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.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

More Room More Room

Making more room for comments.

`No room! No room!' they cried out when they saw Alice coming. `There's plenty of room!' said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in a large arm-chair at one end of the table.

NB: I've been informed that CNN Headline News (HLN) will be presenting a 2 hour program on the JonBenet Ramsey case on Friday, Sept. 30 (this Friday). At either 8 or 9 PM, depending on your time zone. This is a bit of a mystery because I've seen no advance publicity on this show, nor do I see it on the CNN HLN schedule. It's possible the show has been cancelled, but for those of you with cable it might be worth tracking down. Hope you can find it. I don't have cable. :-(

This just in. The CNN show WILL be aired, on HLN, at 9PM Eastern time this Friday, the 30th. Here's a preview


273 comments:

  1. CONTINUED FROM LAST THREAD....

    DocG wrote:
    "There was no reason to write a ransom note to stage a pedophile intruder. That makes no sense at all, sorry. The note was clearly intended to stage a kidnapping, not a pedophile. What you see as staging was part of the assault. And the purpose of the note was to give the guilty party time to get rid of the body the next day.

    It's hard for me to understand why this is so difficult for you to even consider. If they'd needed a note to stage a pedophile, they would certainly not have written a phony ransom note. Especially when they knew the body was in the house waiting to be discovered, thus negating the whole point of the note.

    On top of this you have to consider why Patsy would have willingly given them a note penned in her own hand. That's a HUGE piece of evidence to hand over to the authorities. And not only was it in her own hand (according to YOUR theory, not mine), but it was written on a notepad from the house. How dumb do you think they would have been to implicate themselves in that way?"

    I RESPONDED
    "We will have to agree to disagree on this one Doc :)

    And likewise, it’s hard for me to understand why this is so difficult for you to consider!

    I agree the purpose of the note was to stage a kidnapping...a kidnapping gone wrong! It gave the Ramsey’s the perfect excuse to ultimately tie it to an intruder, no questions asked.

    And no, leaving the body in the house did NOT negate the whole point of the note. That is just your opinion.

    In regards to your last paragraph above...they thought they didn’t have any other choice to write this. And it’s not like they could run out in the middle of the night to buy some new paper and a pen. And how is that different to your theory? You believe John wrote the note (YOUR theory, not mine) and gave them a note penned in his own hand. So your question applies in exactly the same principal. If you don’t believe someone in the house wrote that letter, then you have to buy into the Intruder theory...which just doesn’t make any sense."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to my analysis, John would not have needed to hand his note over to the police, since he could have claimed the "kidnappers" wanted it returned when he delivered the ransom. And if he had enough confidence in his powers of deception to hand it over to the police anyhow, then he could easily have disposed of the notepad before calling them. The note would have provided him with all sorts of options. And yes, the police would have suspected him for sure. But with no evidence, there would be nothing they could do.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I apologise...that was in your analysis. But to me, this also makes no sense. If the entire purpose was to NOT get Patsy to call the police and to leave the house, he would have made the RN short and concise. Instead he spent an hour that note writing that...with 80% of it irrelevant. And if he was so hell-bent on stopping Patsy from making that call, he would have made sure of it. He would have been right next to her, demanding her to stop and think. Not plodding along upstairs just hoping she wouldn’t. I personally, think this is way more far-fetched than the parents covering for their child Burke. Again, my opinion only.

      Delete
    3. And if John wanted the kidnappers to have the note back, he would have wrote that in the note so Patsy (who you think was in the dark about this) could verify that. He wrote so much in the RN but didn't even mention that...again, I think you are mentioning things which just aren't there.

      Delete
    4. I see things very differently. If you read what I wrote in "The Purpose of the Note" you'll see why it had to be as long as it was. On the other hand, staging a kidnapping gone wrong would have required only a few lines -- no need for all that detail.

      And no, there would have been no way to stop Patsy from making that call. He couldn't sit on her all morning. And there was a phone on every floor. In the A&E documentary she says she "ran downstairs" to make the call, suggesting that she could have been running from John.

      No need for John to include every single detail of his plan in the note. It was already very long, as you've mentioned. To repeat: the note would have put John in charge and given him all sorts of opportunities to make all sorts of claims and even improvise if necessary. While the situation would have raised all sorts of red flags, without evidence, the authorities would have had their hands tied.

      Delete
  2. Its the replys that I cant see....Anyway.. Maybe he did bring a note with him and decided to write a new one..What does one do for hours awaiting their return..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Prolly why its so long... He was bored stiff lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's a bit of a ghost too. Not leaving a trace of his existence.

      Delete
    2. He left his Hispanic DNA on JB

      Delete
    3. Hispanic DNA? Lol. You mean their DNA? Six UNIQUE profiles were found on JBR. Innocent touch DNA that has nothing to do with the crime. Unless you believe six people were in the house that night.

      Delete
    4. Right, the Mexican man working in Thailand at a underwear factory for 8 cents an hour, theory..

      Delete
    5. If an intruder was in the house he would have left a lot more evidence than degraded and artifact DNA. How come you're not accounting for the other five profiles (including one female) on her? Dr. Henry Lee tested factory sealed underwear and found DNA profiles on them.

      Delete
    6. And please explain how a fiber from John's shirt was found on the panties JB had been changed into? These were NEW panties, never been worn before and yet John's fibers were somehow on them...

      Delete
    7. Picked up from the dryer..or she laid them on the bed before she put them on, or she sat on the bed before she put them on.. And you cant match fibers to garments.. only to blue cotton shirts.. which we all have..

      Delete
    8. Multiple DNA is because she was at a party that day with many people..

      Delete
  4. Supposedly there are two Pro-Ramsey, IDI specials coming out. Including the one you mentioned. Convenient timing. First Burke breaks his 20 year silence a week before a special that names him the killer, now these IDI specials are trying to soften the blow. (Pun intended?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very convenient timing. Ramseys new the "BDI" documentary was coming out and old Johnny boy started to panic...next minute he has Lin Wood on the phone to Dr. Phil and have IDI documentaries coming out. Oh and Burke finally spoke because it was "20th anniversary and apparently people are still interested"...Burke's words hahahaha.

      Delete
    2. John and Team Ramsey are a piece of work for sure. So anxious and ready to deflect some more.

      Delete
  5. Dr Phil paid them for their interviews..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course he did. How else are Jonbenet's relatives going to exploit her for even more money?

      Delete
    2. Well John did lose everything because of this.. such a shame..

      Delete
    3. Wow that A&E documentary really did a number on you didn't it?

      Delete
    4. I never thought they did it...makes no sense

      Delete
    5. Thats another thing..if they did it, they would have just walked away..not lost everything over it

      Delete
    6. That's quite a generalization.

      Delete
    7. So someone breaking into a house without disturbing any dirt or spider-webs in the entry point window, finding jbr, feeding her pineapple, bludgeoning her, writing the war and peace of ransom notes, then garroting her 45-90 minutes after, finding a white blanket to wrap her in and depositing her in a remote part of the basement and locking the door behind him makes more sense to you?

      Delete
  6. I was just looking through CNN's schedule for this Jon Benet special and found nothing. Then, lo and behold . . . as I was watching HLN's morning news show, the commercial for this special came on! Such a coincidence!!
    It will be on at 8:00 pm PST this Friday . . . on HLN.

    Expect another tsunami of comments Doc!

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good morning!

    I just read something interesting and that I had not known. I am wondering if there is any truth to it.

    JR called a hardware store in Atlanta, Ga to get itemized copies of receipts for purchases made there by PR on two occasions in Dec 1996. Unfortunately it listed the price (1.99) but not what the item was specifically. Police claimed the duct tape sold there was 1.99 and matched the type of duct tape found on JBR's mouth.

    Any truth to this?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning EG and others. Yes, I remember this - that JR had called to get copies of receipts for purchases. Maybe duct tape. But I also read from the pbs.com website that the tape, since there was only one slightly black in color piece of tape found over her mouth, that it came from the back of one of JB's dolls, a doll that had a chord you pull that talks. They checked the doll for sticky tape residue and found it. Now I'm only saying what was on this site under "staging" and then "tape." So there would have been no need for a full roll of tape.

      Delete
    2. This intruder must've left his entire abduction kit on the subway or something. He had to borrow everything from the Ramseys.

      Oh, except the stun gun that didn't quite fit the abrasions. He definitely had THAT with him.

      Delete
    3. Inquisitive, do you happen to know where the doll was found?

      Delete
    4. Thanks, Inquisitive---Isn't that odd that JR would ask for itemized receipts for those days? Unless he was just a stickler and wanted to account for every dime spent.
      That is weird to me and very suspicious.

      EG

      Delete
  8. I just went back and read all of Doc's "fantastic scenarios 1-5". He puts every theory into context. And they are all theories that have been presented here. So I would suggest going back and re reading. Like it or not, the JDI theory is the most logical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. most logical only once you accept IDI is impossible. But anyone who has studied previous similiar cases would have to conclude, IDI is most definitely not impossible, in fact, its likely....

      CC2

      Delete
    2. It's extremely likely. Especially if you ignore 99% of the evidence.

      Delete
    3. MHN I do not know where the doll was found. Only that they looked at all of her dolls. The manufacturer had said that tape could be used to secure that chord as it was a manufacturing defect, but then that makes no sense does it? Did the manufacturer send the doll with tape or did the parents put the tape on. If so then a roll of tape would have to be bought. Investigators did state that they found the doll in question with sticky residue on it's back, same size as the tape JR removed from JB's mouth.

      Delete
    4. Yes, it does seem strange to call for a receipt totalling $1.99. But I bought duct tape several months ago and it was over $5. Perhaps duct tape was $1.99 in 1996. I think what is for sure and certain is that JR hired attorneys on day 2. He kept Patsy away from talking to the police. He hired a PR firm, he hired his own investigators and handwriting experts. If your child has been brutally (or any other way) murdered and you know you had nothing to do with it why not let the police do their job? John comes back years later and complains that his house should have been emptied of all of it's occupants and sealed. I'm very certain he's glad it wasn't.

      Delete
    5. I agree Inquisitive. Between the inconsistencies in their statements, lawyering up immediately and their actions both before and after the murder, it's pretty obvious that something wasn't right with that perfect family.

      EG

      Delete
    6. Keep in mind too that John's company, Access Graphics, had just hit the billion dollar in sales mark in 1996 and he was named Entrepreneur of the Year in Boulder. When he bought up downtown real estate and signed a five year lease he kept 320 people in town employed. His plans were to expand to 600 by 2001. The town owed him big. He brought precious tax revenue into the city of Boulder. He would have been very well connected. His attorneys were well connected. He was allowed to put a wall around himself and his family by the powers that be in that town with little opposition. Money talks.

      Delete
    7. My set of "Fantastic Theories" begins with the following post, outlining the most fantastic of them all - the intruder theory: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-one.html

      Delete
  9. I just read where someone impersonated JR to get information from that hardware store, so I guess that was a dead lead for the cops too. Not sure how true any of it is. Would have been very foolish of JR to call the hardware store.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true. Steve Thomas mentions the impersonator in his book "JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. It is discussed on page 135. You can access it on Google Books: https://books.google.com/?hl=en

      Delete
  10. I read the Kolar book expecting to be convinced that Burke accidentally killed his little sister and it was covered up by both parents trying to protect their son and their outwardly idylic family life.

    Instead I came away convinced that John Ramsey murdered his daughter. But I have a couple of reservations/questions which I hope all you who have mastered the details of this horrible case can explain.

    All of John Ramsey's problems after the murder stem from Patsy calling the police. Why was she allowed by John to make this call? He would have had the strongest possible motive to stop her, maybe shake her, and read the instructions in the not to emphasize that POLICE MUST NOT BE CALLED IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE or JBN would be killed. Why was the phone call allowed to happen, with John standing by as all his plans to cover up his involvement in the crime unraveled before his eyes?

    My second question is, why did John "find" or more likely uncover and reveal her body? It seemed like events were winding down at the house. There was only one detective left at the scene. Wouldn't John want everyone to leave so he could hide her body for later disposal? Sorry if these questions have already been asked and answered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the version Patsy provided in the A&E doc., she told John she was going to call the police and then RAN DOWNSTAIRS to make the call, while he was going upstairs to check on Burke. Since there was a phone on every floor, it's not difficult to read between the lines and conclude that she had managed to elude him.

      There was no way he could have prevented her from making the call in any case, short of tying her to a chair or something. She was clearly hysterical, not thinking straight and not really in a position to call the police anyhow. If he had wanted that call made, he'd have made it himself.

      John had no choice but to find the body because he'd been instructed by a detective to search the house top to bottom. I think also that he might have needed to move the body to the front of the room before finding it, as it had probably been hidden under some blankets in a corner.

      Finally, he probably realized that this was his chance to contaminate the crime scene by moving things around and picking up the body. Any fibers or DNA from him could then be explained away as due to innocent contact.

      Delete
    2. Yes Doc and it might have looked more suspicious if he was told to search the house again by Arndt and he conveniently leaves off the wine room. After that he's anxious to get on the plane and leave the state.

      Delete
  11. Patsy said she heard JR taking a shower, it was still very early but she decided to get up too.I think JR thought she would get up later and thought he had time for a quick shower (maybe he needed to wash away evidence?). I am sure he planned to be near her when she found the note but I think he expected her to come running to him after finding the note anyway so it wasn't vital in his mind. Also I think it never crossed JRs mind that somebody wouldn't read the whole RN first. The threats in the RN were dire enough, but Patsy never read that far. I think he thought it was full proof, but 4 things went wrong. Patsy woke too early, she did not run to him with the note, she didn't read all of it and she took initiative and called the police.

    JR would have wanted to get the body out of the house, but once the call was made it was to risky. If he was caught transporting the body he wouldn't have been able to talk himself out of it, but with her in the basement he thought he still had a change and he was right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I get your explanation about John needing to "find" JBN's body once the police had been called and the risk of discovering the body was extreme, thanks.

    But in the 911 call she referenced the end of the note, wouldn't that mean she read the whole note to the end? Or I guess she could have scanned the beginning, jumped to the end, and somehow skipped the dire warnings in the middle?

    I wonder if anybody asked her if she remembered John being in bed with her that night? It seems clear that he was showering when she got up, and as the wife of a night owl myself I sometimes wake up way after midnight to find my hubby still up watching tv or playing the guitar very late.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also I realize he needed to "find" her body in order to thoroughly contaminate the evidence he might have left. So my mind is pretty clear on that question, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. anotheranon ; I think Patsy was asked by the police call handler if it stated who the note was from, so she naturally looked to the end of the note to see if there was any form of signing off, and she read the SBTC Victory with evident confusion in her voice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. some have interpreted that the red ink "heart" on JB's palm is really a "V" - for Victory. Look again. It kind of looks that way. but actually my question is if we say JR wrote the note (and composed it as in it wasn't dictated), why would he insert SBTC or Victory. It's as if those initials and word have a meaning to someone and if so, what do y'all think they mean?

      Delete
    2. "Victory" may have meant perpetrator wrote fake ransom note to distract LE and was victorious in deflecting attention elsewhere/created an alibi/phantom suspect(S)...victory from prosecution/jail for their crime(s). If ransom note genuine, then perpetrator(s) were not victorious in obtaining their demands for money.

      Delete
    3. "SBTC" if fake ransom note possibly meant to throw LE off, so they look into past military connections or other groups with abbreviations. If genuine note, then meant as hint to Ramseys of potentially who perpetrator was (ie revenge against PR/JR for some past issue).

      Delete
  15. I can imagine a scenario where the idea that her daughter was suffering sexual abuse from some quarter or other was beginning to dawn on Patsy, based on the above post by CC. The evidence she was facing was the repeated bouts of vaginitis and other signs including old damage to the child's body and bedwetting. I suppose if John were too vehement he would have risked her putting two and two together at last, and the subsequent disaster of her hysterical accusations and the discovery of her body by police.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In JR transcript he stated he recognized the tape, it looked like tape used on a boat, not quite as thin as electrical tape and not as wide as duct tape.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lifetime has it will air a dramatized version of JonBenet's story in November. A one-minute trailer for the film (aptly titled Who Killed JonBenet?) can be found here: http://www.glamour.com/story/a-jonbenet-ramsey-movie-is-coming-to-lifetime-watch-the-trailer

    ReplyDelete
  18. I bet we'll all be satiated by then. I would prefer a real life drama of JR being taken in in cuffs

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Doc--
    Just wondering if you've listened to the Real Crime Profile podcast discussion on the CBS docuseries (by the people who were in the program) and what you think of their points explaining the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet. Not sure I want to waste my time on it as I have zero respect for these people.

      Delete
    2. Why zero respect Doc? Their theory is pretty rock solid. Again, you don't agree with them so you have no respect for them. Geez...

      Delete
    3. I have zero respect for them because they've let themselves be so completely captured by confirmation bias -- and also because many of their methods I regard as highly questionable. Also because almost everying in their presentation is old old old. I even have problems when they debunk the intruder theory, despite my agreement on that score. They seem to assume that all they need to do is refute some of Lou Smit's pet theories, but there is a lot more to it that they never bother with. And again, his theories were debunked years ago.

      I'm especially bothered by the things they claim to hear in the 911 tape, and their failure to grasp how garbled and ambiguous those sounds are. If Burke's voice were actually present in that recording, it would be an asset to my theory, because I've always suspected he knew more about what happened that morning then he's ever admitted.

      They exhibit no hesitation whatsoever in identifying the voices and words they've been prompted to hear from Steve Thomas and James Kolar's book published years ago. It's not just a matter of my not agreeing with what they claim to hear, but their eager readiness to hear what they want to hear and failure to recognize that others may hear nothing of the sort. That's not just incompetence but dishonesty.

      Delete
    4. I can't find a link to the podcast at the CBS site. Can you provide me with one?

      Delete
    5. I do agree the 911 segment of the show was a waste of time...but it was a show! It's about getting ratings and an audience! For newcomers, that 911 segment was probably their favourite part.

      And they couldn't possibly include all evidence is a few hours of programming. It was about highlighting tidbits here and there...again for ratings.

      And what does it matter if their content is old, old, old. It's probably old because it makes the most sense and was there right from the start.

      They made a rock solid case, which is backed up by circumstantial evidence. I have yet to see another theory with better evidence than this.

      Occams Razer!!

      Delete
    6. Link to podcast: https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile

      Delete
  20. DocG - have you ever tried to interest any of the Boulder LE or officials in your text? I would be bombarding the DA's office and Boulder PD with PDFs of the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I contacted the DA and also Beckner, I believe, and gave them the link to this blog. Never got a response -- though who knows, they might be commenting here.

      Delete
    2. Someone mentioned this blog to Beckner and he all but laughed at the theory and said "people come up with kinds of wonderful theories".

      Delete
    3. Ah yes, how wonderful, how fantastic -- the thought that John Ramsey may have committed this crime. No wonder it's never been solved.

      Delete
    4. John WOULD have been investigated just as much as every other person. You think he wasn't but you weren't involved in this case. John is guilty, no doubt about it so you and I are on the same team. But to come up with a scenario of John making that head-blow on JB...it's tough!

      Delete
    5. Why is it so tough? There were only three people in the house that night. We agree there was no intruder. So, sorry but I fail to see the problem.

      Delete
    6. Because you need to come up with a scenario as to why Patsy or John would whack their daughter on the head. Two parents who NEVER smacked their children. So people start talking about motives such as bed-wetting (Patsy) and sexual abuse (John). I just don't see the previous molestation as concreted evidence and even if it were, it could be from Burke or JB herself. I just don't see any evidence or indications that John would do that. I am happy to be proven wrong!!!

      So given the circumstantial evidence, that only leaves one other person...Burke. Of course you can't just say he did it because he's the last one left. But if you read a few posts down you will see why so much points at him. My opinion.

      Delete
    7. Here's your error. Establishing a possible motive is NOT grounds for conviction. It's not even enough for probable cause. And that's all the CBS people were able to accomplish, establish that there was a POSSIBLE motive -- along with some signs of possible deception. But no real proof of either, not even close.

      I don't need a motive. (Though the strong indications of incest sure help.) The evidence that points to John is the ransom note, which most certainly is: a ransom note. NOT a pointless diversion, NOT some squid ink to muddy the waters, but an honest to God ransom note. No one is going to waste his time writing a 2 1/2 page note with every i dotted and t crossed, if all he needs is to sow confusion. That could have been done in a quarter of a page.

      If it's a ransom note and there was never any kidnapper, then it's a phony ransom note, designed, obviously, to stage a phony kidnapping.

      And, pardon me for once again repeating myself: if the Ramseys had been staging a kidnapping they would not have completely undercut their staging by calling 911 with the body still in the house.

      Which as far as I'm concerned points to John, not Burke. John would certainly have had a reason to keep Patsy out of the picture. But if Burke did what you feel so sure he did, both parents would certainly have known about it.

      Delete
    8. Ok that reply has me scratching my head...

      Your first paragraph makes no sense. There is a lot more than just a motive and more than enough for a conviction in my opinion.

      You say you have evidence because of the RN? The ransom note does NOT point to John. It points to the Ramsey's. And you saying they would not write a 2.5 page RN with every i dotted and every t crossed is just your opinion. I STRONGLY disagree with that. The RN served their exact purpose. The RN had nothing to do with "fooling" Patsy..that's where you are going wrong in my opinion.

      I have already listed evidence that has Burke at the scene of the murder with JB, without parents, with the likely murder weapon. We don't have any evidence that John was anywhere near JB that night except for the staging.

      And yes you are repeating yourself regarding the "body still in the house" with the 911 call. Not sure why you can't understand this.

      Maybe they did plan to get rid of the body at one point and wrote the RN. Maybe they then changed their minds and thought it was too risky and they would call 911 instead. They then thought the RN could still work (which it did) instead of destroying it. Maybe they never planned to get rid of the body and the RN was purely an artefact to say "Hey, look I am an intruder and I was here". There could be a hundred reasons why they did what they did...who knows what was running through their minds.

      The fact is the evidence point to Burke and a coverup. There is no evidence that points to John making that headblow.

      Delete
    9. I agree with elements of both arguments above. However:

      "No one is going to waste his time writing a 2 1/2 page note with every i dotted and t crossed, if all he needs is to sow confusion. That could have been done in a quarter of a page."

      Yes, but this is also true:

      No one is going to waste his time writing a 2 1/2 page note with every i dotted and t crossed, if all he needs is to make a fake ransom demand. That could have been done in a quarter of a page.

      So I guess we both lose!

      But likewise,

      "They then thought the RN could still work (which it did)"

      The hell it did! It was the biggest red flag in the case! That ransom note is the single biggest reason why they've had to hide behind lawyers for twenty years.

      For me the Doc's points carry great weight:

      Ransom letter
      Bogus wrist ligatures
      Tape over mouth after or near death
      Broken window

      Taken as a whole, do they suggest an attempt to stage a sex murder, or an abduction?

      Delete
    10. Sorry Zed, you may be convincing yourself that the scenario you believe in, but not me. I'm going to listen to top national experts on child abuse who saw the autopsy report. You keep repeating that there was no evidence of prior abuse. Do you really expect the readers here to accept that opinion over that of the experts? Go interview some women who have been victims of incest for starters. You will find out how sneaky, manipulative, and "easy" it is for men to pull this off, leaving very little evidence behind.

      Delete
  21. I don't think it mattered at all what was in the ransom note. The only reason for the ransom note was so that Patsy didn't watch while John staged the crime and cleaned up any evidence that either he or Burke left. The only requirement as to is contents were that it didn't implicate a Ramsey.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the note is carefully crafted and full of meaningful details. If if was intended simply as a distraction it would have been a lot simpler and much shorter.

      Delete
    2. Amen Tony. Although I don't think Patsy wrote the note until John was done. No way he would let Patsy write it without his 2 cents.

      Delete
    3. Patsy didn't write that note at all. If you go to an earlier blogsite Doc compares side by side words and letters from the note with Patsy's writing - especially if she was trying to disguise her writing, with a sample from John's old writing and it's eerie how similar it is. John too alot of care in crafting this note. He even practiced. And some pages were missing from the pad.

      Delete
    4. That's one example Inquisitive. Most experts believe Patsy wrote it and rightly so. But as I said, John wouldn't have let Patsy write it without his input. So that is why you see a few words and phrases that relate to John and Patsy. John was ruled out as the writer and rightly so...yet that means very little in the big picture.

      Delete
    5. Zed! OMG, you keep making statements for which you have no basis! We have been discussing on this blog for YEARS. Those so called experts were nothing of the sort. There was no science behind their analysis, no standards, no process for determining when handwriting is disguised or not. They were cherry picking, and based on cherry picking alone they ruled out John. They never said that Patsy definitely wrote the now, anyhow. They were hired by Darnay Hoffman. I'll bet those idiots could make a case that you or I wrote the note if they wanted to. I'm sorry, but I feel like you are cherry picking to make a case for Burke. Most people on this blog agree that Burke "could" have done it and probably knows more than he's telling. But "could have" is not a case. Looking at the total picture, and having some knowledge of how incest goes down in a family, looking at the note, looking the events that morning -- I'll put my money on JR.

      Delete
  22. Why dont you all take the note for what it is.. There is no evidence it was a fake..Especially now when we know the DNA was foreign..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there certainly is evidence it was a fake. Anyone entering that house with the intent to kidnap would have prepared a note ahead of time, rather than wait to write it on a pad from the Ramsey home. And someone who made that decision at the last minute would not have written such a long, detailed note.

      And a pedophile intent on sexual gratification would not have written a note at all, least of all a ransom note. NO version of the intruder theory makes sense.

      Delete
    2. Maybe he did have a note with him.. but decided to write a new one since he hours to wait with nothing to do..and that would explain why t is so long..

      Delete
    3. Wow. Calling Occam, urgently! You need to get your head out of the clouds. That argument was so weak it might just discredit anything else you have to say...

      Delete
    4. How did this hispanic intruder know he had hours to wait? How did he know what time they would be home? How did he know they would be home at all that night?

      Delete
  23. And you all seem to take the BPD at their word.. They lie like dogs and have done so in this case from the beginning..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please give some examples before you make such a bold claim like this. The Ramsey's were dealt with with kid gloves and stonewalled investigators every step of the way. Innocent parents would live at the police station if they were innocent. You didn't address my earlier question about the five other unique DNA profiles on her. The Hispanic DNA means nothing. 'Not to mention the "expert" who made that claim is the same guy who was tossed out of the Casey Anthony for not having any formal education in forensics.

      Delete
    2. I did reply.. she was at a party that day with many people.. Examples of BPD lies... The house was surrounded by snow and no footprints so it MUST be a Ramsey.. They MATCHED a fiber to JR's shirt...You cant match a fiber to a garment.. you can only match it to a fabric.. Do YOU have a black fabric in YOUR house.. of course you do, everyone does..

      Delete
    3. That's a pretty poor example. That's just a comment they made which has merit. You actually can have a fiber to another fiber which is what they did. They are microscopically similar. I like how you don't have a legitimate lie from the BPD but have no problem giving the Ramsey's a pass for their half truths, lies, and contradictions.

      Delete
    4. Zack, don't waste your breath: if Leigh thinks that the BPD just matched one fiber with John's shirt because they were both black then there is literally no debating possible. As Hitchens said, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Leigh is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

      Delete
  24. I have a question. Did Burke at any time after the murder, state that he had gone downstairs to play with his Christmas toys late at night? Was this known prior to the Dr. Phil interview? I ask because I am trying to wrap my head around what was initially stated, that everyone went right to bed when they got home. Why would Burke state on Dr. Phil's interview that he went downstairs late at night and why would John state the he came down to check on Burke and both went upstairs with the flashlight to go to bed? Neither mentions anything about pineapple, yet it was out, had Burke's fingerprints on the bowl and glass next to it.

    If it was initially claimed that everyone went to bed right when they got home, why would Burke state that he was downstairs late at night playing with the toys? This places him where JBR's body was found. Why do that when he could have easily lied and stated he went to bed as soon as he got home? John did this as well and John even brought the flashlight into the mix.

    I don't understand the changing of stories to make someone closer to the crime scene and weapon. This also puts Patsy completely out of the scenario. Maybe Burke killed her accidentally, then woke up JR, who realized JBR was dead or close to death, and staged everything because he knew there was evidence of molestation, and Patsy was not in on it at all until at a later time.

    I think Patsy and John being separated when the Police were there is very telling. Maybe John felt they needed to cover for Burke and wrangled Patsy into it - but she was not entirely ok with the scenario. This would explain her calling 911 and why she was ok being separated from John for long periods of time when the police were there. She didn't want to know what was going on. She didn't want to be a part of it. That would explain her being the most visably upset that morning and the most angry during interrogations and interviews.

    I don't know. I really have a hard time imaging Patsy not inquiring too much into the molestation reports and questioning her husband. Maybe she did and John blamed it on Burke because Burke had the emotional problems, or perhaps they both knew Burke caused wounds to JBR's private area.

    Either way, the media or police/detectives did NOT inquire enough about the molestation reports. No one pushed them enough with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assuming they were covering for Burke, would you let that kid out of your site? JR sent BR away (Fleet took him to the Fernies before Det. Ardnt arrived at 8:10). I would be too afraid that he slip up or say something incriminating. I recall that a Detective tried to question Burke as they were leaving and JR wouldn't allow it...said he was asleep and didn't know anything. Confusing......

      Delete
    2. Burke was sent off with Priscilla White to the White's home around 7 a.m. Burke was not hanging around downstairs, he was removed from his bedroom. He managed to snag his Nintendo I believe he said, before he left. Then around 2:30 he was briefly and it was the briefest of questioning, by the police. At any time between 7 and 2:30 if he had done something horrible he may or may not have indicated so but he didn't. If he saw something strange he may not have put two and two together until later, until he was perhaps coached by his father.

      Delete
  25. Burke was a cocky little sh*it back then. In his interviews he told them that if he had any secrets he wouldn't tell them. The only time he let his guard down was with that pineapple picture...he didnt expect that and he literally froze like a deer behind headlights.

    We know Burke was downstairs in the same time vicinity JB was murdered. We know that he fixed that pineapple by himself because of the oversized spoon and the fact it was not cleaned up (John would have cleaned this if it was him). Therefore we know Burke made this with no parents there. We know the flashlight was nearby and he probably used this so he didnt wake his parents up. We know JB ate some as well. We know Burke hardly ate any of this yummy meal he just made himself.

    I mean, come on! Burke was there with JB, no parents, with the likely murder weapon, JBs body had likely train marks which indicates Burke prodding her to see if she is ok, Burke is known to have struck her before with golf club (accident my a*ss), John or Patsy had never even laid a finger on their kids before.

    This was a horrible accident. Burke struck her and then panicked when she wasnt moving. JB emptied her bladder as this happened.

    What happens next we can discuss forever because we will NEVER know. But we know that John staged a crimescene that night and a RN was left (most likely by Patsy with Johns help).

    Sure, you can say the 911 call wouldnt have been made, the note wouldn't have been left blah blah blah but there is obvious reasons why they did these things. None of you were there and know what would be going through your mind...sure you can pretend you were in that situation but you were not.

    It's actually very straightforward in my eyes and people are really overthinking making it more complex then it really is. But as I've said multiple times, lets forget 90% and focus in the garrote...it CAN be proven John did that, regardless of what everyone thinks his motive and intentions were. JOHN GUIlTY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a link to a page with 5 photos of the pineapple bowl. Click on each to blow it up: https://www.google.com/search?q=ramsey+pineapple&safe=active&rlz=1C1AVST_enUS355&espv=2&biw=960&bih=523&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjun670nrPPAhVDbR4KHcz8CrQQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1.5

      Can YOU recognize pineapple in any of those photos? Because I can't. We know it's pineapple because it's been labeled as pineapple. But Burke had no way of knowing that. He was asked what he saw and he hesitated -- most likely because he had no idea what was in that bowl.

      And by the way, I say this as someone who suspects Burke has never told the whole truth about what happened that night. But still ... Give the kid a break.

      Delete
    2. You are right..it is difficult to tell. But Burke KNEW it was pineapple because he was the one who made it. Surely there is enough circumstantial evidence for this...do people really think someone else OTHER than Burke made this???

      So yes, he knew exactly what it was when he saw those pictures. But him recognizing that picture was down the bottom of the totem pole when it came to things pointing at him.

      And I have nothing against Burke...he was a 9 year old kid that struck his sister without realizing the possible consequences. My son threw a golf ball at a friend last month and it just missed his head. I scolded him and he said sorry and that was that. But kids do things in the spur of the moment without thinking. From the Dr. Phil interview I actually think Burke is a pretty decent, shy guy. I feel sorry for him. John on the other hand, I honestly believe there is enough evidence to convict him.

      Delete
    3. Zed,

      I agree with you and feel much the same way. I think BR hit JBR as she was running downstairs, probably telling him she was going to touch his train or something. He knocked her in the head with the flashlight, and she fell down the stairs, which explains the bruising on her body. After that, we don't know what happened other than JR and PR staging a crime scene.

      There are still questions that I'd like answers to:

      1. Why did PR call the doctor three times within an hour the week before. Something might have been coming to a head. I am thinking BR was becoming more and more aggressive toward JBR. Calling a doctor three times in an hour is telling. Something was happening in that house that PR was frantic about.

      2. Why did PR change her story about how she found the RN. First she said she checked JBR's room and she wasn't there. Then she said she stepped over the RN thinking it was something the kids left, THEN she said she was by the laundry room, then walked down those steps and found the RN. Which was it? Totally inconsistent.
      3. It sounds like the DA was in the pockets of the Ramsey's attorneys which is unheard of. Why? No wonder Steve Thomas was angry and quit. Who could blame him?

      Just another example of the wealthy being above the law.

      EG

      Delete
    4. In regards to dot point 1:

      Did the doctor answer each time? Or was it engaged so Patsy tried again a few times? If the latter, then it makes complete sense and not relevant. If the former, surely the doctor has been interviewed and is at liberty to discuss what the call was about? (if the former, I'm assuming the doctor or receptionist had already discussed this with police and it was nothing important).

      Delete
    5. Good question. I assumed the call went through three times in order for it to register. Had she just called and hung up due to a busy signal, that would not be suspicious.
      EG

      Delete
  26. You know in one of my favorite BBC TV shows, Broadchurch, in the very last scene the crime is shown - to the television audience. So what was a mystery for ten or so episodes, complete with strange clues and false leads and shady characters is explained. Shown. And then it makes sense. All of it. Every false lead has now fallen by the wayside, what was in the killers minds is revealed and it was very simple all along. But in real life killers don't confess. Especially if they believe they will get away with it. No need to. Eye and ear witnesses who see or hear something can be discredited if it ever comes to trial. Money can buy excellent defense. A case such as the JB Ramsey case remains a mystery but if we cracked the case complete with confession then we would see it was really very simple. It wasn't complex. We made it complex because there are many clues and no one is talking. It's a mystery. Prosecutors, if it gets to trial, need to establish motive in order to sell a conviction to a jury. Often they get the motive wrong, and the juries don't buy it and the man or woman are acquitted. Defense attorneys only need to plant reasonable doubt. And what passes for "reasonable" to a jury in the legal sense, is often unreasonable but believable. I think if we really saw what happened, knew what happened, it would be very simple, make complete sense, but unfortunately life isn't a tv show called Broadchurch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you have someone as the scene of the murder, who prepared food that was found in the victim’s body. That used the likely murder weapon to sneak downstairs. That prodded the body with a toy that lined up perfectly with marks on the body. That had a history of striking the victim in the past. That froze when questioned about the pineapple. That didn’t finish eating a meal they had just made.

      I agree, this is a very simple case but with many red herrings and "that wouldn't have happened" thoughts which raise clouds of suspicion..which leads to debate...which leads to blogs like this (a fantastic blog I may add).

      But yes, simple most definitely.

      Delete
    2. PS. Not to mention, didn't speak out for 20 years and then randomly speaks out because "apparently people are still interested". You can see Johnny boy still doing his best to save their bacon 20 years later! Geez, some life. Would have been easier for John to confess and then just get on with his life.

      Delete
    3. BR's reaction to psychologist could mean something else entirely, he was a child. His sibling had been murdered and I'm sure his parents discussed night with him. BR as a child, not as mature as an adult and may felt bad/blamed himself that he ate pineapple (JBR could have ate pineapple with perp way after BR went to bed) or/if last time he saw his sister was when they ate pineapple (with mom/dad) and he went to bed, she died after that (what if mom/dad were in kitchen and BR understood parents were last to see JBR after he ate pineapple and went to bed). What if he thought that eating pineapple was related to her death/like choked on fruit, children associate things that are not logical, his reaction is a child's reaction, not adult. I think his response to Doctor Phil "maybe" he could have eaten pineapple, may indicate someone who wouldn't remember night in detail because he didn't murder her. If he only ate fruit at same time of JBR would not be necessarily in his memories/recall. What did he remember about that night? That he got to stay up to play with toy with dad. (Example As an adult, I don't remember what I had for breakfast Sat. because nothing out of the ordinary happened)

      Delete
  27. All you PDI,BDI and JDI people please explain to me how an Hispanic mans SALIVA got on JB's leg and how the DNA from the saliva is the same as the touch DNA on her jammies.. thanks..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, first of all, there is no evidence that the DNA in the bloodstain on her panties came from saliva. It was some fragments of foreign DNA mixed with similar fragments of JonBenet's DNA. It could not be sourced to a particular type of cell, could have come from saliva, yes, but also from a degraded skin cell, blood cell, etc.

      The saliva part was someone's guess that it could have come from a factory worker's sneeze. That's possible but there are other possible sources as well, including touch DNA from being handled at the factory. Or even a DNA transfer from petting a dog or sharing a toy, etc.

      What everyone following this case needs to understand is how sensitive the methods are for retrieving "touch DNA." All that's needed is a single skin cell, which can very easily be transferred from one person to another in perfectly innocent ways.

      If she put her hands on a toy, she could have picked up some skin cells from the last person to handle that toy. The cells would now be on both hands. When pulling up her longjohns she could have transferred some of those cells to the longjohns. Also she could have transferred some of those cells, from the same source, to her groin area when going to the bathroom.

      Alternately, some foreign DNA might have gotten onto her attacker's gloves, and been transferred when he pulled her longjohn's up or down -- and transferred similarly to her vagina when he assaulted her. So by no means does this get any of the Ramseys off the hook.

      Delete
    2. The sample tested positive for amylase..an enzyme only found in the digestive system.. and the sample was mixed with JB;s blood.. there is no reason to assume they get there on separate occasions.. considering the sexual assault.

      Delete
    3. And I doubt he sexually assaulted her with gloves on..no

      Delete
  28. From the factory. Dr. Henry Lee retested factory underwear ( like the ones JBR was redressed in) and found profiles on them. The "expert" who said it was a hispanics DNA was touched out of the Casey Anthony case for not being a qualified forensic specialists. There were also five unique profiles found on her. This isn't a DNA case and many experts agree.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This was DNA from saliva. on her leg,, not touch DNA..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saliva was the main component but it only contained a small number of markers so it was degraded and clearly an artifact. If it came from that night it would be a complete profile and there would be more of it. Jonbenets DNA was the main source. Scattered, fragmented DNA existed within it. Google "The case of Jonbenet Ramsey DNA" to see them debunk the DNA's importance.

      Delete
    2. Again, you have a BPD trying to convict the Ramseys.. The facts are that there is DNA of the case in the Codis database for an Hispanic man.

      Delete
  30. Does anyone know if Patsy was a closet smoker, or smoked out in the open? I know cigarette butts were collected into evidence. Just wondering if maybe she used the flashlight to go down to the basement to smoke (before she went to bed), like in the little bathroom down there that had the small window. I know she chain smoked during the interviews with police (during breaks). If she was a closet smoker then she probably couldn't wait to have one after she got home. Might explain why the flashlight was out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and why it was readily available for someone to hit her over the head with it. The fact that it was wiped of fingerprints indicates someone knew it was the murder weapon.

      Delete
    2. Or, someone with gloves on inadvertently wiped the prints from a prior use.

      Delete
  31. Check out Shane Dawson's YouTube video on the JonBenet conspiracy theory. DocG, you'll be happy to hear that the psychic twins spoke with JomBenet from the other side and she said Daddy did it...case solved.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Leigh - Im convinced that your IDI hunch, as well as Det. Smit’s intuition – was correct. There's just not to many Thomas Crown's out there. Brilliant criminal mind of certain paraphiliac persuasion even more rare.

    Obviously JBR was made vulnerable by her constant exposure in pageantry, who knows how many perps saw and fixated on her. IMO, the pattern of losers, warped minds, paraphilia-disposed tends to come from the lower reaches of society, not from those who succeed at the CEO level.

    Reading about relatively recent and similar crimes one learns of:

    Robert Charles Browne – high school dropout, dishonorable discharge from Army, Aunt brutally murdered, grandfather threw himself down a well. Maintenance man at an apartment owned by his brother.

    Otis Toole – mentally retarded, abusive mother, serial arsonist at young age, childhood runaway, sexually aroused by fire. Decapitated Adam Walsh.

    BTK / Denis Radar – tortured animals a child. By his own admission, he says he developed fantasies about bondage, control and torture from an early age, while still in grade school.

    Brian David Mitchell – contact with LE from the age of 16. Hospitalized as a mental patient for some time. Ex wife claimed he molested two of their children. Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner would later testify that Mitchell had a history of pedophilia and that he had stalked other teenaged girls in the Salt Lake City area prior to and after the Smart kidnapping.

    Richard Allen Davis – contact with LE from the age of 12. “According to Ruth Baron, the mother of one of Davis's childhood friends, "He would douse cats with gasoline and set them on fire. He made a point of letting people know he carried a knife, and he used to find stray dogs and cut them.”


    John Bennet Ramsey:

    1. graduated from Michigan State University

    2. joined the Navy in 1966, served as a Civil Engineer Corps officer in the Philippines for 3 years, and in an Atlanta reserve unit for an additional 8 years

    3. In 1989, became President and Chief Executive Officer of Access Graphics

    4. In 1996 was named "Entrepreneur of the Year" by the Boulder Chamber of Commerce

    I ask JDI theorists on this blog to compare psychological profiles, how can you possibly see any correlation?

    CC2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are also many seemingly normal and successful men who turn out to have done horrible things behind closed doors.
      And who knows maybe JR had a terrible childhood and awful parents.

      Delete
    2. No offense CC2, but your response is a little biased (and I have not bought into any theory yet). There are many known killers who seemed normal throughout their lives who were military men, college graduates, business owners, church goers, boy scouts, volunteers and even doctors and nurses.

      Delete
    3. CC2: How many of the perps you mentioned also left a ransom note?

      Delete
    4. Well, I am in the Intruder boat... But I think it was more related to John than to JB,, He had a newspaper article on him just prior to that time saying how successful he was.. I suppose a pedophile could hang out at the pageants but.. I think they would be noticed and none of the pageant stuff was public on TV or anything..the pic and videos we see are privately owned home movie stuff

      Delete
    5. I worked at two different companies where two husbands murdered their wives (one at Fortune 500 company, and the other at a small manufacturing company)(one with a gun, the other with a knife). Both were college graduates and engineers with small children -- seemingly lead normal lives. These were in small, rural towns.

      Delete
    6. Wives are one thing, kids are another.. But JB had a Doc that was conscious of child abuse and checked every patient he had for it..including JB

      Delete
    7. supposedly, there is a Michael Helgoth confession on tape. If the killer mentioned specific detail (ala BTK, Green River, et al) about the crime that only he could know, this case is solved.

      "Based on what we know now, I believe Helgoth and his accomplices committed the crime," Gray said. "There's no doubt about it."

      CC2

      Delete
  33. I keep coming back to this interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomIOTN9UiQ
    Between 4:20 and 5:50 there is something very strange. Patsy seems to not want to state that she physically picked up the note. She stops before saying that she picked up the note and motions how the note was layed out and then when asked if she brought the note to John (4:56) she "doesn't remember" and then John steps in. I don't know. I'm more JDI than anything but there's something here that is very telling that Patsy knows something or maybe she's just been told by lawyers and John not to say too much. Anyone else sense something in this part of the interview?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry was clearly on to something and pushed it. His interrogation style seemed to catch them by surprise. They obviously felt very uncomfortable at that time.

      Delete
    2. She didn't want to say she picked it up because she knew (through her attorneys) her fingerprints were not found on it (nor JR's). Patsy's fingerprints were found on the pad though.

      Delete
    3. I've always claimed their story about finding, reading and processing the ransom note mentally was not credible. Actually I've proved it. See the third post on this blog.

      Delete
    4. I think JR told PR that it was very important to tell the police that he told her to call the police because the police were trying to frame him, so she did, but I think she made that decision alone. She said she woke and got up because she heard him take a shower, and JR once said he was combing his hair. I think he was nowhere in sight when she picked up the RN and called the police. I think John walked in while she was calling and that is why she hung up so sudden. And that is why she was so vague about picking up the RN and talking to John. She knew she had to say John was there somehow and that they discussed the RN and the call, but JR hadn't told her enough about how and when and where that supposed conversation had taken place so she frose and tried to be vague.

      Delete
    5. Maybe it's just me...but if I woke up and found my daughter kidnapped with a RN, the first thing I would do is yell out to my wife in panic and show her, and then ring 911.

      I would be absolutely amazed if Patsy didn't know JB was downstairs when making that call.

      Delete
    6. That is exactly what JR expected PR would do, call out to him. But JR was often away and PR got used to making decisions on her own without discussing it, and when she panicked she did just that, she simply called right away,

      Delete
    7. I see you think this implies JR is guilty. Where to me I think it further implies that PR was in on it. Pity we will never know :(

      Delete
  34. CC2

    I agree...there is absolutely no history and no evidence to indicate JR was a pedophile/child molester. I do believe he staged the "accident", to protect BR. I also believe PR wrote the RN, that JR dictated.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're going around in circles again. Actually we've been doing that for some time. Anyone got anything new to say?

      Delete
    2. The Hispanic man DNA is the only thing new on this case

      Delete
    3. Leigh, just curious where you are getting this new information -- can you share a link? Thx.

      Delete
    4. It was info from the A&E Special that was on a couple of weeks ago..from the lab that processed it

      Delete
    5. And how does that make a difference? The source of the DNA is still unknown.

      Delete
  35. Anyone have a link to the Larry King with Detective Thomas and the Ramseys video?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Random question... if they offered tours of the Ramsey home would you take a tour? I would! It would be really creepyell though. I spent the night in Boulder this summer on my way to RMNP and of course I just had to drive by the house...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the inside of the house has changed significantly?

      Delete
  37. It is surprising how different people see things. Zed thinks the fact that there was an oversized spoon in the pineapple bowl, and the fact it wasn't cleaned up indicates clearly that it was BR who made it and that he was alone etc. I think the opposite, I don't think a child would pick an oversized spoon. I didn't. And I think John wouldn't clean up they had help, other people cleaned for them.
    And didn't they say that pineapple with milk (sounds disgusting!) was the way JBR liked it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough Anonymous.

      Burke liked it with pineapple and milk. I can't remember about JBR...Doc will probably know.

      An oversized spoon just screams a child made it. I can't imagine a parent ever doing that but children would. Heck, my son once used a spatula to eat his Weet Bix.

      And yes, John and Patsy had cleaners. But if they knew that digested pineapple would be found in the body of JB, they would have cleaned up that bowl pronto. John took the time to change JB's panties and to wipe down the torch, but didn't clean the bowl? Makes no sense.

      And the fact that it wasn't eaten is very important. What kid makes themselves a snack and then doesn't finish it??

      Delete
    2. Didn't they say Patsy had made the pineapple bowl?

      Delete
    3. You know what Zed, that was niggling at the back of my mind too - that he didn't finish that bowl of pineapple.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous - no, Patsy claimed she doesnt know who made it and that the oversized spoon was weird and she would never have done that.

      Inquisitive- yep. I've never met a kid who made a snack to only eat hardly any of it. So what does that tell us....

      Delete
    5. Anonymous - no, Patsy claimed she doesnt know who made it and that the oversized spoon was weird and she would never have done that.

      Inquisitive- yep. I've never met a kid who made a snack to only eat hardly any of it. So what does that tell us....

      Delete
    6. The bowl is half empty.. he is only 9.. thats a lot for someone that age..

      Delete
    7. "But if they knew that digested pineapple would be found in the body of JB, they would have cleaned up that bowl pronto"

      Why? If they did that the pineapple becomes even more of an issue: jbr has pineapple in her stomach that she has eaten since the meal, but there is no sign of pineapple on the table. So either she cleaned up after herself or... someone else did, which means John Patsy or Burke were down there with her close to the time of her death.

      "What kid makes themselves a snack and then doesn't finish it??"

      My kid. Every day. Personally I think even the word 'circumstantial' is generous when describing the evidentiary value of the pineapple.

      Delete
    8. Or do you just mean wiped the bowl clean of prints? That would still be highly suspicious. Then police would have a recently used item with a surface ideal for fingerprinting, with no prints at all on it.

      Delete
  38. You are implying he filled the bowl to the rim full of pineapple and milk? Doubt that. To me, unless someone has a better theory...whatever went down that night occured whilst Burke had just started to eat his snack. This tells us a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. He fixed himself tea and the snack. Got interrupted...the tea bag was left in the glass, correct? That also seems something a child may leave in than an adult. Did anyone claim the bed pillow that was left in the kitchen?

      Delete
  39. Responding to Anonymous 2:40 pm and Inquisitive above, if the Ramseys were covering for Burke, part of the staging would definitely include discussing with him what he needed today and do once police arrived. Yup, he was not allowed to talk to the police deeded by John...why would that be? Their daughter had just been murdered by an "intruder" and Burke could have had pertinent information.

    VERY INTERESTING that Burke was "half asleep" so that he could not talk to police, but he was cognizant enough to grab his Nintendo.

    What kid grabs their Nintendo when being whisked out of the house half asleep? How did he know he would be without his precious Nintendo for a while?

    Why are we all pretending that Burke was too stupid to put two and two together. His mom came into his room screaming for JB, then an hour or two later the police came barging into his room. Still at that point he was "sleepy" and had to be led out the door to a family friend's home without his parents? Didn't Burke see his mom sobbing? What did they explain to him before he left? I am sure they had to tell him something about where he was going, why, when he'd see his parents again. How is Burke not freaking out at this point and crying or asking his mom and dad "what is going on!!!!"? I know Doc likes to pretend Patsy is a complete moron who was brainwashed so his JDI theory works, but now Burke is a robotic moron as well?

    Yeah, maybe he was in shock. Maybe he was confused. But you don't think that a kid that age sees his mom scream for his sister, then later has police raid his room, then sees his mom sobbing, and he doesn't have a reaction? Yes, we know now that Burke has issues and he had them then, but if he was completely in the dark and completely innocent, you don't think any of this would affect him?

    Well, at the very least, we know that he wasn't too sleepy to grab his Nintendo (must have known he wouldn't see it that night or would be without it for a while....interesting this was hours before JR found JB's body).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. opps I meant part of the staging would include Patsy and John telling Burke what he needed to say and do once police arrived.

      Delete
    2. I think he was told to play dumb. Because either John knew he saw or heard something or John suspected it.

      Delete
    3. Oh. so your theory now includes Burke seeing something he shouldn't that night and was pulled aside by John and told to keep his mouth shut? And Burke never said anything to his mom all those years later?

      Delete
    4. Are there any reports of what John or Patsy told Burke before he left with the Whites to go to the Fernies' house?

      Delete
    5. I don't think it's necessary to suggest that John suspected Burke knew anything or had seen or heard anything incriminating. More likely, some innocent comment Burke might make about something seemingly innocuous could unwittingly blow a hole in John's story, in terms of timing, or when John went to bed, etc. I can easily imagine an adult being able very quickly to persuade a 9 yr old that talking to the police and saying the wrong thing could cause the police to suspect him, Burke. John wouldn't have to suspect that Burke knew anything, and he wouldn't have to leave the impression that Burke's silence was to protect John himself.

      Delete
  40. There were so many questionable actions that went on that morning, starting with the 911 call.

    Think about this---If your child was kidnapped, would you allow your other child out of your sight? You don't know who is responsible, and yet you allow your other child to leave your house with friends(that you later threw under the bus)without a police escort. According to the note, they were watching you...JR thought they were specifically targeting him because of his business and yet you allow your son to leave your sight?

    I would have glued him to my side and kept him with me and the dozens of cops, FBI agents, etc who were surrounding your house and property.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  41. You have to realize that Burke is only 9. Remember when you were a kid and parents were yelling at each other while you were in bed..You didnt go walk into the room.. He didnt know what was going on but, like most kids, wanted to stay out of it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah but kids also don't like to be separated from their parents who are visably in distress. He didn't seem upset. He took his Nintendo. Knew he'd be chilling playing video games at the family friend's house. Who cares if sister was missing and mom is sobbing and he has to go to the family friend's house without his parents....he gets to play video games.

      Delete
    2. Maybe JR told him to take it..maybe he hates going there and knew he would be bored..maybe he was told he would be there all day or maybe 2 days or more..They didnt know at that time that they would find a body so quickly

      Delete
    3. Ok, but how is it that he has no emotions. How is it that he is too sleepy to talk to police but knows somewhat of what is going on since very early in the morning (with patsy screaming for JB) - this is according to what the Ramseys say happened and we know that might not be the truth.

      Why wouldn't John and Patsy want any help they could get? They apparently (according to them) never asked Burke if he knew where his sister was, if he heard anything, or saw anything, and if they wanted the police's help, why didn't they allow for Burke to be questioned? I thought they wanted the police to help them find their missing, kidnapped daughter? Maybe the police/detective protocol was to ask every single person in the house if they say/heard anything.

      So, we know the Ramseys were evading long before they started evading the police. It started with Burke.

      Delete
    4. This is the BPD's fault, not the Ramseys.. how the hell would they know what proper procedure is.. their own detectives didnt..

      Delete
    5. But they ASKED to speak with him! You are forgetting that. He was in the home...one of THREE! He was on the same floor as JB and they would frequent each other's bedrooms at night. It isn't like the BPD didn't ask him anything. They wanted to hear what he might have heard/seen/knew. That isn't incompetence. The Ramseys shot them down and ushered Burke out the door with his Nintendo.

      Didn't seem like the Ramseys wanted to know much of anything...they didn't ask Burke (again, according to them) if he had seen his sister or when he last saw her or if he heard anything, nor did they want to police to ask him either.

      So...deductive reasoning leads me to believe....(you can fill in the blank)

      Delete
    6. They also claimed they never discussed the case with him, period.

      Delete
    7. Who is "they" and what duration did they never discuss the case?

      Delete
    8. And what are your thoughts on that Doc, because you claimed up above that "John probably told Burke to keep quiet because Burke might have seen something and John didn't want anyone to know".

      So, which is it?

      Delete
    9. Correct me if I am wrong but didnt they interview Burke at the Fernies place, telling that they had the Ramseys permission when they did not

      Delete
    10. Yes, they did at the Whites house that morning

      Delete
    11. So the police had to lie in order to interview Burke?

      Delete
    12. As I said.. thats what the BPD does best...LIE

      Delete
    13. But didn't you state the BPD had to lie that the Ramseys approved the interview in order to interview Burke, who was present in the home when JB was "kidnapped" and found murdered?

      The Ramsesy stopped the interview from occurring at their home even though the BPD wanted to interview Burke? Why is not blame put on the Ramseys?

      Delete
    14. What do you say, Leigh? Why were the BPD forced to resort to lying just to interview one of only three material witnesses who were in the house and might have known something?

      John's fault. John stalling the investigation. John hiding something. And you know it.

      Delete
  42. Could anyone provide any information or validation that a similar crime occurred and a child in the home at the time the crime occured was not asked any questions by police?

    Were all the kids in the Smart home interviewed when Elizabeth Smart went missing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irrc, her younger sister was yes, more than once, and later did give a description.

      Delete
  43. There’s much discussion on this blog of the fact that it was Patsy who made the 911 call, and of the additional voices that some claim to hear after the official call transcript ends. But in my opinion, the overall tone of the call is of even greater significance.

    As a former civilian employee of a 911 call center, I handled thousands of calls during my 3 years on the job. In my experience, calls made during an event in progress where someone is in danger, distress, or severely injured, have some common elements that are not present in calls of the less urgent, cat-stuck-in-a-tree variety.
    After a short while on the job, you learn to quickly recognize these calls. The sound of the caller’s voice is sometimes all you need, but I can describe four other elements that are typical of the high level critical calls.

    1. Location provided immediately without prompting. When a critical call originates from a location where the caller is confident they know the address with certainty (home, place of business, etc) the caller will clearly speak the address early in the call, usually in the first few seconds, and usually without being asked. This pattern holds true even when the caller is young (grandpa’s not breathing, come to 123 Main Street!)

    2. Impatience. Most callers believe (incorrectly) that dispatching will not be initiated until the call is terminated, so they want to provide just enough information to end the call knowing that help is on the way. We are trained to provide reassurance that police, fire, or medical (as the case may be) are already on the way, in order to keep the caller on the line, so that additional relevant information can be obtained. In a high level critical call, our reassurance rarely has the desired effect and the caller feels frustrated that they are still on the phone answering our questions instead of seeing the responders arrive at their location. In their advanced state of stress, minutes feel like hours.

    3. Panic. Characterized by rapid speech, heavy breathing, staccato and incomplete sentences, repeating the same statement multiple times.

    4. Expletives and Exclamations. Callers know they must suppress their panic in order to communicate as clearly as they can under the circumstances. As they struggle to do this, they use filler words. Variations of Oh God, Oh my God, Oh No, Please No, Holy __, Oh Jesus, are common examples.

    In the 911 call on 26 December, these four elements were undeniably and obviously present. I submit this leaves only two possibilities to define the call: First, it was a legitimate call made in a state of genuine panic from a frightened mother who in that moment believed her missing daughter was in great danger, and was desperately pleading for immediate help. Or Second, it was a flawlessly scripted and perfectly executed fake call, a performance as convincingly authentic as the ransom note was almost laughably inauthentic. If it was "rehearsed" as Kim Archuleta contends, she must have been rehearsing for hours.

    It makes no sense to contend that Patsy was Meryl Streep on the phone, but George Costanza with a pen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good post! Thanks very much.

      Delete
    2. What do you make of the 911 dispatcher that talked to Patsy who said that she heard other voices and a clear distinction of change of emotion than what occured during the phone call?

      Delete
    3. Given your expertise in this area...I do have one question. One thing about the call which sounds staged to me is when she says "We have a kidnapping".

      I cant remember if that was mentioned on CBS documentary or not but its something that has always stuck out to me. If it was my daughter missing and I was ringing up I can't imagine blurting that out. The first thing I would say is "my daughter is missing. And there is a ransom note...someone has kid apped her."

      In your experience, do you think this phrase from Patsy was weird?

      Delete
    4. You are referring to the 911 operator who took the call (Kim Archuleta) and her recent comments in the CBS interview where she also expressed her surprise that in 20 years, no investigator asked for her opinion.

      She shouldn't be surprised. I fielded many, many calls in my jurisdiction involving what turned out to be major crimes and no investigator ever sought me out later to see what I thought about the call. That's why audio files are created and stored of all 911 calls, so investigators don't have to rely upon the opinions and imperfect memories of 911 operators.

      I don't know what system was in Boulder in 1996, but the Motorola control panel in use where I worked in New Jersey indicated when the call was terminated by the caller. We knew without a doubt when the line was live, or not. On those occasions where a caller stopped responding but the line was still live (cell phone dropped, taken away or put down without ending call was most frequent reason in my experience) we were instructed to continue attempts to communicate.

      To her credit, Archuleta followed her training manual. But her opinion about a "change of emotion" she may have sensed, and her recollection (20 years later) about what she thinks she may have heard, must not be given greater weight than the actuality of the audio file and transcript.

      And assuming the phone handset half-off-the-cradle theory is true, (we don't know for a fact it is) those extra seconds at the end of the call remain indecipherable. Archuleta's interpretation of what might be heard is no more valid than yours or mine because she's also a former 911 call center operator.

      And yes, I will concede that same point about my original post. It's just my own opinion and interpretation, make of it what you will.

      Delete
    5. "In your experience, do you think this phrase from Patsy was weird?"

      Zed, I agree that particular phrase stands out as somewhat odd. A more likely statement at that point in the call (6 seconds in) would be "my daughter's been kidnapped!"

      But I don't see it as evidence of staging. Admittedly, my answer to your question is biased by my longtime presence in the JDI camp. I would speculate that as Patsy made that call, her mind was already racing wildly with many thoughts, among them "did John do something to our daughter? is he part of this somehow? could that be possible?"

      One can only imagine her distress as she dialed 911 and pushed those terrifying thoughts aside as too horrible contemplate, only to have them persist in her mind.

      The more likely statement for a 911 caller to say in this situation "my daughter's been kidnapped" is also the stronger, more definitive statement.

      What she actually said, "We have a kidnapping" is much less assertive, almost as if there might be some doubt that it was not what it appeared to be.

      And in that awful December morning for Patsy, I believe that despite her shock, confusion, and terror, she harbored immediate doubts and suspicion about her husband's role in the unfolding events.

      Delete
    6. anonymous 10.36pm - thanks for a great post, and the best closing line I've read on this blog.

      I agree wholeheartedly. Archuletta's testimony was among the weakest elements of the generally weak CBS show. I could not act as convincingly as Patsy is alleged to have been acting. There is some degree of hyperventilation and near hysteria at times. She is in genuine panic mode.

      Your comments on callers wanting the call ended rings much more true than the rather soggy speculations of the profilers, who claimed that the call represents help and hope and no genuine caller wants that hope to be cut off. No, d'uh, they want to know help is on the way! The call handler is not going to find their daughter for them, after all.

      Delete
    7. If the tape captured Patsy begging 'help me Jesus help me Jesus' I see that as evidence that Archuletta's accusation of a change of demeanour is entirely false, and made with the benefit of 20 years hindsight.

      One question to our former call handler: Archuletta claims to have heard Patsy say first of all, "We've called the police, now what?" But there is nothing like that audible, even in the enhanced version of the tape. Would Archuletta have been able to clearly hear things that weren't picked up by the tape? Is the tape a substantially inferior quality compared to what the handler hears on the line? And if so, why did Archuletta not report having heard any of the other alleged phrases from the enhancement?

      Delete
    8. What Zed said, thank you anon civilian former 911 dispatcher for your insight into this aspect. Veey interesting.

      Delete
  44. Patsy claimed she did NOT have the RN in front of her when she made the call. And when she was asked who the letter was from, Patsy said "What!?"...because it was unscripted...she wasnt expecting to be asked that. But then she said "SBTC. Victory". So despite only scanning the letter she remembered the acronym perfectly and the very last word.

    Her call was quite believable...Oscar material for sure. That is why John didnt make the call because no way he could have done that.

    I wonder if John had made the call though if this blog would have been PDI...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Case solved?

    DocG you think that because Patsy called 911 when the body was still in the house then she knew nothing of what happened?

    That's Hilarious.

    Let me give you an example of a similar case from Australia in 1980. You might know of the "dingo took my baby" case. Many people thought the mother did it while many others thought that the brother did it and the parents were covering up. This case has a lot of similarities with the JBR case but here the intruder was supposedly a dingo.

    The take away is that in this case the body was disposed of and never found and guess what happened? The mother was found guilty. Many year later she was exonerated like the Ramseys but the point is without the body it seemed no problem for the court to find against one of the parents.

    So in the JRB case, the fact that the body wasn't disposed of probably (amongst other things) saved the Ramseys because it gave off many mixed leads.

    The point being that if the body was disposed of with no real signs of an intruder, the parents become the main focus. It was the fact that the body was there in the state it was in that helped confuse things and probably the Ramseys were smart enough to figure this out.

    Bottom line is your assumption really is not valid. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The point being that if the body was disposed of with no real signs of an intruder, the parents become the main focus."

      Yes, but Doc's suggestion is that he intended to create "real signs of an intruder", but ran out of time to do so on account of the 911 call.

      Another thing: did the dingo leave Lindy Chamberlain a ransom note? Did Lindy break a window that clearly no dingo had entered and exited through? And then tell truly risible lies about that broken window to cover-up the incomplete staging (ok, I know, it was a tent, but you get my point)?

      I see what you're saying: absence of a body would not on its own be enough to clear them of suspicion. But Doc's point is that the combination of staging AND ransom note AND body in the house is very, very difficult for them to wriggle away from.

      But they hadn't counted on Alex Hunter riding to their rescue.

      Delete
    2. The point is that Patsy can be in on it even if the body is still in the house. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

      Also you say JR intended to create real signs of an intruder but ran out of time. But he managed to put tape over JBR's mouth and tie rope around her wrists. The "intruder signs" should be first on the agenda before the other things which were not really as important if he intended to get the body out of the house. Wouldn't you say?

      Delete
  46. Question for the 911 dispatcher, is it fairly common that the caller leaves out the name of the person kidnapped/missing/injured? Irrc when Patsy phone Mrs. white a few minutes later, Mrs. White stated Patsy told her to call the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "no real signs of an intruder"....

    What do you think the ransom note was intended to be????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN only points to parents if there are no signs of an intruder coming into the house. You know just like a parent screaming that a dingo has my baby without dingo foot prints ect.

      Delete
  48. Whatever happened that night had to take place under the cover of darkness (no matter who did it). Outside light that is normally on is off. Kitchen light seen on (dimmed) around 2:00 a.m. Lights in the sunroom that are normally left on all night were off. No window in the wine cellar so no one (from the outside) would be able to see the lights on. If these witness (neighbor) accounts are indeed true, then one can surmise that it was an inside job... unless the intruder was clever enough to know where all of the light switches were and which ones went to which lights.

    ReplyDelete
  49. PR was not running from John, he was right there when she made the call.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "DocG you think that because Patsy called 911 when the body was still in the house then she knew nothing of what happened?"

    I've often felt that the reason the body was left in the house even though Patsy called 911 is because whoever killed her (PR, JR or both if covering for BR) couldn't bear to then dispose of her body in some remote, dirty place. However, why would the writer of that note make such a HUGE issue about not calling the police? Almost one whole page of that note contained threats of killing JBR if authorities were notified. What would the point of that be if he/she/they knew they would be calling 911? Why not just write a note full of hatred towards JR or PR? That way, when the body is found, it would make sense that someone killed her because they were out to hurt the Ramseys.

    The note had a purpose: to stage a kidnapping and keep the police out of it. Why would someone want to do that? It makes sense that the writer wanted time . . . time to finish cleaning up the crime scene, time to complete staging, time to remove the body.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The CBS documentary was the by far the best and most thorough Jonbonet show that there has been thus far. Every piece of evidence was broken down as far as it can possibly go. Anything that does not match Doc's theory, even any piece of evidence you do not agree with, is conform ation bias on your part. Yet he dismisses facts such as PR lies and anything else that does not match his assumptions comes and comes up with ridiculously biased reasons as to why. Renowned world experts are clueless as well. Then there is the 911 call, of which I personally have heard the aerospace version and the experts are dead om with what they say they heard, yet Doc who somehow believes that all evidence in this case has to go through him in order to be evidence. The only 1 with confirmation bias is Doc.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Good morning!

    Let's talk about BR. All I keep seeing are posts stating that BR was a 9 year old child who was frail, skinny, and unable to harm a soul.
    In reality, BR was a month away from his 10th birthday and the way I see it (in those tapes with the therapist) BR was anything but frail or shy. In fact, he comes off as a bit of a smarta** kid with an attitude. When my own son was ten years old, he was 5'7" tall and played ice hockey on a league. He was fast, strong and powerful, even at ten years old.

    When he was asked to draw a picture of his family, JBR was completely out of the picture, in every sense of those words. I've worked with children for years and when you ask them to draw their families, they even include pets that died and went to heaven. This kid left his sister out altogether. Very telling.

    I'll give you that he couldn't recognize the pineapple, even though I don't believe it. He said "OH" and practically leaned over and fell off the chair. Total change of body language, etc indicates SOMETHING. But, I suppose it's possible he didn't know what it is.

    I think BR ruled the roost in that house. He had an absentee father who was never home and always traveling on business, therefore no role model, no disciplinary figure, no guidance. Very important for a male child to have a strong male role model in his life.
    He has a Southern belle for a mother who felt it was unladylike to raise her voice above a whisper, and living the beauty pageant life once again through her 6 year old daughter, so no discipline there.

    BR admitted to Dr Phil that his mother never raised her voice or her hand. Seems to me that the only person raising his hands in that house was BR.

    So now--You have a 6 year old daughter wetting her bed nightly. You have a son and possibly a daughter smearing feces all over. You have a daughter who has been to the doctor 27 times in three years. (I raised four children and combined they didn't go to the doctor 27 times in four years).

    After the murder, neighbors and friend were shunned if they spoke to the police. What does that tell you? The neighbors and friends might have been able to tell you what type of kid, BR was. JR and PR didn't want anyone knowing what went on inside their perfect, Christmas tree in every room, house.

    That family was a disaster waiting to happen and it did. The parents never asked their son, who was a key witness in the house that night, whether or not he heard anything and wouldn't let the police ask him either. WHY NOT!

    PR and JR felt guilty and responsible for what happened that night, as they should be, and so they covered up a terrible "accident".

    And now 20 years later, we all finally get to meet BR. A man of 29 years who couldn't even look Dr Phil in the eye when answering questions. Not to mention that smirk he wore, exactly as he did when he was a boy.

    I've come to my conclusion. Now you do the math.

    EG

    ReplyDelete