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

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

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

Saturday, October 1, 2016

More on Woodward's Book

Continuing with my review of Paula Woodward's book. Also, I'd appreciate any comments anyone would like to make on the CNN special that just aired. I don't have cable so I'm curious as to whether they've come up with anything new.


In addition to the errors by Woodward presented in my earlier post, she points to "intruder evidence" that was investigated and accounted for many years ago. For example, an "unidentified" hair found in JBR's bed turned out to be an underarm hair of Patsy's; an "unidentified" palm print turned out to be from Melinda; the Maglite found on the kitchen counter that "could not be traced" actually turned out to be from the Ramsey home; the Hi-Tec imprint most likely originated with Burke; and of course she repeats a bunch of nonsense from one of Lou Smit's old presentations that was thoroughly refuted years ago.

Woodward's take on the DNA evidence confuses me. As I reported earlier, she initially claimed that matching foreign DNA was found in three places, a blood stain on the panties, and under the fingernails of both hands. That contradicts reports that the three places were the blood stain and both sides of her pullups. Later in the book she returns to this evidence, but this time she "clarifies" by claiming that initial testing revealed a match between the fingernail DNA and the blood stain DNA, with the "touch DNA" on the pullups revealed later, in 2008.

As I understand it, the only DNA found in her fingernails was due to a contaminated nail clipper. I've never heard any mention of any match of that DNA with any other DNA found on her body or her clothing. My understanding, also, is that there were no skin cells found under her nails. Which is consistent with the consensus among forensic specialists that the head blow came first and she was unconscious when the "garrote" was applied. That's also consistent with strands of her hair found intertwined with the knotting.

Lou Smit once claimed that JonBenet "got a piece of her attacker," implying that she scratched him and caught some of his skin cells under her nails. If foreign skin cells had indeed been found in her nails, that would have been significant evidence indeed, and DNA extracted from those cells would almost certainly have been from her attacker. But obviously nothing of the kind was found. Another dubious allegation from the "master detective."

When reviewing the long list of possible suspects in her chapter titled "Who?," Woodward includes the Ramseys as well, citing Patsy alone; Patsy aided by John; and Burke, with his parents covering up for him. And once again, as we've seen so often, the possibility that John could have acted on his own, which was in fact the initial theory of the investigation, is never considered. She is satisfied with the fact that no pornography was ever found on John's computer and there was no evidence of any form of sexual deviation in his past. On that basis, she has no problem ruling him out. Incredible. Woodward never mentions the fact that clear signs of prior sexual abuse were found by a panel of pediatric experts. (See CC's guest post, Evidence of Chronic Sexual Abuse)

Oh, and as far as the movie quotations in the ransom note are concerned, she points out that Patsy and John never went to the movies, and never rented any movies other than typical children's fare. In view of John's many "business trips" to destinations all over the world, the possibility of his having viewed countless films while in flight or in a hotel room -- including pornography, by the way -- never occurs to her.

Especially intriguing is an appendix titled "Epilogue I," where she quotes from Commander Mark Beckner's Reddit interview of Feb., 2015. I give her credit for including statements that make his deep suspicion of "the Ramseys" quite clear. For every such statement, she provides an "Author's Comment" and sometimes a segment labeled "Perspective" as refutation. Literally every one of Beckner's responses is consistent with his view that he does not accept the intruder theory and sees the note as part of an effort to stage a fake kidnapping. Especially significant is what he has to say about the DNA evidence:
Reddit Participant: Can you comment on the usefulness of the new DNA testing that apparently exonerated the parents? I read Foreign Faction by James Kolar, and he asserts that the DNA in no way exonerates them … I’d be very interested to see a rebuttal, if there is one.” 
Beckner: Sorry, I can’t provide the rebuttal, as I agree with Jim Kolar. Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. (Kindle Locations 5946-5950)
A few days after this interview, Beckner issued an apology of sorts, claiming that he didn't realize this interview was being widely disseminated, and retracting what he had said about the DNA evidence -- in fact doing a complete about-face:
These answers about DNA are what Beckner retracted in the Daily Camera three days after his online interview session, as discussed earlier in this epilogue. Referring to the DNA findings he told the Daily Camera, “In my opinion, at this point, that’s your suspect.” Then, Beckner deleted his online interview including questions and answers. (Kindle Locations 5953-5956)
Given Lin Wood's very frank confession, while being interviewed for the Dr. Phil show, that he had threatened DA Mary Lacy with a lawsuit unless she exonerated the Ramseys, it's not difficult to surmise that a similar threat was leveled at Beckner. I can see no other explanation for his sudden change of mind on a topic so central to the case.
----------------------------------------
To Woodward's credit she has obviously worked very hard to examine and evaluate a great many aspects of this case and there can be no doubt regarding her sincerity. She should also be given credit for airing all sides of the debate and providing valuable copies of hitherto unseen police reports and other material.

Nevertheless, hers is a thoroughly biased view and, as I've demonstrated, in her effort to exonerate the Ramseys, she repeats a great many erroneous reports and refers to much outdated "evidence," accounted for many years ago -- yet consistently fails to reference evidence and findings that might tend to implicate her "clients." While much in her book is useful, it's disturbing to see so much misinformation and misdirection being fed to the public once again. Readers new to the case should take everything in this book with a huge grain of salt, and consult other sources before jumping to conclusions.

Now for some highlights, including some surprises, that could make a difference in how we view this case:

Woodward alleges that a police report concluded that JonBenet partook of fruit cocktail, not simply pineapple, on the night of her death. If confirmed, this could make a huge difference to the theory presented in the CBS special -- and I wonder if the investigators will respond.

Woodward quotes a report confirming that housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh knew nothing about any broken window, but goes a bit farther, noting that her husband allegedly washed all the windows in the house around Thanksgiving. Since he would certainly have noticed a broken window, this puts yet another nail in the coffin of John's unlikely story about breaking the window months prior to the night of the crime. Interestingly, Woodward has nothing to say about the implications of the husband's window washing. John is so totally off her radar that she doesn't seem capable of processing anything that casts doubt on his innocence.

Linda Arndt's report, reproduced for the first time in an Appendix, contains no reference to any statement by John regarding what he supposedly saw in the basement on the morning after the crime, when he claims to have seen the basement window open with a suitcase flush against the wall beneath it. Since Arndt's report is almost compulsively detailed, it's hard to imagine how she could have missed such an important finding. Yet, in an interview with Katie Couric, he claims that he did give that information to Arndt, and she ignored him. Somebody lied.

According to Woodward, a neighbor found a latex glove in her garbage and had no idea how it got there. While the glove was apparently never processed by forensics, it does suggest the possibility that it could have been discarded by John while he went AWOL from Arndt on the morning after the crime. Other items could also have been discarded in neighbor's garbage cans during that time.

153 comments:

  1. Why did John run for public office? Did he run on the platform that he wanted to catch child murderers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is something very strange and very wrong here. A child is found dead in a family home, there is no evidence of an intruder, clear evidence of staging, and the only person NOT being suspected is the adult male of the household.

    There is a need to step back from the case, forget its notoriety, forget its alleged complexity, and go back to basics and first principles.

    Which I think is what Doc has done.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doc - it seems that each time we think we have some solid evidence in this case, some other expert or report surfaces seeming to contradict what we thought we knew. This is why your approach - logical inferences based on definite facts - makes more and more sense to me.

    Then you have commenters like Leigh Too whose approach seems to be very similar to the Christian 'God of the Gaps' approach: wherever anything so-far unexplained crops up they excitedly claim 'intruder evidence!' Like with the flashlight, the tape, the palm print etc. As more and more gaps are closed with Ramsey-linked facts their argument dwindles more and more, and they are forced to fall back on insanely speculative nonsense like:

    The kidnapper DID bring a ransom note with him, but was so bored he wrote another using materials found in the house! Or, US involvement in Latin American political affairs was a thing - google it! Or, there is no evidence of prior sexual abuse because she still had a hymen - or some of it, anyway!

    But the problem I have is that logical inferences based on known facts aren't going to close the deal, as I'm sure you agree. Should they form the basis of a new investigation? Nothing else has worked, so why not?

    And maybe they will: Thomas went after Patsy over the bed-wetting motive, which went nowhere. Now Clemente and Kolar are targeting Grinning Burke, and I guess that will be the fashionable solution for a year or less. And that will be two out of three suspects done. Which will leave Ruled-Out John as the last man standing.

    His time will come.

    PS - Doc, us Brits will start getting our grammar right when you tell your fellow colonials that there is no such word as 'alot' - dear American friends, it's 'a lot'. You don't do that with any other word, so why 'lot'? You don't say 'apineapple' or 'agarrote', so why 'alot'? Do any of you ever write 'alittle'?

    Best wishes from your defeated former overlords :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The very idea that an intruder would be so unperturbed in regards to being caught that he actually sticks around so long, he "gets bored", thus decides to rewrite his ransom note to kill time, is the most patently absurd theory I've come across on this site - which is certainly saying "a lot". (This "alot" business irks me also. It definitely appears to be an American thing. I've never encountered it's use here in Aus)

      Delete
    2. I have noticed that with UK and Aussie media reports they would use the plural of pineapple, as in "a bowl of pineapples found in the kitchen" whereas the US we don't (with that pesky bowl of pineapple pieces denied by all that Burke said may look like cereal) at least when " a lot" is spoken I understand it clearly. It's the "chillren" and "axed" and "where you was" that is always offensive to my ears (Southern US here, Roll Tide!)

      Delete
    3. I have noticed that with UK and Aussie media reports they would use the plural of pineapple, as in "a bowl of pineapples found in the kitchen" whereas the US we don't (with that pesky bowl of pineapple pieces denied by all that Burke said may look like cereal) at least when " a lot" is spoken I understand it clearly. It's the "chillren" and "axed" and "where you was" that is always offensive to my ears (Southern US here, Roll Tide!)

      Delete
    4. Oops, sorry for double post, can't edit. The captcha is hanging me up

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

      Delete
    6. "But the problem I have is that logical inferences based on known facts aren't going to close the deal, as I'm sure you agree. Should they form the basis of a new investigation?"

      Yes, that is my hope. If someone could get to the "experts" who ruled John out and confront them with the absurdity of that conclusion, and someone could persuade the authorities to permit a careful inspection of the broken window glass, I think it would be possible to go forward with an indictment.

      Delete
    7. Doc,

      I've given the window glass a lot of thought and I believe with JR claiming that he MIGHT have broken the glass the previous summer gave him an out either way. If it was freshly broken, then the IDI theory could possibly hold true and if it had been broken but not repaired since the summer, then he was just a negligent parent in not getting it fixed and securing his home.

      EG

      Delete
    8. Well, this is why John vacillated on that point, imo. He was hoping they might not notice the break was fresh, in which case they'd believe him. But he knew it was, so he gave himself an out, "not recalling" whether it had been repaired or not.

      However: if the break was fresh (as I feel sure it was), then his story about breaking in earlier would have been irrelevant. And he'd have been back to square one, needing to explain how an intruder could have passed through that window without leaving any trace and without disturbing the two spider webs. His staging would have been obvious and he'd have been done for.

      I wonder if he anticipated that the investigators would have been so dense as to accept his story and never put two and two together. Lucky John!

      Delete
    9. Doc,

      Good point, and I hadn't thought of that. It wasn't just the broken glass, it was the undisturbed webs, etc. I am sure he knew the window would become key, as it may have been the entry point.

      I can't help but wonder why the window evidence wasn't enough to bring this to trial, if in fact, it was a fresh break. That wouldn't be inconclusive. Although Lou Smit seemed to think the intruder entered through that window. Did he not see the spider webs?

      EG

      Delete
    10. I see John's phony window story as the smoking gun in this case. No matter how you interpret all the rest, his story is clearly a fabrication, and since it relates to that broken window it points very clearly to the staging of a break-in at that window.

      The problem is that as soon as you get to the UNstaging part, eyes begin to roll. The notion that this scenario was concocted because the original plan failed is too complex for most people to get their heads around. I think this is what happened to the investigators, they just could not understand why John would want to undo his own staging if he had in fact broken the window on the night of the crime.

      In a way, the failure of his plan worked out for him better than the original plan might have, because things became so complicated and so confusing.

      Nevertheless, the police should have caught him out on this obvious lie, and that should have forced them to figure it out.

      Delete
  4. And more importantly, why did Patsy have a paintbrush tote? Did she have any pretensions towards being an artist? If so, can we see any of her work anywhere online?

    OK - I'm done. It's Saturday morning, America is still in bed, I'm bored. Think I'll go write a ransom note or something....

    ReplyDelete
  5. DocG, do you mean forearm hair rather than underarm hair? Since Patsy was in former pageants where the women shaved their arm pit hair, I would think she would continue with that habit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most American women shave their armpits as part of regular grooming -- it is as common as brushing one's teeth. (At least this is the case where I'm from -- Northeast U.S.)

      Delete
    2. Right, at least for me as well, since I was 13. But DocG has it as underarm. Which doesn't seem commonplace for a woman who also wore full makeup. But it was winter, so she may have left some areas more natural.

      Delete
    3. Underarm is what was reported.

      Delete
    4. DocG I'm new here and have sped read your book and the main parts of this blog. A pleasure. Please consider this query: How far was the "kernel" of glass found by White that fateful morning on top of the suitcase fleshed out? For various reasons that you'd agree with, including due to JR's comment that the "suitcase shouldn't be there" which you can expand on for those not as quick on the uptick as you, the kernel of glass would have been a leftover from a hasty clean-up during the "unstaging" of the window. One little kernel of glass does it for me, and would not be explainable by JR if White were to be believed that he found it on the suitcase and put it on the window sill (which wasn't wise in itself was it?). In passing, I'd betcha the golf bag held some broken glass, either in the bottom of the main tube, below the Skakel 6-iron if you get the drift, or within one or more (thinly distributed throughout) of the zippered golf bag compartments. JR wanted that bag back. How well was it shaken out by BPD?

      Delete
    5. White reported placing some pieces of glass on the window sill. No reason to place anything on the suitcase. And if the glass had been broken months earlier, then there'd be no reason for a sliver of glass to be sitting on that suitcase. I think John could have used the suitcase to boost himself up when breaking the glass on the night of the crime. That's the only way I can think of that a sliver of glass could have found itself on the top of that suitcase.

      The golf bag isn't an issue, I don't think. Anything taken from the home would have been carefully checked beforehand I'm sure.

      Delete
    6. I have dropped something out or missed it here - again, why was the glass cleaned up after John broke it? I have read here that Patsy in one of her white lies may have cleaned up the glass. Why not leave the glass there to point to an intruder? And also if JR had broken the glass from the inside by stepping up on the suitcase, wouldn't the glass have fallen on the outside?

      Delete
    7. Patsy claimed she cleaned up the glass after John broke in the previous summer. But she included Linda the housekeeper in her story, and Linda has denied knowing anything about that. If Patsy's story is true then John's story is true. But that would make a liar out of Linda. And besides John's story is clearly a fabrication. So Patsy's story is not true. However, why would Patsy bring Linda into her story if she were consciously lying and knew very well that Linda would expose the lie? Which is why I think this was an implanted memory, aka gaslighting -- implanted by John to support his feeble fairy tale.

      And yes, I think John cleaned up the glass shortly after Patsy called 911. Because his staging had been incomplete and he had no choice but to make up a story about breaking in earlier. And hence: the glass had to go. Get it????

      I know I know it's confusing. Which is why the Kops didn't get it either and still haven't gotten it.

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

      Delete
    9. If John had time to clean up a bunch of glass wouldn't he have time to finish the staging? Where did the glass go after he cleaned it up?

      Delete
  6. I wonder if Woodward's book mentions the family minister called to the home that day. Apparently he told police that John said "he didn't mean to do it" referring to another person, not himself. Maybe excited utterance. It is mentioned on the FFJ site in 2012 in regards to the Kolar book.
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10148-Sexual-Behavior-Problems-(SBP)-from-James-Kolar-s-book-about-Ramsey-case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I did a quick search and there is no reference to that. However, Woodward's book conveniently leaves out a lot of information that would direct attention to the family. It's obvious that she wrote the book along with JR. There are many new pictures of JB and the family that have a copyright notation below for John Ramsey. Like I said, I have not finished reading it yet, but am taking notes as I go along. There are inconsistencies in the statements made by Woodward from one part of the book to another. I haven't bought into any theory yet, so I am trying to read it with an open mind. So far, it is very biased. She will criticize even the smallest inconsistencies in statements made by various people, to the point of ridiculousness, and conveniently leaves out important details.

      Delete
  7. Well the HSN show was nothing more than a regurgitation of events over the last 20 years. Nothing new. This case will never be solved in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, I think you're right. After reading that the eldest son of John's, when asked by LE what punishment the person who bludgeoned his little half sister should get, his reply was "forgiveness". Not - throw the book at them, I hope they fry, life sentence. This for a "stranger"? An "intruder?" that deserves forgiveness.
      The news link no longer works, but the quote from the paper is here
      http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7777-quot-Forgiveness-quot

      Delete
    2. Paula Wodward has to be THE worst journalist of all time. I hate even reading anything she writes because I know much of it will be wrong. There were quite a few clips of the Ramseys speaking and at JBR's funeral which I had not seen before, 1 of surprisingly, 1 of JR kind of crying. The show claimed PR's fingerprint was on the spoon in the pineapple, that was new. No mention of fruit cocktail, which is odd since I read here that Woodward made that claim. Her claim that Burke Ramsey had HiTek boots was true via BR himself. I have read conflicting reports about the nail clippings so I am not sure what is true amd what is not, just like everything else in this case. My thoughts after watching this show are this, me being an amateur sleuth for many years, is all information I get from all the cases I have studied this bad ? Have I wrongfully convicted or exonerated 739 people in my head due to such misinformation ?! Secondly, due to Paula Woodward's misinformation and misdirection I feel that she may have committed JBR's murder and should be a leading suspect. If not she should surely be charged with a lesser charge for being so bad at what she does. Lol

      Delete
  8. The CNN special was more of the same. I was actually bored with it and turned the channel to our local high school football game. But they aired it twice so I did turn back the channel and watched it through the end the second time. They went over all the same clues, suspects, theories, etc. It was as if they just lifted segments from the other recent shows and put them in their own show. They did not go into any details about anything.

    However, the one thing I did specifically notice was John's comment about calling 911. After seeing Patsy's comment about it in the A & E special (I think that was the show) where she very clearly stated, "I told him I was going to call 911 and he said OK", John said last night, "I told her to call 911." My first thought was that he's been reading Doc's theory on this blog and knows he has to contradict the fact that it was actually Patsy who decided to make that call. I suppose some would say that Patsy could have lied about that, but I agree with Doc. If it WAS John's idea to call, I believe he would have made that call himself.

    They also had a segment where they talked about the RN and how John was almost immediately "ruled out." But they also said that Patsy's handwriting really didn't look anything like the writing of the note, and they went on to say that, according to handwriting experts, it is actually very difficult to disguise your own handwriting. If that is true, I am astounded that they didn't go back and look at more handwriting samples from John or the possibility that he copied a font, as you have suggested.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the recaps. I wonder if experts have ever asked for toe writing samples? Would certainly look nothing like a dominant or non-dominant hand sample. Or even writing with your mouth. Or by putting the pen between different fingers, or thumbs only. Or taping the pen to a yardstick. Let us know if Woodward mentions in her book (that Thomas did and later Kolar) about the hidden vcr in the basement, with spy cams in the basement,JonBenet's room and such. Put there by the family's dream team.if only someone thought to have that installed prior to her assault and death.

      Delete
  9. DocG,

    One of the focuses of the CNN special was Smit's assertion that JBR had defensive wounds around the ligature, that she must have been conscious at the time it was applied and trying to pull at it.

    There was also another special on HLN last night, which I assume is why there is a flurry of new activity on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good morning!

    I watched the HLN special last night and the only thing I noticed that I hadn't noticed before, was that in almost every interview that PR and JR gave, JR interrupted PR constantly, as if he was afraid she might slip and say something she shouldn't. He seemed to be on his guard, watching her every word and in one of the early interviews,(I believe it was their first one on CNN) he almost looked annoyed.

    As far as JR's older son, a witness said they saw him walking towards the Ramsey home on Christmas Day or night, but then it was proven that he was in Atlanta with his mother. There is just too many conflicting statements, etc with this case.

    I don't know if anyone stayed up to watch the episodes that came on afterwards. One was about a married couple who spent 5 years in jail, convicted of killing their daughter. When the father found the daughter she told him that the dogs did it. When the autopsy was done, the pathologist said the open wound she sustained on her leg was too perfect, as if it had been cut, not consistent with a dog bite. Well, later on the original pictures turned up and the opening was indeed, jagged, but the surgeon, in trying to save the girls life, had cleaned out the wound, making it perfectly squared off on the edges. Noone told the pathologist evidently, and those parents spent 5 years in jail for something they didn't do. They didn't have money, power or position, therefore they were convicted and jailed. Is it any wonder the Ramsey's lawyered up? When you see crap like that going on, it's scary because it could happen to any one of us.

    I happen to believe the Ramsey's are guilty, but without evidence to prove it, the case will remain as it is. Unsolved.

    EG

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

      Delete
    2. Hi Inquisitve,

      I agree that JR should not have been ruled out. I don't think anyone that was in that house on that night should be ruled out at all.

      At the same time are we to believe JR was sexually abusing her and she wouldn't tell anyone? It works both ways. She told the gardener that she missed her father very much. Would a child miss an abusive parent? Are we to believe that JR was sexually molesting his daughter, and then one night went crazy and killed her? It's all so difficult to believe, especially with no prior history reported anywhere from anyone.

      I don't think PR or JR would cover this up for anyone except their son, BR. IF that's what happened. I don't know, but the only one in that house with a history of playing doctor, smearing feces, hitting his sister with a golf club was BR. Not that it adds up to murder, but he can't be ruled out either.

      EG

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

      Delete
    4. Where do you find the history of playing doctor? The golf club thing was most likely an accident, as Burke described it. Judith Phillips is an unreliable witness times ten. She came to hate Patsy and her husband wrote a book alleging that Patsy killed her daughter and wrote the note. What she said about Burke was hearsay in any case.

      As as for smearing feces, the first incident happened when Patsy was undergoing chemo and Burke would have been extremely stressed. The feces in the candy was found in JBR's room and most likely was hers. It's been sourced to Burke purely on the basis of confirmation bias, nothing more.

      Delete
    5. Hey, Doc. Just curious what makes the feces in the candy most likely to belong to JBR?

      Delete
    6. Doc,

      I read it recently, either an excerpt from Kolar's book or something Steve Thomas said. I will try and find where I read it. They mentioned playing doctor and I was surprised because I hadn't seen that anywhere before.

      EG

      Delete
    7. Because it was found in her room. Duh. If she saw some strange feces sitting in her box of candy she'd have thrown a fit. Wouldn't you?

      The feces could be related to the chronic sexual abuse for all we know, a message to whomever gave her that candy.

      I see no reason to assume it originated with Burke. It was never tested. If this were something he had done she would certainly have complained about it.

      Delete
    8. Not if it was done that night, and she was asleep initially so sayeth the parents, and when she eventually was awake or attacked JonBenet may have never even seen the candy with the extra added to it. Since the family claimed an intruder and hired a PI shortly after, should have asked that be tested in case it was from the intruder. So since the family did not, makes me think they know it at least originated from a family member. Police reports also found pajama bottoms in her room, too large for her with feces in them. If they were there before they left for dinner at the Whites wouldn't Patsy likely see/smell that and toss it in the washer before leaving? And it can't be blamed on the little dog, as reports were the dog was no longer living with the Ramseys.

      Delete
    9. @Doc, I don't think my question really warrants a response of, "duh." Especially, when the reason you provide is just an assumption. I actually think the opposite is more likely--that it wasn't hers. Who knows if she was ever even aware of it being there?

      What I really don't understand is why something like this wasn't fully investigated. While it wouldn't have determined JB's killer, it might have offered some insight into the behavior of someone living in that house.

      Delete
    10. What you call my "assumption" is actually what is called a "null hypothesis." The real assumption (yours) is that it originated with Burke. If you want to make that argument you need to provide evidence for it. There is no need for me to provide evidence because the null hypothesis requires no evidence. For example, the notion that my wristwatch belongs to me is a null hypothesis. I don't need to prove it. But if someone wants to accuse me of stealing it, then the burden of proof is on that person.

      Delete
    11. @Doc, I fully admit that what I think is just an assumption. If investigators didn't test the feces to see who it belonged to, there is no way to prove or disprove either scenario.

      Delete
    12. I agree HKH. The feces could have easily been either child's. Too bad it wasn't tested!

      Also to the person asking why jb's underwear was changed and she was wiped down... maybe she wet the bed??

      Delete
  11. One of the inconsistencies in Woodward's book (I'm reading it on Kindle so I'm showing the location in the book):

    Loc 360 -- "John quickly rushed through the house, haphazardly checking for anything— something— while Patsy finished placing the 911 call and proceeded to call family and friends to come help them."

    Loc 1409 -- The Ramseys have said Patsy did not immediately call police when she found the ransom note and her daughter missing. She first called out for John. Together they checked their daughter’s room and then went to check on their son, Burke. According to John, he was then on the floor in the kitchen with the ransom note spread out before him while Patsy placed the 911 call."

    I'm sure we can all pick that apart, but what is fascinating to me is that they both get up at 5:25/5:30 and the 911 call is made at 5:52. So in 20ish minutes Patsy gets dressed and puts her makeup on, meanders in the laundry area outside of JB's room, goes down the spiral stairs, finds the note, reads the first few sentences, calls out for John, checks JB's room, checks Burkes room, has a conversation with John about whether or not to call 911, etc. First of all no woman can get dressed (even wearing the same clothes as the day before) and put her makeup on, and do all of the things Patsy says she did in that short amount of time. I'm not saying PDI, but I am saying that she was up a lot earlier than she said she was The timeline doesn't fit.


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

      Delete
    2. I don't think any of the Ramsey's slept that night. I still think the GJ got it right. Those parents were negligent, which led to her death.

      I still don't understand how your youngest child's bedroom is the furthest away from yours, especially that she had a bed wetting problem and you knew she woke up during the night. That's a question I would've asked them FIRST. To me, that suggests they wanted her in a wing of the house by herself. Why?

      EG

      Delete
    3. Hi EG, as far as the layout of the house, Mr. and Mrs. slept upstairs in the "point" of the Tudor house, what looked to me like a converted attic to master bedroom. It was the only bedroom on the top floor, next floor down were the children's bedrooms, I'm guessing with their own bathrooms. This house was a mansion. Next floor down was kitchen/diningroom/sunroom/livingroom, etc. and of course the bottom of the house was the trainroom, wine cellar, storage areas. The house was tall as Tudors are, but also very wide, huge expansive rooms such as the sunroom. I dont think it illogical to have the Ramsey's sleeping in the master bedroom on the top floor. They had other houses too, perhaps where a floor layout would be different, but in this particular Tudor style house and with their children no longer little babies where crying would need to be heard and paid attention to they would not have to had their bedroom on the same floor.

      Delete
    4. Inquisitive,

      Yes, I understood the layout of the house and it was enormous. And I guess they wanted the Master bedroom on the top floor to be theirs which is fine. JR's study was up there too which I am sure could've been used, and probably was used as a nursery. I also learned last night from the HLN show, that JBR had asthma. Another reason you wouldn't want your child to be far away from you during the night, not to mention bed wetting, and just normal nightly happenings when you have young children. I also wouldn't want my children to be able to go downstairs to the kitchen, etc while I was sound asleep on an upper floor. I'd want to be able to hear them getting up and walking around and I'd want an intruder to have to pass by my floor before getting to my children.

      Maybe I was just an overprotective mother, OR living in a huge city made me paranoid. *L*

      EG

      Delete
    5. Patsy had make up on from the day before and put the prior days clothes on because she still needed to shower and get ready.. you wouldnt put those clothes on before a shower..She prolly didnt even know what she would wear that day...

      Delete
    6. so you are saying between early in the morning and the time your plane leaves which is still early you want to put on makeup and get dressed only to take it off and take a shower? Who does that?

      Delete
    7. EG, those kids weren't nursery-aged. And I don't think just down a few stairs is too far away. Boulder was only one of their homes as well. Others may have had all of the bedrooms on the same floor. They lived in Atlanta while the kids were small.

      Delete
    8. That house had a full basement though. And JR could have taken JB out of her bed and taken down there and no one would hear anything.

      Delete
    9. She didnt put on make up.. it was left over from the day before.. she just grabbed clothes that were their till she could shower and get ready..

      Delete
    10. We lived in a 2 story when i was about 8-9,, we wwre about as far away.. thats the way it is in a 2 story house.. Even my one story, split plan is near as far away between bedrooms.. at opposite ends of the house

      Delete
    11. Leigh 12:26, Your just kidding around, right?

      Delete
    12. About what.. putting n yesterdays clothes for an hour.. I have done it..

      Delete
    13. Patsy told the detective that she often wore the same clothes two days in a row. She said she changed her underwear but put on those same clothes.

      I don't believe it. She didn't undress from the day before. Anyone notice if JR was in the same clothes or not?

      EG

      Delete
    14. Everybody wears their clothes more than once Jesus.. do you wash your jeans with every wear.. Maybe they we particularly comfortable.. or her favs.. or she would shower in Michigan.. who knows but wearing the same clothes for 2 days I do regularly..

      Delete
    15. Inquisitive,

      JBR's room was 80 something feet and one floor down from PR and JR's room. BR's was just a few steps away from their room but not JBR's. Her room was in a completely other wing of the house.

      That just doesn't make sense to me at all.

      EG

      Delete
    16. And isnt going to work.. that would be different..

      Delete
    17. JB's room was closet to them.. and the stairs..first one off

      http://extras.denverpost.com/news/2ndfloor.gif

      Delete
    18. And her friends said she would never do that (wear the same clothes two days in a row). She also made it a point (after the murder) to wear a blue suit two days in a row (so obvious) when she knew she was going to be caught on camera.

      Leigh, you may have well provided Patsy with an excuse as to why she had the same clothes on...too bad she didn't think about saying that before stating otherwise in her police interviews.

      Delete
    19. I don't find it odd that Patsy wore same clothes as the night before. Many women have outfits which are their favorites, and perhaps all of hers were already packed. Since she wasn't going to see anyone from the previous night (other than her family, I assume) what's the big deal with wearing the same outfit? I don't think Patsy was a sweatpants kind of woman. I remember reading that she would wear heels just to run to the grocery store. So, it makes sense to me that she would want to look nice for the flight, but not be concerned that someone would see her wearing the same outfit two days in a row.

      Delete
    20. LOGIC (my specialty): If Patsy had been up all night doing all the things she's been accused of doing, her outfit would have been a total mess and she would certainly have showered and changed. That's what John did.

      Delete
    21. Leigh Too, Patsy's make up was most certainly not from the previous day. She said in her statement - in no uncertain terms - that she awoke, put on her make up, then went downstairs to make coffee where she "found the note on a rung of the spiral staircase." Again, you are making guesses and presenting them as fact. Perhaps you are intentionally trying to muddy the waters, it certainly seems that way.
      You sure you're not working for John Ramsey? ;)

      Delete
    22. I wish I was.. but what difference does it make if she puts on make-up.. if she hasnt found the note yet..

      Delete
    23. Doesn't take Jan Łukasiewicz to say Steve Thomas goofed. Wish I could be linked to a treatment of what John wore before (aka during) and after the night of the crime.

      Delete
    24. If I woke up at 5:30 I could easily get dressed in clothes I had laid out from the night before, fix my hair, and put on makeup in 15 minutes tops. I'm not saying patsy is innocent but you can't base guilt off of assuming that time line didn't work.

      Delete
  12. Handwriting analysis is effective in determining forgeries, but not so much in analyzing long rambling ransom notes. You have to remember, JR hired his own handwriting analysts who remarkable ruled him out! Duh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same as the Lie Detector Tests they took privately and passed.
      EG

      Delete
    2. Other people they tested were a closer match than Patsy

      Delete
  13. Ahh yeah I was wondering how they passed those polygraphs with flying colors

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First was inconclusive so they took another and all passed

      Delete
    2. Yep, because the second one was carefully scripted with questions that were vague that allowed for misleading answers so that they would pass. If they passed so easily then why not submit to an FBI polygraph or one by the police? Polygraphs measure galvanic skin response and heartrate. Not whether your answer is plausible or not.

      Delete
    3. Once the police illegally detained JB's body.. they were hip to what the cops were about.

      Delete
    4. @Leigh Too, what makes you say the police illegally detained JB's body?

      Delete
    5. They refused to release the body which is illegal, delaying the funeral, till they agreed to be interviewed.. which they are not required to do..

      Delete
  14. They didn't, Pro Cams. They refused to allow the police or the FBI to give the polygraphs so that left their own hand selected polygrapher who could only ask certain questions, and even answers to those questions showed deception only hey, it wasn't published for all of us lay people out here poking around in the dark wanting Justice for a little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We should all be outraged, and we are. Lady Justice has a different set of blinders on when it comes to wealth, celebrity and power. We're seeing that now in government. It's always been so. There are of course good public defenders, but experts are not cheap. Look at all O.J. was able to buy. Joe Schmo can't afford handwriting analysts, forensic analysts, DNA experts, and the like. About all someone with no means is able to do is plea bargain. So I would like to see the system changed for sure, so that people of little means get a FAIR trial, as in equal to what someone with much means is able to afford. How? Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with that .. all people should be treated as the Ramseys were.. That should be the standard.. not the exception.

      Delete
    2. Treated yes, but the difference here is that money, prestige and influence was able to lawyer up effectively,hire a PR firm, go on cable television and pitch their case and stay away from police questioning by virtue of said lawyers. Not many of us have that kind of influence as we don't have the means to buy it.

      Delete
    3. Never talk to police.. Any lawyer or ex cop will tell you that. Dont trust them..You all best learn that..just in case.. you never know.

      Delete
    4. All the lawyers did was become proactive,, passed out leaflets..posters, a tip line.. and a reward but little good that was.. The Globe had a 1 million dollar reward offered.. to no avail.

      Delete
  16. It would be helpful too, if what we're talking about is overhauling the legal/justice system, is better trained investigators and interviewers. Do we even now think that cable shows such as CNN/HLN, A&E, ID Investigate and Dr. Phil and CBS are capable of doing or running a good thorough investigation? Obviously not, killer still at large. And living large.

    ReplyDelete
  17. They were offered help by experienced people and refused it..

    ReplyDelete
  18. And the FBI should have stayed on the case as the foreign faction may have been true.. could have helped a lot with the whole case in general,,

    ReplyDelete
  19. Leigh Too have you read DocG's blog from start 2012? to finish before clinging steadfastly to your IDI scenario? Because I have. Certainly you can read it all and then still believe in your own scenario, but I suggest you read it since you are posting here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. WHy., is he God... have info that no one else has.. ?

    ReplyDelete
  21. NO theory in this case is provable.. thats why we have so many different ones...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leigh I see I'm talking to a fixed in concrete mind and so this is my last comment to you. Nothing personal, I just would prefer a rational discussion and not have ideas thrown out there with no backing them up. So yes, you should read the blog owners site we are blogging on. You don't have to agree with him. But since he put together his logical explanation don't you think you at least owe him the courtesy since you are a guest on his blog to read his theory, which isn't just a theory by the way, but logical inference. And that's all I'm going to say. Any more and I'm just arguing for the sake of it and that's not what I'm about.

      Delete
  22. DocG -- In Woodward's book (I believe somewhere in the prologue) she mentions, as though she is talking to the killer, something about the souvenir he took. Do you think it is the brush end of the paintbrush that she is referring to, or something else the police are keeping quiet, or just speculation on her part?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be anything. If it was significant I think she'd have identified it.

      Delete
  23. DocG - Also in Woodwards' book the author writes that John received a hang-up call the morning of the murder. I don't recall reading that anywhere previously. What do you know about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that came while they were all expecting the "kidnapper" to call. And no I don't know anything about it.

      Delete
  24. Don't see the point in books or documentaries that continue to show that guy in 2006 that confessed to the murder. What is the point? He clearly had nothing to do with it, its just a part of the history that they focus too much on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was truly a bizarre development that no one anticipated. What struck me is how quickly the DA dropped him once his DNA was tested and didn't match. That tells you something about the mentality of that woman. All that interested her was the DNA.

      Delete
    2. Doc, it's because the acronym DNA has magic properties, it's foolproof crimebusting magic, and once any DNA is found anywhere in the vicinity of a crime then that's all we really need to solve the crime. Magic DNA science! I know this is true because I've seen it on the TV.

      Delete
  25. The special was a waste of time. It is an absolute travesty that Doc hasn't been interviewed yet. Lou Smit's theory was hogwash. I do not understand why it's continued to be brought up.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Okay DocG I've read your July 22, 2012 scenario again as to how John did this and pulled it off. This is what prompted me to keep reading and then signing up for this blog a few weeks ago. This is the scenario that makes the most sense to me. And after I re read it I see that John may have thought leaving the glass on the floor would look staged. He had to do some re-staging during that time in the morning when he disappeared for a while. Wow, was he lucky. He also would have known that that cellar door was never entered, and the top bolt of it would for sure keep most people from entering. Even the cops went down there and didn't go in. Good place to hide a body. John also was lucky in that other people like Lou Smit bought his staging hook line and sinker. All John had to do was misdirect a few times - like he broke in earlier, the window was broken, that's how an intruder could have unlatched the window and come in, and the suitcase that he left under the window was how the intruder boosted himself up and got back out. Then he could further misdirect by suggesting that he didn't remember if it had been repaired (the window) or who cleaned up the glass. HE cleaned up the glass. He probably placed the suitcase under the window that morning during his disappearing time. All those people surrounding Patsy was the distraction he needed to keep Patsy and others from monitoring where he went during that time. He's damn lucky Fleet didn't see much of anything before John had a chance to do more staging. I wonder if Fleet noticed there was no suitcase under the window prior to John going downstairs on his own. I'll have to re read the timeline now as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He probably placed the suitcase under the window that morning during his disappearing time"
      I think so too, and trying to follow Doc's lead, feel it may suggest that before this the suitcase was in the trunk with JonBenet's body.

      Delete
  27. Okay, I checked the time line again. At 6:06 a.m. Fleet White searched the basement. He said the hall light and basement light was on. He said he saw a suitcase and a shard of glass on the floor. He also looked around the train room and also the wine cellar room but didn't see anything as it was pitch dark in there. So Fleet did have a good look around. John would still be able to go back downstairs around 10 a.m. and tie up some loose ends, however this time line suggests that there was no glass to clean up other than the glass shard that someone said here Fleet placed on the suitcase. Did Fleet do that or did someone here assume he did that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel sure John was down there before Fleet arrived. He said he found the window open and closed it. Fleet reported seeing the window closed. He also didn't find much glass, so John must have been down there beforehand to clean it up. He'd have been in a huge rush I'm sure so he wasn't able to completely unstage. Lucky for him the Keystone Kops didn't notice -- or care.

      Delete
    2. John had been very very busy all night.

      Delete
  28. Isn't it strange that you'd go to check the basement, and yet not ask where the light is in that wine cellar? If it was pitch black, how could FW have checked the room correctly?

    That always seemed strange to me. And I think I read that FW picked up a piece of glass and put it either on the window or on the suitcase, I can't remember exactly what he said.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @EG, I remember reading something someone wrote here, which made a lot of sense to me. (I'm sorry, I can't remember who wrote it.) Basically, what they said was at that point, no one was looking for a body. I believe they said, they were looking for a point of entry. If FW knew there was no way to enter the house through the wine cellar, I can understand why he wouldn't have checked it thoroughly.

      Delete
    2. I believe that John said that.. as to why he didnt look in the wine cellar the first time..

      Delete
  29. Im just paraphrasing here: PRs comment in an interview, " I don't think I could go on without Burke." The older half brother of JBR and BR when asked what should happen to the killer if he's caught-"He should be forgiven." The Ramsey's minister who told the police JR told him " He didn't mean to do it." JRs statement on TV that the killer should be forgiven. Burke smiling and laughing throughout the Dr. Phil interview, except when Dr Phil said they were going to show the interview with the psychologist- then he had a look of fear and panic. So this is a scenario of either BDI or JR convinced all the family and friends that BDI. Burke (and I assume all the relatives and family friends) went before the GJ, we don't know what they said or how Burke came across to them, we only know their recommendations. Which we can't figure out what they mean without the rest of the document.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First post. Great site. I doubt Burke testified at a GJ proceeding. The GJ only hears the case from the prosecutors side. The prosecutor has an obligation to present exculpatory evidence but that is all. Hence the saying that you can indite a ham sandwich.

      Delete
    2. The GJ should not even be considered here.. They were not sequestered and were exposed to the media hype and police leas for over a year.. and their pictures and names were published in the newspaper... What a joke.

      Delete
  30. So, I watched a video last night on the Pughs.. It said that the Pughs had duct tape that matched the tape on JB.. and they had a writing tablet that matched and admitted that it came from the Ramseys house.. they had cordage that the police took.. and they would have been able to get JB up with her crying and they had a key and they knew she liked pineapple and milk..and knew where the Burkes knife was .. they knew the layout of the house and I always had the feeling their house was bugged but this would explain that too..So..Hmmm..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that information Leighton. Amazing to me that you dispute almost all the evidence uncovered by the BPD as lies and smears, but seem to have no similar standards when you watch "a video" accusing some innocent people of complicity. Double standards much? What happened to this "I think you are a hateful person" outrage?

      One word, Leigh: hypocrisy.

      Ps, are the Pughs Hispanic, or did they hire a professional?

      Delete
    2. I have heard all the evidence the BPD has...only the evidence they leak/release, that points to the Ramseys..

      I dont know if Mervin is Hispanic or not.. I do think he was DNA tested tho.. But the DNA could also come from gloves that he used, that may have belonged to someone else..

      Delete
    3. Have NOT heard all...

      But the Hispanic DNA could have come from gloves manufacturer.. :)

      Delete
    4. Also... They were hard up for money.. Mervin had been in the basement before and knew of the wine cellar room.. .they knew the alarm was never set.. and also had felt tip pens in their house.. the nylon cordage found was wrapped around a stick..and someone said that 2 people wrote the note.. a man and woman.. And.. Detective Thomas never interviewed them, knowing all of this.

      Delete
    5. And they would have known about the $118,000

      Again, Det Thomas said he never interviewed them..

      Delete
    6. Just the facts,.. they had motive, opportunity and evidence in their home.. and no alibi,

      Delete
    7. The Pughs had no more than a high school education and lacked the verbal skills and vocabulary to have written the ransom note. They were in fact thoroughly investigated, including their DNA, which should go without saying. There is no evidence linking them to this crime, and no reason for them to leave a possibly incriminating hand-printed ransom note without actually kidnapping their victim. And while they might have had a reason to kill JonBenet because she could have identified them, there was no reason for them to hang around for 45 minutes or more before finishing her off with a "garrote."

      And while it's true that they needed money, what were they supposed to do with the ransom cash after they got hold of it? Any sign of new found wealth on their part would have looked extremely suspicious.

      Finally, ALL possible intruder theories collapse under the weight of John's preposterous window break-in story, clearly an attempt to misdirect from his own staging on the night of the crime.

      Delete
    8. I just listed the multitude of evidence pointing to them.. And one person aid they thought the note was written with a dictionary in hand.. And Linda only gave a 4 word handwriting sample.. And whether Johns story is preposterous or not is subjective..

      Delete
    9. And many things written in the note came from movies.. guy movies.

      Delete
  31. Good morning folks. I did a little research this morning on asberger's syndrome in children, violent tendencies and sexual aggression. As you all know Burke had AS, a subset of autism. My reading came from the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. The findings were at least from this source were that AS is primarily a social disorder. Inappropriate smiling, becoming fixated on one particular thing, no eye contact, withdrawal in many instances but no sexual aggression or violent tendencies. If sexual aggression and violent tendencies were observed they were usually a part of other disorders not associated with a AS, or showing up in teenagers. It is a lifelong disorder as evidenced by how Burke, to me, appeared on Dr. Phil. They are people who need a great deal of structure in early life but who's primary symptoms are being socially inept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had heard that Burke had AS so I repeated it. Then another blogger asked me if there was any proof he had been diagnosed with AS, and I had to admit I don't know. He clearly has something. I also saw on several different blogs that Burke had testified before the GJ, but not JR and PR. Does anyone know who testified before the GJ, or is that secret? Unless you get a Casey Anthony jury, seems to me there is enough circumstantial evidence to charge JR with what the GJ originally recommended- child abuse leading to JBRs death, and covering it up.

      Delete
  32. Matt Taibbi does that smile thing too.. No matter what he is talking about...

    ReplyDelete
  33. BGH I was just addressing those who called Burke a "little S" or think that he could have done the violent things to JB that night because he was a messed up violent little kid. He did (and probably does) have Asberger's Syndrome, that was reported on back on 1996 and those that want to suggest that he would have had violent tendencies or violent sexual tendencies toward his sister scientific Psychological research published from the Journal of Child Psychology on Asberger's Syndrome suggest otherwise. There is no correlation between AS and child sexual violence. He has an autistic disorder, which exhibits itself in ackward social behavior, withdrawing, fixating on one specific thing (like for instance his preoccupation with video games). I was also addressing his awkward behavior during the Dr. Phil interview - not as someone who has something to hide - or as someone who killed his sister but just can't remember it - but as someone who has grown up with the syndrome, studies indicate it's a lifelong disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  34. BGH I wasn't addressing your blog earlier in any event, I didn't know you mentioned AS. I simply wanted to provide research into the symptoms of AS for anyone else reading here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem, I was actually just wondering if it's a known fact he was diagnosed with AS

      Delete
    2. lol No The psychiatrist that interviewed him said he was a normal kid..

      Delete
    3. I'm curious too, is it confirmed that BR was diagnosed with AS by a psychiatrist who personally evaluated him?

      Delete
  35. When PR's friends say that she never wears the same clothes twice, (rich and spoiled im sure) then I do not see how the logic is that she could not have been up all night and this is a sign of her innocence whatsoever. Considering her fibers were all over that crime scene then the logical answer would be that she was up and involved in the crime scene. Could the fibers be coincidence and just from transference ? Sure they COULD BE, however the logical answer would be that they are not just from transference. So I am just not understanding the logic used on this other total bias. If transference occurs so easily and JR were up killing JBR and staging all night then you would expect to find more transference from JR then PR. Especially since he found the body , picked the body up and carried it upstairs. You couple this with logic from the prints on the bowl and spoon and the logic would be that PR was involved somehow. I am not saying this is what happened but if you want to follow logic..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PR took care of JBR washed her dressed etc. So it is normal that PRs fibers are on JBR and on everything JBR touched. It is also normal that PRs finger prints are all over the dishes bowls cups spoons etc. She lived in that house and touched those things regularly. So fibers and fingerprints don't mean much in this instance, all it tells us is that PR touched JBR and her clothes, and touched the bowl and spoon which is something you would expect, it would be stranger if her fibers and fingerprints were not on them.

      Delete
  36. It's more a working out backwards thing - if she had been up all night, then she would have showered and gotten out of those clothes, same as John did. She wouldn't have left them on, then called the police. I think you are also mentioning the fiber from her jacket on the sticky side of the duct tape over JB's mouth. Patsy wore that jacket at the Christmas dinner, she would have been near JB's face or any other part of her body several times that day, that night. I agree, the one fiber on the duct tape (sticky side) bothers me as well, but it doesn't translate to her putting the tape on JB's mouth. I mean you can't infer that because she WORE that jacket that night that she put the duct tape on JB's mouth. I have something else to say about hairs that is maybe a little silly but well, you decide. See next.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Okay, next. A hair found in JB's bed (other than her own of course) came from Patsy's underarm. This was said earlier, yesterday I believe. Doesn't that strike anyone as peculiar? When P and J moved to Boulder Patsy's friends said she eschewed the Boulder "hippie" dress worn by most people there. She was from Atlanta, GA where women dressed up, did their hair, their makeup, and I would guess didn't grow out their underarm hair! So how did an underarm hair from Patsy get in JB's bed? I mean you have to grow them for some time to have one be long enough to end up in your child's bed wouldn't you think? But on to another hair. Wasn't there a pubic hair found on JB's blanket that they could not match to anyone most particularly anyone in the family. I would guess that if you do a load of laundry it's mixed in with other family member's clothes. So I would think that pubic hair WOULD come from a family member. Yet - it didn't. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe PR was depressed or tired (because of her illness) and didn't shave her armpits anymore cutting corners because nobody could see it? Or maybe it was something religious (she became very religious after her illness) something to do with avoiding vanity? I am reaching I know. Or maybe it was simply hair from her arm and it was mislabeled?
      The pubic hair is also strange. Maybe they didn't do their own laundry but had it done by somebody? Or maybe transferred (maid's boyfriend or something?). It worries me, but JR clearly did the crime scene and I don't think he would cover-up like that for anybody but himself.

      Delete
    2. The "pubic hair" and the underarm hair were one and the same. And when we deal with what amounts to trace evidence there's no point in trying too hard to track it down precisely. The "pubic hair" was basically just another red herring produced by team Ramsey in their desperate attempt to find some sort of intruder evidence.

      It's so easy to make assumptions when it comes to tiny traces such as this. For all we know it might have landed on Patsy's forearm after she shaved her armpit and got transferred to the bed that way. There are a thousand variations on that sort of thing. It's just a red herring folks. Nothing to see here. Move on.

      Delete
  38. Could have been picked up from the carpet at a neighbor's home, which could have been shed from others visiting that home, who picked it up from THEIR dryer. Just a thought. Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  39. If I am not mistaken the supposed pubic hair on JB's blanket that was found to PR's arm hair. I may be wrong, I have studied this case pretty closely on and off for the past 20 yrs. yet find impossible to decipher fact from fiction, it just depends what you read and from whom. As far as the hair on the bed, I have never heard or read anything about that until recently and anything new that I hear in this case I always take with quite a few grains of salt. I personally find it very hard to believe that PR had underarm hair, nor had I ever heard of such a thing. That being said, I do not not think much would surprise me in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I fully understand that it is normal for PR to have fibers on JB and for her prints to be on the bowl and spoon, however, we do not even know if PR did any dishes in that house as they had a daily housekeeper. As far as the fibers go I would expect some of PR's fibers being on JB. What I would not expect is there to be more "transference" from PR than JR. According to the Ramseys, JR carried her upstairs when they got home and then if JR killed her and staged and then carried her body upstairs after he found her body, where are all the fibers from the sweater he was wearing ? Instead we have fibers from PR in 5 places I believe, including the garotte and duct tape plus a hair of PR's. My question is with ONLY JR having ALL recent contact with JB's body for the last 16 hrs preceeding her body being carried upstairs, logic would present that PR was in contact with that crime scene. JB's body and the crime scene should loaded with JR's fibers of some sort as he can not clean the body and scene of only his fibers. When standing back and looking at all of these things as a whole, the logical answer to me is she had some kind of contact with that scene. JR could have just been following his routine of showering in the morning as that would be a common thing in any household. If PR did not shower daily in the morning I would personally find that to be odd. Possibly PR did not sleep at all and then everything I have said makes sense "logically".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont shower daily in the winter time. my skin gets very dry. plus it would be highly time consuming for her to do her hair that morning if she showered.. Its not like a guy grabbing a quick shower

      Delete
  41. I see your thinking Anony. But you know I don't think a very thorough investigation was done in the first place. The house wasn't sealed off, the occupants weren't removed, if anything more and more people came over. Then John was allowed to search the house not once but twice. I think the most significant fiber they found was from John's shirt in JB's crotch! We don't know that there weren't fibers from John's sweater found on her clothing, but we do know that a fiber from his sweater or shirt was found in her crotch - I had heard it was his bathrobe, but that might have been a rumor. We know her body (private part) was wiped off. How would John explain a fiber from his shirt being in her crotch? He could say he cleaned her off after she wet herself but then he said he took her directly to bed and went to bed himself. That would be a major inconsistency. Glaring. I'm wondering why the police didn't question where her original panties were she was wearing that night and if they searched the house for them how would they explain why they weren't found? Errors all around.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am pretty sure I read years ago that there was a search for her panties, the duct tape, part of the paintbrush and cord. I will agree with you that LE was so inept that even if they were there LE would not find them or anything. The fiber in JB's crotch was identified as the same color as JR's Israeli sweater and consistent with but not identified to or as coming from JR's sweater. Yeah we will most likely never find any info or anything solid in this case so this is what we are left with. These blogs will most likely still be going in another 20 yrs from now. My personal belief is that whatever happened in that house that night, PR and JR both had some sort of involvement in

    ReplyDelete
  43. Perhaps the original underpants that JonBenet wore that day and to the dinner at the Whites are the alleged "souvenir" taken by the "intruder". Does anyone know if there were statements made by any of the Whites that JonBenet had to have a change of undies and used a pair from the Whites home? I can't recall if Mrs. White went on the N.Y. shopping trip with Patsy.
    (for those newer to the case, the undies on the body are specific to a store in N.Y. and not to the Boulder area).
    And to BigSlick and others that "doubt Burke testified at the grand jury"- He did. Or at least he said he did. He spoke that he did on Dr Phil September 2016 interviews.
    The autism/spectrum/Aspergers I have never seen in a msm article, said by the parents, nor linked back to any book written by the LE that worked the case...it's been internet assumptions for years but have not seen it verified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. I should have researched that before I posted. Thanks.

      Delete
  44. diamondlil the Asberger's could be part of the folkore of this case. Long ago I read something about it, we're talking 1996 here so it might be more of something I assumed from reading about it. He does (and did) present that way though, symptomatic of Asberger's Syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Wow, this is very interesting.. The BPD are such assholes.. you will see what they did to the 12 year old girl who was also sexually molested in her home .. Also, Patsy didnt have health insurance when her cancer came back.. Sad.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akev29aXXRo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would the BPD do that..there is no reason to... Maybe to get the father to shut up ..

      Delete
  46. Dr Phil interview with Burke, on now on OWN TV

    ReplyDelete
  47. DocG, you may have already seen this or it may be linked under your newest entry, interview with Woodward posted Monday
    http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-paula-woodward-on-new-book-john-ramsey-burke-did-it-claims-8362070

    ReplyDelete