any rate, from the crime scene video shown on TV, that window hadn't been used to get in for a very long time, if ever.

      Delete
    5. I think John's window story is a fabrication. This imo is one of the keys to solving this case. See my posts on that broken window beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-scene-at-window.html

      Delete
    6. With regard to the basement window, see also the series of posts beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

      Delete
  62. In an opinion piece submitted to Newsweek, Wood explains why he and Burke are filing a lawsuit and why he feels the documentary was deceptive. CBS's response follows Wood's
    http://www.newsweek.com/jonbenet-ramsey-family-lawyer-why-burke-ramsey-suing-cbs-over-new-murder-501571

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'll ask again. If John was molesting JBR that night and "things got out of hand", why would he have left the garrote on her neck? He had more than enough time to get rid of the cord around her neck if he got rid of other pieces of evidence.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The garrote is part of the staging. Now whether or not the police will retest it is another story.

      Delete
    2. Not according to Doc.

      Did the garrote have fingerprints?

      How come the police didn't investigate the lawyer John called the morning of the 26th?

      Delete
    3. I don't think he necessarily cleaned the body. That's why he made sure he carried her up stairs.

      Delete
    4. It's possible the garrote was intended as staging. It's possible he ran out of time to get rid of everything. His plan could have been to get rid of all such evidence when dumping the body the following night. We have no way of getting into John's head so we'll probably never know.

      Regardless, nit picking is not going to make your case for you. You need to be able to address the facts and evidence as a whole, as I have done.

      Delete
    5. We are ALL addressing the evidence as a whole. It isn't just you.

      I guess what you call others "nitpicking" you call "defending your theory" or "challenging others theories".

      Ok, then. I am not sure why you have this blog if you don't expect others to have their own opinions. Not everyone is going to be a JDI convert, as you so desire.

      Delete
    6. It's nitpicking when you latch on to any detail of the crime that you don't understand and imply that, because you fail to understand it, it becomes a fatal flaw in someone else's theory.

      As I see it, Patsy's call destroyed John's plan. And as a result, he would have been under a lot of pressure to clean things up before the body was found. Obviously he could not have dealt with every single detail, so yes he might have left some loose ends, why not? Maybe he figured the garotte might work as intruder staging. Maybe he just ran out of time to untie that knot and put everything back where it belonged. He couldn't undo the deep furrows in her neck, so maybe he didn't see the point.

      Delete
    7. DocG: I have to agree with anonymous here. There are just as many assumptions in your theory as anyone else's. We all have different ways we process evidence and to what context we deposit facts. I'm sure you're weary, but that first paragraph displays serious hubris!

      Delete
  64. This is all so crazy. If Burke did it (and I'm not saying he didn't)...WHY wouldn't they just call an ambulance and it was just a tragic accident (or they could have said it was)??? No one would even be talking about this anymore. It's making me nuts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is they probably thought she was dead from the hit on the head. A child dead from an accident in the home would mean their entire world falls apart. Parents are questioned, maybe even charged, for negligence and/or child abuse (perhaps even manslaughter?), and if Burke was the one to deliver the blow to her head, then he gets taken away to a mental institution for evaluation and has the stigma of being a killer with mental issues the rest of his life and the rest of their lives.

      John could lose his job, Patsy would lose her reputation and lifestyle, both have lost their daughter and now possibly their son. Burke's life would be ruined. To them, it was easier to cover up than to deal with the unraveling of their lives and the repercussions that would come down the line.

      People do this kind of thing when they have a lot to lose and a lot at stake. Look at celebrities who have beards because they are gay and don't want to reveal it to the world. Look at Casey Anthony. She didn't call about her "missing" daughter for, was it weeks or months?

      I am not justifying what they did, just to be clear.

      Delete
    2. Well, it didn't work out for them very well then.

      Delete
    3. Their world DID fall apart. John lost his business and Patsy was forced to live with millions of people suspecting her of killing her child over bed wetting. If the horrific things they did to their daughter were intended to make their lives any easier or cast suspicion away from themselves, boy did they ever miscalculate.

      Delete
    4. It just doesn't make any sense! Burke would not be carted off to a mental institution for whacking his sister, leading to his death. Kids do stupid things all the time. And this isn't even a case where the parents would be found negligent like in the case of a child shooting another child with a gun. If he hit her with a flashlight and she died, it would be a horrible accident and that's it. If they were trying to protect their reputations, lifestyle, unraveling of their lives, and whatnot by covering up a horrible accident, a ridiculous, dramatic ransom note and blatant staging, including strangling their (they thought) dead daughter and possibly assaulting her with a paintbrush is just plain bizarre. If they got caught, which they had to think they might, wouldn't that be much worse than one kid hit the other in the head and she died? I can't wrap my head around any of it.

      Delete
    5. I think you're underestimating what happens when a child deliberately hits another child in the head and causes that child's death. That's not the same as playing with a gun that accidentally goes off. Burke didn't mean to kill JBR but he did mean to hit her in the head. There would have been more repercussions than just the police coming over and writing up the incident as an accident.

      Delete
    6. Esp given Burke's prior history of aggression towards JBR


      Delete
    7. But THEY did not know that. They did not know what was going to happen, they just anticipated the worst and thought they could get away with it like most people do when they try to cover things up.

      They are people who care more about their images than doing what is right. It happens a LOT more than you realize. I know people very much like the Ramseys who put their image first.

      Delete
  65. Dr. Phil asked Burke if he and JB are pineapple "that day." JB ate the pineapple before her death. It didn't digest. Yet another reason why Phil should not have conducted the interview. I don't believe Burke did it but he knows information that could lead to his father's arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forget..what was Burke's response to Dr. Phil about the pineapple?

      How did his response compare to the response he gave at 11 to the pineapple in a bowl photograph?

      Delete
    2. I believe when Dr Phil asked him if he had eaten pineapple with JBR that day, he said. "maybe" with that perpetual grin on his face.
      When he was 11 and asked what was in the bowl, he would now say the word "pineapple". He said "OH".

      EG

      Delete
  66. His question should have been: JonBenet got up after being put to bed. Did you eat pineapple with her before she was killed?

    I believe she was killed sometime between 11pm and 4am. And John went to bed after placing the ransom note on the stairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's clear that he would never have admitted eating pineapple with JonBenet that night, even if he had. His "maybe" clearly referred to what might have happened earlier, which he could not recall. Dr. Phil's question was pointless. And by the way, Dr. Phil is seriously misinformed about many aspects of this case. Which didn't prevent him from pontificating about it. He has lost my respect.

      Delete
  67. Has anyone else seen the interview with Linda Arndt done around 1999? I think I found it on YouTube. She adamantly "knows" who did it. The interviewer kept asking about JR's demeanor that day. She kept saying "cordial" over and over, but in a hinting way. She would not state the name of who she believed did it. But, to me, it was obvious she thought it was JR. She said when he brought JBR's body up and placed her on the floor, her face was inches from JR's and they exchanged an unspoken "look". It was chilling. She said she checked her shoulder holster and her bullets because she thought they might not make it out of that house alive that day. I think she had a gut feeling it was JR, and the look he gave her was him letting her know he knew she knew, and that she better keep her mouth shut. I don't know. It was chilling.....

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The Madeleine McCann case:

    Middle class parents claim an intruder has abducted their child. No body, but blood and cadaver dogs detect blood and cadaverine in the apartment. First the parents stage a half-assed break-in through a window, but when that convinces nobody, they change their story and claim they left the French windows unlocked.

    The mother kicks things off by screaming "they've taken her, they've taken her!" rather than "She's missing, she's gone". Within moments of calling the police they are also calling media outlets, lawyers, and inviting family friends to traipse through the crime scene.

    At no point do they wake the two younger kids to ask, "Where is Madeleine?". The two kids mysteriously sleep through the entire commotion.

    The parents stop cooperating with the police, claim the police are incompetent, and refuse to answer questions. They don't talk to the police but they are happy to plant stories in the media through their lawyers and PR representatives. They derail the investigation and wage a media war against the police.

    No evidence of an intruder is ever discovered. When asked about that, the father replies, "so where is the child?" - abstract, distancing language that directly echoes Patsy's "I'm the mother".

    Over time, thanks to a relentless PR effort, in the course of which they publish a self-serving book on what they have gone through, the public gradually forgets the overwhelming evidence of their complicity in either the death of their daughter or at least the concealment of that death. More and more people start to think of them as innocent victims. They become almost establishment figures, secular saints, frequently being interviewed on television.

    Any of this sounding depressingly familiar?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. As I stated above, it happens all the time. Many people get away with their cover ups. Look at celebs who hid their being gay for years and years and only later did the public find out. The would have fake boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives. And everyone fell for it because most of the time, all it takes is for someone to say something for everyone to believe it is true. Most people either do not care or are not smart enough to look for details.

      Delete
  70. I've seen that interview and I think she believes John did it too. If I'm not mistaken, Linda also believed that sexual abuse was the motive.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Lots of fuzzy thinking going on here. "Imagine it was me, I would/wouldn't have done this" or "All parents would do this or that", or "Here's another unusual case - well that goes to show my favurite suspect did it, even though there is no consensus on who was guilty of murder in that case either." The facts are very plain. PR rang for the police even though the RN stated her baby was a goner if she did that. So PR formulated an RN which she refused to act on, because she felt the best way out of her predicament, having murdered that child,or to protect her other child who was the murderer was to fake a kidnap which clearly never took place. And that would have been determined very quickly once she alerted the police. Its quite simple really. I wonder why people insist on complicating it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er... because it's equally possible - more likely, logically - that John formulated the note which Patsy didn't even finish reading before calling the police.

      The facts are indeed very plain; you think Patsy was either monumentally stupid or insane. You think she or Burke killed JBR in a rage, then she tried to cover it up by planting a note claiming her daughter was alive and demanding payment of a ransom. Then, to cover up her own or Burke's involvement she garroted her brain-dead dying daughter, sexually molested her vagina, wiped her down, redressed her, and called the police to report a kidnapping and asked them to come to the house, while her daughter was turning cold in the basement. So tell me, do you think she was just plain stupid, or actually insane?

      Delete
    2. When I said 'you' - I mean anyone crazy enough to believe the scenario whose oddity you summarize so nicely. I should've said 'they'. Apologies if that came across as personal. I quite agree with your sardonic precis.

      Delete