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.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Straw Poll

I've come up with a couple questions designed to help me understand the mind set of those reading and posting here. For purposes of this poll, please try to forget about the Ramseys and assume this is something happening to you personally.


Assume you are the mother of two children, one a six year old little girl and the other a 9 year old boy.

1.  You hear a loud disturbance coming from the basement and go down there to investigate. You find your son hovering over your daughter, holding a strange device with an intricate knot he's tightening around her neck. She has already suffered a devastating head wound, blood is oozing out of her vagina and she is clearly dead. As you look on in horror, he turns to you and says: "she stole my pineapple." What would you do?

2. You hear a loud disturbance coming from the basement and go down there to investigate. You find your husband hovering over your daughter, holding a strange device with an intricate knot he's tightening around her neck. She has already suffered a devastating head wound, blood is oozing out of her vagina and she is clearly dead. As you look on in horror, he turns to you and says: "This is not what it looks like. Our son clobbered her over the head in a fit of rage and I decided to cover for him by making it look like a pedophile attack, perpetrated by a would-be kidnapper. I need you to sit down and write a phony ransom note so no one will suspect him. After all, we have to protect our family honor."
What would you do?


280 comments:

  1. Doc, I don't believe any of those scenarios occured.

    Burke would have woken up John and Patsy, or somehow both would have known before John performed any staging.

    And blood "oozing out" of her vagina?? Who knows what was going through their heads, but obviously they thought it had to look like a rape/sexual abuse for the intruder theory to ring true (remember they never planned to remove the body or plans changed). Without that paint brush, the parents would have looked a lot more suspect. I honestly don't think Patsy would have seen JBR like that at all...not until John brought her up the next day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scenarios I've chosen are very close to the two possibilities raised by BDI advocates on this blog: EITHER Burke was responsible only for the head blow, and his father (or parents) covered it up with a sexual assault and strangulation OR Burke was responsible for the head blow, sexual assault and strangulation, and the parents decided to cover it up with a ransom note.

      There is very little difference between my two little scenarios and these two possibilities. And I don't see much difference between both discovering what Burke had done and only one discovering it. The same decision would have to have been made regardless.

      You still haven't answered the questions.

      Delete
  2. In both instances, I would've called the police. BUT, I don't think it happened either of those two ways.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then how DO you think it happened?

      Delete
  3. Doc's tongue is firmly in his cheek; he's being whimsical, but makes a valid point: under what possible circumstances could a normal person possibly be coerced into participating in a crime?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  4. The bottom line is this:

    Had this case been brought to court, they would not have gotten a conviction. There is simply no hard evidence to convict JR, PR or BR.

    Let's face facts. None of us know what happened in that house on that night because we weren't there. And the people that were there, lawyered up, hired PR people and completely shut the case down and put up road blocks every step of the way.

    You can GUESS that PR called the doctor and set up a pelvic exam for JR upon their return but do you know that? NO. Was the doctor ever questioned or were those records sealed along with the phone records and everything else?

    You can GUESS that JR was visiting porn sites in Denmark on his business trips but do you KNOW that? NO!

    You can say he liked his ex gf to wear pageant clothes, but so what? Were they both consenting adults? Lots of adults have fetishes, and as long as they're of age and consenting, it's not illegal. JR married a pageant queen, so evidently he was attracted to WOMEN who enjoyed those things.

    You can call 100 experts who can testify to sexual abuse having taken place but can any of them say by whom? NO.

    Could an intruder have come in and done it? MAYBE, BUT what intruder would close a window behind them, write a 3 page RN, put the pad and pen back in its place and on and on and on? NONE

    The GJ got it right and so did Alex Hunter. Even if they brought this case to court, there was NO evidence to convict anyone.

    I personally think BR was responsible for it. He was a troubled boy filled with resentment and jealousy. I think the parents were aware of this, but opted to do nothing about it. I think both parents were fast asleep when JBR and BR went down the basement. Sometime during the night, they discovered what happened. I think they covered it up by writing the RN together, and breaking the window, and moving the body into the WC. I do not believe JR inserted anything into his daughter's vagina or garotted her, although he might have. I do think they cleaned up her body to get rid of any DNA from BR, covered her with a blanket, and left her favorite nightgown next to her.
    Of course the 911 call was frantic. PR lost her daughter and knew her son did it. If that's not enough to make you hysterical, I don't know what it.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doctor/patient confidentiality survives death; however, Dr Beuf released his medical records to the authorities and, it's speculated, the Grand Jury. Their contents have never been leaked, as far as I know.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Have never been leaked in their entirety, to be precise.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Right. Which means we still don't know what that last call to the doctor was about.
      EG

      Delete
    4. EG, all the very real issues you've raised are precisely the reason I decided to adopt the method I've adopted. My conclusions are not based on any of the above, but on certain indisputable facts and straightforward logical inferences based on those facts. You do not have to accept my reasoning, and clearly you haven't. But my take on this case does not depend on any of the issues you've raised.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for providing your own scenario, EG. But I don't see any significant difference between that and the first scenario I offered. In both cases a parent, or parents, would have made essentially the same discovery: their son had bludgeoned, sexually assaulted and garroted their beloved daughter. So I'll ask it again: what would YOU do?

      Delete
    6. Doc -
      I think I responded way back up there somewhere. I'd call 911 in either scenario. If my husband did it, he'd be sitting in jail and if my son did it, he'd be receiving psychiatric help. However, can anyone really answer what they'd do, unless they've been in that situation?
      EG

      Delete
  5. Well, at least we all live to greet another day. So good morning comrades. This case never made any sense to me. None of the pieces fit. I was living in mystery until I read Holme's book, that Patsy surprised John that night molesting JB, she had come downstairs with the flashlight not wanting to turn on lights, and noticing J wasn't in bed, came to JB room, saw what she saw and heard what she heard and flew into rage. Swung the flashlight, a terrified JB ran over to her father, Patsy intended to just swing out, lash out and accidentally struck JB. They waited in shock for a few minutes, knew she wasn't coming to, heard the crack of the flashlight, knew if she were taken to the hospital they would have to explain how it happened, they would both be culpable, if she did wake up she would likely be in a vegetative state the rest of her life if she even lived, so John took care of it. They both murdered her. That theory made the most sense to me for the last two years, and perhaps it still does. Both parents were culpable. And Burke really did sleep through it. May have gotten up during the night, but JR said he put Burke back to bed with a benedryl until they woke him up at 7 a.m in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but no one would sleep next to someone else had done that. Then stay married and cover for that person. No way, no how. We are missing 1 huge part of this case that we may never find out.

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

      Delete
  6. My answers to questions 1 and 2 are identical: I'd check to see if I'd kept the store receipts for my daughter's Christmas gifts.

    Sorry, I'm being flippant because that seems to be the tone of the question.

    However, I do see the point.

    Nothing in the world could persuade me that staging a pedophilic murder was in my family's best interests. As many have noted, there were far simpler ways to cover up on Burke's behalf, if that is what they did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHN,

      You really don't know what you'd do in any given situation, unless you've lived it. People do things that are unrecognizable to themselves and others all the time.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Excuse me EG, as a parent of a 4 year old daughter who I adore beyond belief, I can tell you this: nothing on God's green earth could induce me to go accept anyone, for any reason, violating her dear body in such an obscene manner, not for any reason whatsoever - not to save my son or my husband from the consequences of their actions. Don't tell me I don't know that I wouldn't countenance what was done to her. I know. To a parent, even the dead body of their child is sacred, deserving of the utmost love, care, and reverence.

      So please, don't presume to tell me I don't know. The world is full of parents who've done the right thing when they've realised their kid has killed a complete stranger, let alone their beloved daughter.

      So abusing her private parts and garroting her? Never, never, never. And I could not live with a partner who did, even after death, even for 'noble' reasons.

      And in the aftermath of my daughter's death, could I sit and compose as grammatical, neat, and structured a letter as the RN? I wouldn't have it in me. No innocent normal parent who had just seen their daughter dead would have it in them.

      I stress 'normal'. Never seen John exhibit a flicker of human emotion.

      Delete
    3. The world is also full of parents who have covered up for their children who were murderers, serial killers, and/ or child torturers and abusers. From watching crime shows on TV that's more common than doing the right thing.

      Delete
    4. I don't know of any case where parents have covered for a child by sexually assaulting and strangling the body of another one of their own children, not to mention risking life imprisonment by staging a kidnapping.

      Oh and by the way: Please answer the questions.

      Delete
    5. I don't know of any other cases either, doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, it's possible BDI did it. As far as your questions 1. I would drag my son off the body, check to make sure my daughter couldn't be helped, then call 911. 2. Hit my husband over the head with something, check to make sure my daughter couldn't be helped, then call 911. But then, if one of my children was a pedophile or serial killer, I wouldn't cover up for them either, as so many parents do. However, I don't believe your scenario is even close to what happened, I think Patsy found out about it after the fact and only saw the body after it was wrapped in a blanket.


      don't think your scenario is even close to what happened. I think PR found out what happened after the fact and only saw the body after it was wrapped in a blanket.

      Delete
    6. I agree entirely Doc - in several long decades of reading and watching true crime books and documentaries I've never heard of an otherwise normal innocent parent doing any such thing. And let's not forget: the body that John or Burke garroted and strangled was not dead. Had an adult checked properly for vital signs they would've found some. She was comatose but alive. Petechial hemorrhaging and bruising under the garrote proves this.

      Delete
    7. MHM

      I wouldn't presume to tell you anything. I was speaking in general terms. Good people do bad things sometimes. It's just a statement of fact. It wasn't meant to target you specifically.

      Doc - You are accusing JR of sexually assaulting strangling and bludgeoning his own child, aren't you? And staging a kidnapping. The only thing you've left out is that he's covering for himself and not for his son.

      Bgh - You're right, of course. People commit bizarre, heinous and horrible crimes, even parents.

      EG

      Delete
    8. I understand that EG - sorry if I over-reacted slightly. Had a bad day - my daughter actually got pushed over by the class bully at school, has a fat split lip and a huge bump and grazing on her forehead. It's the first time she's ever been deliberately hurt by anyone and I think she's a bit traumatised.

      That kids parents better not even *think* about attempting any staging to cover for him when I see him tomorrow...

      Delete
    9. MHN

      Apology accepted. I am sure that split lip of your daughter's is hurting you more than its hurting her. I know, been there done that. I not only taught school for 30 years, but I am the mother of four adult children. I've basically devoted most of my life to children in one way or another, which I suspect is why this case has grabbed my attention to the point where I am unable to let it go.
      I appreciate your input and enjoy getting others' perspectives on this case.
      EG

      Delete
    10. "You are accusing JR of sexually assaulting strangling and bludgeoning his own child, aren't you? And staging a kidnapping. The only thing you've left out is that he's covering for himself and not for his son."

      Well put.

      But no, I don't think John did those things as part of a coverup. I think the sexual assault was real, as was the strangulation -- which may well have had an erotic motivation. The binding of the hands and the tape were probably staging. And of course the note.

      Delete
    11. EG - thank you for those words, which I echo wholeheartedly.

      Delete
  7. If JR was in fact molesting JB, I would think that the last thing he would want to do was make it look like it was a sexual killing. Why leave the garotte and hands tied up ? Makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scenario 1: would have screamed for my husband, and probably slammed that boy up against the wall and tried to get him to tell me exactly what went down, and tried to figure out what in the world was wrong with him. It would have taken all I had to not physically lash out at the kid!

      Scenario 2: I would have run away to get away from the husband, and would have called the police. I would have been hysterical, thinking that my husband had truly lost his mind and I would have felt he was extremely dangerous and would have wondered if I had unwittingly married a psychopath.

      Delete
    2. "If JR was in fact molesting JB, I would think that the last thing he would want to do was make it look like it was a sexual killing."

      You're forgetting that according to my analysis he never intended for her body to be found in the house.

      Delete
  8. 1. Call an ambulance. I'm sorry, but it's obvious JBR was the apple of her mom's eye. Even if it were my other child that killed my daughter, I would forever hate/resent my other child. There's no way I could "fake" being ok with and loving toward the child I knew killed the other child. Even IF they were my only remaining child - I would have so much resentment that I could not hide it all those years afterwards. PR was not a Susan Smith nor a Casey Anthony. She liked to keep up her lifestyle and appearances, sure, but she literally loved that child, and no one has ever attested to her being "crazy" or strange - they only may have disagreed with the pageant stuff. There's NO way I can believe she covered for BR. And over pineapple and jealousy? Sorry, kid, but you are going straight to an institution for fear you would kill me someday - kids kill their parents, too, you know.

    2. WHAT? Nope.

    I think PR was manipulated into the lies she told. I honestly do not think she would have stayed with JR if she knew he either did it or covered for Burke. Obviously JR is a master manipulator, whether JDI or BDI and JR covered. I think PR did not really know about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There's NO way I can believe she covered for BR. And over pineapple and jealousy? Sorry, kid, but you are going straight to an institution for fear you would kill me someday - kids kill their parents, too, you know."

      Good point, well made.

      Delete
  9. What father shows NO emotion and is completely calm when on TV begging for information about his murdered daughter? He just sat there! I have never been in this situation, but that is just not normal. At least PR cried and was visibly upset - and that was probably even when sedated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If either of those happened I would immediately exit the house to avoid anything that could potentially happen to me. I would then call the police when I am safe. I don't even need to think about this, both scenarios I would get out of the house and call the police ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Neither scenario in this straw poll is facetious. Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might be facetious, but it makes sense. Think about it...take the facetiousness out of it and it still seems unlikely.

      Delete
    2. Yet these are, in essence, the two possible scenarios implied by the CBS "experts." They don't spell that out, of course, because to do that would expose the absurdity of their theory.

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

      Delete
    4. Well, the experts couldn't solve the case. They are no better than us.

      Delete
  12. What makes the most sense to me is Burke. I think John did the garrote/vagina staging when he disappeared for over an hour when the police were at house. I'm not sure if Burke woke up just JR or not, after he hit JonBenet with the flashlight and she didn't wake up, but either way I think he was sent to his room, PR wrote the note and then the cops were called. There is no way PR was an accomplice to the horrific staging, but JR seems cold and able to do that to protect his family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words, rather than checking for vital signs (she lived for a minimum of 45 minutes after the blow to the head, as stated by forensic neurologists who studied the bleeding and swelling in her brain), and calling for an ambulance, possibly preventing the tragic death in the first place, John's idea of good parenting was to sit and write himself a two and a half page Scorpio impersonation while his daughter's life ebbed away. Then at some point later he goes back to her, still doesn't check whether she's alive or dead, and garrotes her to death and sticks a paintbrush up her genitals while she dies?

      Whether he did that (if he did that) for sexual kicks because he was a chronic abuser, or just the once to protect Burke, he should be behind bars, because he's sick.

      But I think your timing is slightly off: the garrote killed her, she was still alive when it was tightened. That was likely 45 minutes to 2 hours after the blow to the head. For John to do that after the cops were in the house seems to me too late. I think JB would've been dead by then, and therefore no petechial hem, no bruising under garrote. IF she screamed at 2am and was silenced by the head blow, she was likely garroted to death somewhere around 3.00-3.30am.

      Delete
  13. Also as an aside, my 8 yr old daughter went to sailing camp this summer, learned lots of knots. The garrote knot could have been made by Burke. But I think it's more likely John did it as a staging. If the killer really wanted to strangle JonBenet she was unconscious, why wouldn't you just use your hands or a rope. Seems more likely that the garrote was staged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You haven't answered the questions, Amy.

      Delete
    2. Amy

      I agree with you. Everything points to him. He wasn't and isn't dealing with a full deck. Something is wrong with him and I am sure the parents blamed themselves.

      EG

      Delete
  14. If BR did it by hitting JBR with the flashlight, why would JR or PR strangle a still-breathing JBR? Or, if BR hit JBR with the flashlight and then also later strangled her, how would JR and PR feel comfortable with him in their house or around other children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good questions. Now if you please, answer mine.

      Delete
  15. In both of your scenarios the child is clearly dead. In both cases I would have to call authorities and attempt to get my son into a psychiatric facility (this is assuming I believe what my husband told me.). I would not attempt any crazy staging.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1: Forcefully push him away from my daughter, perhaps with a dibilitating result, check for life signs, calling 911 in that order, all while screaming and slamming things around, summoning for help as loud as possible.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2:Run to the neighbors as fast as possible. Have them call 911 and report a rape and murder.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not answering the questions because they are irrelevant to the case and Doc is desperately trying to get people back on board his JDI theory. I'm sorry Doc, but it seems you care more about your theory than you do about justice for JBR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you're the one with that problem, Zed. The questions go to the heart of BDI because it's necessary to account for ALL the evidence, not just the parts you prefer to contemplate.

      Delete
  19. The quiz should be this:

    Your 6 year old child is seriously injured through circumstances that - if disclosed -would be embarrassing to the family. Do you:

    1. Call 911 and do everything in your power to save your child's life; or

    2. Stage a kidnapping to deflect bad PR and throw friends and family under the bus?

    Pencils down . . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I pick #1 - I would do anything to save my child - screw embarrassment. I can live with embarrassment much more than I can live with the grief of losing a child.

      Delete
  20. 1 and 2, call the police. But I do think in 2, there are some wives out there that could be convinced that's what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zed, I'm not partisan in this: I don't know what happened, I have no preferred suspect. But surely it's possible that Doc does care about justice, and is trying to point out what he feels are huge unanswered questions in the BDI scenario. I felt the same when I watched the CBS show: there was too much they left out: if the presence of a ransom note for a girl whose dead body was in the house is evidence against the intruder theory, we should also ask, does the BDI scenario in any way resolve that inexplicable anomaly? Clearly it does not, but they refused to pursue that once they had used it to discredit the intruder idea. They made zero mention of the multiple experts claiming prior and repeated vaginal violation. Heck, they even omitted any mention of the detailed chapter concerning the frequency and signs of child sibling sexual abuse. They cherry-picked. Why shouldn't Doc point that out? He's not the only one who spotted it. You make it sound as though BDI is now SO the official consensus view that Doc must be some hyper-partisan fringe nutter to point out its flaws. Not so.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry - I meant the detailed chapter in Kolar's Foreign Faction - it struck me as odd that they refused to go there even though it as in the book that the show was basically drawing on, and even though they threw everything else they could at Burke.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scenario #1 – WWYD

    The Ramsey’s were smart, educated, and rich, they would call their lawyers immediately. Lawyering up is the way to go no matter what. Most lawyers will ultimately advise, suspect vs LE is an adversarial proceeding from the start, you should assume you will need vigorous defense from opposing counsel. To assume otherwise is pure folly.

    Scenario #2 – WWYD
    See scenario #1 response, same.

    CC2

    ReplyDelete
  24. would also like to say Thank You to DocG for this blog, and all his efforts at seeking justice for JBR. Respect Sir. We may not always agree, but perhaps one of us here on this blog can be that smart turn in the road that allows a new investigation, with full legal jurisdiction, to take place. I would personally be happy to be wrong on that day with my theory, knowing that a young innocent soul finally found a hint of real justice.

    CC2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing would make me happier, after all these years, than some new piece of evidence emerging that truly exonerates all the Ramseys, including John. All I want as far as this case is concerned is to find some explanation that makes sense. If that takes the heat of John, Patsy and Burke, that's fine with me. And if BDI can be clearly demonstrated I'd be fine with that also.

      Delete
  25. Straw Poll:
    1. Assuming both parents didn’t wake up, and only one did (which is plausible) -- If I was the mom, I would scream for my husband. If I was the dad, I probably wouldn’t call for mom right away knowing that she would be devastated/uncontrollable ...I need to think this through and weigh the pros/cons of my actions. Do I protect my son --- YES (I feel guilt for sensing he had psychological issues and failed to take action, plus I’m never home, always traveling and I haven’t been there for my son …it’s my fault, not his), should I tell his mom --- NO (she can’t know that her son did this – better that she thinks it was an intruder). If mom knows what actually happened it will be more difficult to cover up (one more person that has to lie). I need her to act and think like this was done by intruders in order for the police to buy it. If she suspects later, I can explain my actions then, that I was only doing this to protect her/Burke. But how do I keep Burke quiet? He has to understand that what he did is very bad and that if the police find out he will go to jail for the rest of his life (no more Nintendo). He has to understand that if they cover it up and he tells, that DAD may also go to jail. But, can I trust that a nine-year-old is smart enough to fool the police? What do I have to lose if this all falls apart and the police learn what actually happened later. Could I go to jail for protecting my son? Think, think, think. I don’t have much time to cover this up.

    2. As I mom, I would push/shove him away from my daughter and would try to protect her. Realizing that she is gone and seeing her injuries, I would be out of my mind. I am raging at my son – how could you do this – what did you do, etc. – Raging at JR “how could you do that to our daughter”, OMG, OMG. I would want to call 911, ambulance, the police. So, JR stops her and tries to calm her down so they can talk this through. JR goes through a litany of scenarios (CEO strategic thinking) that could/would result from actions taken. What will happen to Burke? [I’m sure they were unaware that Burke couldn’t be prosecuted due to his age]. At some point the guilt sets in – we failed as parents – why didn’t we see any signs – or why didn’t we act when we noticed Burke was having problems (i.e. withdrawn, feces smearing, hitting his sister, jealousy, bedwetting, etc.). It becomes our fault and not Burkes.
    As a mom, I just don’t think that I could think straight or make any kind of (or participate in) “coverup” decisions in the short amount of time between when JBR passed and when the police were called. I don’t think you could have picked me up off the floor, let alone put thought into writing a 3-page ransom note. It would be interesting to know how the story would go if the Ramsey’s didn’t have to board a plane at 7:00 a.m. and it was to be just a normal day-after-Christmas at home.
    Vicki

    ReplyDelete
  26. In both cases I too would slowly back out of the room and as soon as I was out of their sight I would start running until I was save and then I would call the police!
    But obviously neither scenario happened!
    I think its crazy to think a parent would do that horrible staging to protect the other child who killed his sister by accident with a blow on the head.
    Why would JR do the pedo staging in such a case? It was unnecessary and sick. And if they wanted to make it look like an IDI for some strange reason (why cover-up a blow on the head (that can be explained away as an accident) with a clear murder?) garroting her would have been more than enough!
    I can think of only one reason for doing the pedophlile staging and penetration and that is: JR was aware of prior sexual abuse, by doing this he made it difficult to prove there was prior sexual abuse (and he succeeded) this was important because prior sexual abuse would point to somebody in the house for the murder.
    But I think that if the Ramsey's were aware of BR sexualy abusing JBR they would NOT have allowed BR and JBR to sleep in each others room, and they would have taken precautions (locking BR in his room at night, or have JBR sleep somewhere that was not accessible to BR or both etc). The Ramsey's however let the 2 children sleep in the same room when they wanted, they even provided a spare bed. I think this proves that the Ramsey's did NOT suspect any sexual abuse. The question then is, who's sexual abuse was JR covering up that he was aware of? Only one answer possible he was the abuser.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Very nicely put, Vicki. That last question is something I've wondered about too.

    You're almost TOO good at rationalizing the unspeakable. I'm going to be wary of you :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always wanted to be a detective or work for the FBI, but instead ended up in the corporate world. Now I'm semi-retired with too much time on my hands, and I have been engrossed in this case for the past two weeks (read two books on the case in four days). It is so sad. Looking for the BIG Ah Ha, but haven't found it yet.
      Vicki

      Delete
    2. Hi Vicky. Your story is like mine except I overdosed on "Columbo" when I was young.

      I too am looking for the BIG Ah Ha. What do you think about the cbs show? It seems to best answer everything?

      CE

      Delete
    3. I was disappointed in the CBS show. It lacked in-depth analysis that I was looking for, and left out way too much information that was important to the case (ambiguous in a lot of respects). It did not convince me one way or the other. I would love to be able to sit down and talk the Whites.

      Delete
  28. Okay here's my two cents worth regarding the straw poll
    Scenario 1: I would first check her pulse to see if she was still alive. Then I would ask my son to explain to me what happened exactly step by step. I would get my wife and tell her there had been an accident and that we need to pull together as a family. I would call the police. I WOULD NOT attempt to cover it up. I would understand that my son needs help. I have raised a son and a daughter. This is what I know I would do.

    Scenario 2: I'm the wife and I see it as you laid it out. I would hope I could move beyond the shock and take action. I would be in fear of my life and the life of my son. It would be an unbelievable "story" coming from my husband, and my first thought would be "flight." I would take my son and go to a neighbor's house and instruct them to call 911.

    The reason I have vacillated so many times with this case is no matter who I thought did this (other than an intruder, which I never fully embraced) I couldn't wrap my mind around why a father would be so brutal or same thing - how a father could be so brutal to cover up for his son. How could either one of them, P or J, calmly compose a ransom note after a. finding their daughter dead; b. causing her death; c. covering up for a son. So when i found your blog Doc I thought well, finally this makes sense. And John's personality seems to me to indicate that he could do such a thing. Certainly that he could take control of the investigation, lawyer up, go on a PR campaign and lie with smooth efficiency. CBS I thought was somewhat of a joke. At the least. A missed opportunity at the most. But I keep coming back to how could a father do this? What was the motive? If some experts say no chronic sexual abuse and others say yes, chronic abuse then we have divided opinions. Which the divides my mind as well - however that's not it for me. Because I'm trying to make the motive fit and it just doesn't. But if you believe the theory that Patsy caught John in the act, swung a flashlight and hit JB by mistake (or not) then they are both culpable - he ended her life as well and they are in it together since they both committed murder - that makes the most sense to me. She can't rat on him since she swung the flashlight, and he can't rat on her because he was sexually abusing her - at least that night, and then strangled her to stage it as she was still alive (or put her out of her misery). This was put forth by was it Holmes in his several books about JonBEnet. Sorry I'm not at the internet where I can look it up. Will be happy to and get back.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's the correct name of the author I referenced: Andrew G. Hodges, M.D. Psychiatrist, book was "A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer." Repeated sexual abuse by the father, mother caught him that night, had flashlight with her, swung, there was a struggle, JB got in the way, got hit - perhaps Patsy was swinging at John, they knew she wasn't going to wake up, blow was too hard, couldn't call an ambulence - they are both culpable, so John goes and stages, and makes sure she never wakes up, not that she would. Panties changed, wiped down, etc. you know the rest. Note written, 911 called, ran out of time. I see your point Doc, that why would she call if she knew body was still in house? But what justification could they use to tell John's older children that they wouldn't be coming to Michigan afterall? And when/how would he have removed the body without being seen?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Flight (guilty) or fight (innocent). JR called to ready his plane to go to Atlanta just hours after finding JB's body. That to me is one of the most incriminating events.

    I am torn between events like that and then total disbelief that a parent, or parents could stage such a gruesome crime.

    Vicki

    ReplyDelete
  31. Reply to MHN - I’m sure Doc is passionate about justice (otherwise he probably wouldn’t have this blog). But his tongue in cheek comments are becoming a little frustrating. Some of us have entertained his JDI theory for years but he won't entertain another theory for half a second.

    I personally think CBS didn’t bring it up, because there is nothing there to bring up!! Prior molestation has not been proven in any shape or form. Some experts state there definitely was, some state the results were in the range of a normal 6 year old girl. Even if there was, it was more likely Burke (they slept in the same room on occasions) or JBR experimenting herself.
    Given there is absolutely no evidence or history of John doing anything remotely like this...I think this is quite far-fetched. JBR used to ask when her dad was coming home...she missed him. Patsy took JBR to the paediatrist 27 times in a few years...John would have known about this. Is John an odd character? Definitely? Did he break the law that night and do something horrific? Most definitely. Did he sexually abuse JBR prior to that night? That is a huge statement to make. Of course it’s possible, just like anything is possible with this case. But most often it’s the straight forward approach that occurred...not going off on some wild tangent and making up something which just isn’t there.

    Doc is not willing to even suggest for a second that he is wrong...and instead resorts to sarcastic remarks. He repeats things over and over like “Patsy would not have called 911 if she was involved” which is just pure hogwash. Plain and simple. It’s his blog so I guess he has the right I suppose...his way or the highway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed I agree with your take on the case.

      I also can see your frustration about Doc who says "If she'd been involved she would not have called 911 when she did. It's really that simple. And much harder to refute than you might think. But, by all means, be my guest, give it a try."

      But when you give it a try he seems a bit dismissive.

      But it surely is not "really that simple" because of the voices after she thought she hung up the 911 call, the fact she hung up the 911 call early, her contradictory comments and behaviour and her lawyering up.

      CE

      Delete
    2. Oh and before Doc says please answer my question let me say that there is no point because its hyperthetical because it doesn't matter what I would do but rather what they would do.

      CE

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

      Delete
    4. Zed, "But most often it’s the straight forward approach that occurred...not going off on some wild tangent and making up something which just isn’t there."

      I agree. And so does Doc, I think. For example, and there is no getting away from the need to explain this pesky simple fact:

      One or both parents left a completely unnecessary ransom letter. It wasn't a generic intruder/murderer letter, a Zodiac-style thing, it was explicitly and in great detail a ransom demand.

      And yet the child was dead in the house.

      I know we're all slightly jaded by the sheer repetition of that fact, but it absolutely has to be dealt with. Doc does exactly what you suggest: he takes it in the most straightforward way: it's a ransom demand, and there was no intruder, therefore one of the parents wrote a ransom letter, therefore they intended to stage a kidnapping, (else why write a long ransom demand?) therefore something interrupted the plan. If the plan had been John's alone, Patsy's 911 call made the plan impossible to complete. If the plan was partly Patsy's, she made it impossible to complete. Why would she do that?

      Those aren't crazy leaps. Those are very simple, straightforward inferences based on the simple facts.

      Am I as convinced as Doc is that they represent the only possible scenario? No, not quite. The intruder story is nonsense, based purely on the half hour taken to write that note, along with a couple of false starts, using only materials found in the house. Also, potentially there was a scream that was silenced by a blow to the head, followed by at least half an hour of brain swelling before the garrote was used.

      No intruder in the world is going to be so relaxed, so leisurely. So, no intruder.

      But does that mean I think only John can have written the letter? Do I even think it is absolutely undeniable evidence of a plan to stage a kidnapping? No, I can conceive of the letter as being part of a squid defence: to squirt so much ink into the water that you evade capture in the confusion. That letter muddies the waters. It contains so much extraneous material. Group of individuals, representing small foreign faction, John's business, hatred of America, etc etc. Similarly the staging - imagine if she had been found with only the blow to the head: suddenly the intruder looks far less likely, suddenly it's easily a moment of rage or an argument, or even a domestic accident, but add vaginal violation, ligatures, and a garrote, and suddenly it's so sadistic and sick that stereotypes come into play, ie, the Ramseys are not the sort of people who could perpetrate something like that. Too white middle class Christian affluent etc.

      So I can concede that the staging is designed entirely to muddy the waters. Whoever was responsible could have thought "I don't need to point the investigators in one particular direction, don't need to follow through on the kidnap staging, I can leave them not knowing which way to look, I can leave contradictory evidence pointing in many directions at once, it's all good - kidnap, politically-motivated ransom, sex crime, murder - doesn't matter if the pieces don't add up, because my aim is to prevent the jigsaw ever being completed."

      I can see that's possible. I don't think they did it very well, though, they just got lucky with some bad police mistakes, a cowed DA, and good lawyers.

      Delete
    5. The squid defense. I like it. Did you make that up, or is it an actual thing?

      If the note didn't fit so perfectly with a carefully crafted kidnap staging, reinforced by a broken window, I'd be more inclined to agree. And it's hard to see why a squid would want to hide the body away in that little basement room. Or change the panties.

      If the purpose was simply to sow confusion I think they would have realized that confusion would not always be in their favor and would in fact make them look even more suspicious than a straightforward break-in scenario. Also, as I've said before, if they were in it together I see no reason why they would not have gotten their story together and fully cooperated with the police from day one. Same with the pineapple scenario.

      Ironically, the confusion created by the botched kidnap staging did work in John's favor despite Patsy's call. At least to some extent. But the real monkey wrench tossed into the investigation was the decision to rule him out. If that hadn't happened he'd have been nailed for sure, squid or no squid.

      By the way, squids are some of the most amazing animals on the planet.

      Delete
    6. With regard to this squid idea, which I'll admit does make some sense, as a possibility:

      It seems clear to me that the note is too long and carefully crafted (in every sense, not just the content but also the layout, the grammar, the organization, the language) to be intended simply to confuse, with no other purpose. If confusion were all that was intended, it would have been much shorter with fewer details. Someone went to a LOT of trouble to put that thing together, which tells me it was based on a carefully thought out plan.

      Delete
    7. The squid defense isn't a thing as such - it's actually my term for what often happens in online debates! Someone gets called on an obvious error of fact or logic, and they then write the longest post in history full of largely irrelevant but impressive words. In other words, ink everywhere, hoping you forget the error they know they made.

      But it might fit in this scenario...

      Listen, I agree with you: I can see the squid defense being vaguely tenable, but the broken window does tilt things.

      But towards what, actually? No point of entry, no intruder, period. Taken as a package the window and letter suggest an actual intention to stage a kidnapping. The fatal blow to the head argues otherwise. The garrote clearly points away from a kidnapping. The vaginal interference clearly points away from a kidnapping.

      So yes, the window and the letter - I'm with you. But other elements that you think John must've been responsible for, and left in place for all to see, point away from a supposed kidnapper with political/financial motivation.

      So.. let's do the math:

      Kidnap staging:

      Hands tied
      Window broken
      Ransom letter

      Other:

      911 call
      Garrote
      Fatal blow to head
      Sexual assault (ok, you might argue he tried to cover that one up, wiped her down and put clean panties on her).

      You might want to argue that the staging of the garrote came later, but as far as I understand the forensics, the garrote was in place when she was alive, and it killed her, very likely before 4am. Therefore it was in place before the 911 call, and was not removed despite John's several trips to the basement. In other words, he knowingly left evidence on the body that pointed away from a kidnapper.

      This is why I find your logic very appealing and persuasive, but cannot say yet I am 100% there with you.

      Do you mind if I stay at 85% for now?

      As far as BDI goes, I'm at about 35% - because even if Burke did it, the staging would never have happened the way it did unless John was coincidentally an absolutely abnormal, cold-hearted sociopath. Quite a coincidence that would be, no?

      Delete
    8. What I mean about the garrote is thi: I know that had he removed it the evidence of a ligature around her neck would still have been visible, but investigators might have supposed it was part of a general restraint attempt - whereas if you leave the actual garrote in place for all to see, handle and all, then you leave them in no doubt that the intent was to strangle and kill. Which has no place in a staged kidnapping.

      Delete
  32. Zed, to me you are the one who comes a cross as touchy and illogical. Most things CBS and posters come up with are things Doc has already considered. You may disagree with his conclusions but it is silly to demand that Doc suddenly changes his ideas because CBS or some poster brings those old things up again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When did I say Doc had to change his mind? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

      Delete
    2. Maybe so Anonymous but Zed was just expressing what he noticed and there has been a bit of sarcasm. I didn't much like the name calling yesterday saying did someone have Alzheimer's. In any event, let's just all continue to have an open mind.

      Delete
  33. I do not believe a parent would cover for another parent, but I do believe a parent would cover for their child.
    And yes, they blamed themselves for what happened and felt totally responsible, therefore they staged an intruder break in/kidnapping/murder. If not for that RN, they would've been arrested, and one of them probably would have confessed falsely, just to protect their remaining child.

    Now, do I know for certain that BDI? Of course I don't. And I'd love to be persuaded otherwise. I'd love to be convinced that an IDI, because it's horrifying to think a parent or child could so such a thing. I am waiting for that one word, that one thought, that one idea, that makes me do a complete about face. I am open and accepting to everyone's theories and opinions. We are all trying to get to the bottom of this heinous crime.

    A side note to Doc - I want to add my thanks to you for this fabulous blog. I've been on several such sites, but yours is by far the best. Informative, enlightening, well written and pretty fair considering all the different personalities posting.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the question is would JR do a cover-up like that for himself? And I think the answer is a clear yes.
      People say JR and PR worked together and this must mean JR is innocent which must mean BDI. Those are a lot of assumptions! Many wives believe passionately in their husbands innocence and lie and cover-up for him, even though he is clearly guilty. PR helping in the cover-up does not mean JR is innocent.
      And why that type of cover-up if it was just a blow on the head? Or do we have to assume BR was indeed assaulting her and garroting her after he had bashed her head? Not likely. CBS said BR accidentally hit her,and all the rest the garrote and the sexual assault was just staging!?! Why on earth would JR do that to cover-up a blow on the head? An accidental blow no less?

      Delete
    2. "I've been on several such sites, but yours is by far the best. Informative, enlightening, well written and pretty fair considering all the different personalities posting."

      Thanks, ER. I try to be fair because I am genuinely interested in considering every angle of this case. And no, I haven't changed my basic position, but I have learned a lot and I'm grateful for the input of everyone commenting here.

      Delete
  34. Scenario 1: Run over and push my son off and tell him to go upstairs, scream out for my husband and lift up my daughter and carry her upstairs and wait for help.

    Scenario 2: Back up quickly and run to neighbor's house to call police.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  35. Scenario 1: and call police

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1. Call the police. BR would get therapy and maybe go to a juvenile facility for a while.

    2. Call the police. No decent mother would want a husband like that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Was the Rolling Stone post deleted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Here it is: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/3-big-ways-the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-got-it-wrong-w440970

      Delete
  38. Since bad news never gets better with time and neither does lying about it I'd immediately call 911. We'd all have to face the laws of reality and deal with the consequences. I'd make sure both my son and husband got sound psychological, moral and spiritual therapy. I'd forever wonder if my husband was touched in the head for proposing I'd partake in such outlandish plot, I doubt I'd ever trust another word out of him for even concocting such an evil idea. I'd pray my son could be redeemed, I'd never forgive myself for not intervening and supervising my children better. Having personal integerty means more than pretending to present a false face of "family honor".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "family honor" bit comes from James Kolar's book. He also makes a point of calling the Ramseys "good Christians." So apparently condoning child abuse and strangulation by one's son, writing a phony ransom note to cover it up, and deceiving the police and the whole world about what really happened for 20 years is something good Christians would do.

      Delete
    2. Many horrible things have been done throughout history in the name of Christ.

      Delete
    3. Whatever JR did, it was not in the name of Christ. He's using his fake Christianity as a cover to make himself look like a normal, good, decent guy. He is not normal to me! The lip licking alone, along with his coldness, lies, and shiftiness in interviews makes very suspicious of him.

      Delete
    4. It has been said, by PR's own mother in fact, that PR was never religious until she went into remission after some kind of divine healing ritual thing someone did to her. Whatever it was. JR - who knows. Even priests abuse children - just because JR says he's a christian doesn't mean he really is.

      Delete
  39. JBZ I'd venture a guess that at some point before her death, PR wished that's what she had done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really believe one of those 2 crazy scenarios happened?

      Delete
  40. Ok, here is a question for Doc and others who strongly believe JDI:

    1. If the so called "experts" who stated JBR had been previously molested, instead said JBR had definitely NOT been previously molested...would you still think JDI or would you switch to BDI? (The initial headblow).

    I don't mind which way you answer, just interested in which one you would choose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is if there was no molestation why the pedophilic cover-up? There was no reason for it, it was supposed to be a botched kidnapping. The pedophilic made it less believable. And of course there are those other suspicious things JR did like having his plane readied for a trip after he found JBR dead.

      Delete
    2. JDI because Burke didn't make the garotte and John would not have made it had Burke been the one to hit JB first, so John must have made the garotte and Burke wasn't involved.

      Delete
    3. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The key for me is the 911 call. And John's obvious lies about breaking that window earlier. Prior molestation speaks to motive, which is far more difficult to establish than guilt. At least in this case.

      Delete
    4. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The key for me is the 911 call. And John's obvious lies about breaking that window earlier. Prior molestation speaks to motive, which is far more difficult to establish than guilt. At least in this case.

      Delete
    5. Fair enough, thanks. It's funny how we all see things differently. For me, the 911 call is right down the bottom of the list in regards to importance. Its good to have different perspectives though.

      Delete
    6. The 911 would not have been made...oh, never mind. It's been explained several hundred times in this blog.
      Jon

      Delete
  41. Serious, if one of those 2 scenarios happened no parent would simply accept it and sacrifice their daughter so they could cover-up for their son the perp!!! BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T KNOW THE BLOW WAS FATAL!! For all they knew she could be saved! They could do a bit of cover-up while they waited for the ambulance! Why didn't they call the ambulance? For me it's simple: because JDI and he preferred killing JBR in a cover-up and not go to jail.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Regardless of who delivered that head blow, surely it can be proven that John did everything else that followed (at the very least!).

    I mean, I've seen more evidence for him doing that than many other solved cases.

    I mean, the fibers JB had in her vaginal area were from the shirt John was wearing that night. No one has stated that JB had a bath that night, nor that John gave her one wearing that shirt. The panties found on JB were brand-new, straight out of the package, never been washed. There is no other plausible way for those fibers to end up in her genital area.

    IDI can be ruled out effectively in my opinion. John WAS involved in this crime, no doubt about it. The bit up in the air to me is who delivered the head blow (John vs Burke). But given Burke was 9 years old and John can be found guilty on what followed anyway, surely there is enough to make a case against John!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if the RN is left out entirely. The head-blow left out entirely. We will most likely never know the exact truth of what happened that night.

      But as I said, regardless if BDI or JDI (head-blow) there is surely enough evidence that JDTR (John did the rest). Even if it can’t be proven that John previously sexually molested JBR; Even if it can’t be proven if the paintbrush penetration was staging or actually part of the crime, Even if it can’t be proven that John wrote the RN, Even if it can’t be proven that John delivered the head-blow...Even if blah blah blah....I think it CAN be proven that it was NOT an intruder and it CAN be proven that it WAS John that did those heinous things post the head blow.

      Sure, we may not get all our questions answered and we may forever debate if John previously molested JB...but at least we will know that some form of justice was delivered and John got what he deserved. And that is what everyone on this blog is aiming for, regardless of their theories.

      Delete
    2. You have a point. But I'm wondering about the statute of limitations on manslaugther as opposed to Murder One. If he killed her during the strangulation without realizing she was still alive that would not be Murder ONe as there would be no intent to kill. As I understand it, that would be manslaughter, which may or may not be limited by a statute of limitations. What do you think, CC?

      Delete
    3. Manslaughter is a Class 4 felony, and the Federal statute of limitations is five years. Many states follow the Federal guidelines.

      But voluntary manslaughter is a "heat of passion" crime; clearly a planned cover-up would be Murder Two.
      CC

      Delete
    4. I should qualify that: a more benign prosecutor could choose to prosecute it as Murder Two. Since, undet your scenario, John had time to form intent, a hang 'em high type such as myself could opt for Murdet One.
      CC

      Delete
    5. Sorry; I was pressed for time. Here's a more complete answer to what I think you're asking, Doc.

      I've shown the autopsy pics to two emergency medicine/trauma docs over the course of the last year, and both agreed that such a wound would result in something called Cheyne-Stokes, or agonal breathing, clearly obvious even to a non-medico. Both thought seizures possible, even likely, and there would be a palpable pulse. In other words, she was clearly alive, not in some sort of death-like coma.

      It was murder.
      CC

      Delete
  43. No matter how you analyze this case the garotte is a huge problem for John. It means he's guilty in a PDI or a BDI scenario and only completely innocent in an IDI scenario.

    I believe Patsy can be ruled out by the 911 call and because she would have never consented to garotting her daughter and I believe we can rule out Burke because JB would not have been garotted if Burke was involved.

    So then it's either John is guilty or an IDI.

    Except we can almost certainly rule out an Intruder based on so many things like the window lie, no signs of forced entry, ransom note and garotte being made with house supplies, cordial nature of ransom note, ransom note being similar to John's handwriting, scheduling to leave town, exact bonus amount, etc. all point to this being an inside job.

    Therefore, Patsy is not involved. Burke is not involved. An intruder did not do this alone. So John must be guilty.

    If anyone can explain how the garotte is anything but a giant problem for John's innocence please help out his case.

    To boil it down the three things that in my mind make John guilty beyond any reasonable doubt are
    1) The 911 call - rules out Patsy
    2) The garotte - rules out Patsy and Burke
    3) The window lie - rules out intruder

    John is guilty

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally, I don’t agree that Burke can be ruled out. Nor do I believe that Patsy can be ruled out (I think she did write the RN and John helped with words). I do agree that Intruder can be ruled out.

      But as per my above post, we will probably forever agree and disagree on things like this. Let’s focus on what we do agree on and where the evidence points. That is, regardless of who struck JB on the head, JDTR (John did the rest).

      See my above post.

      Delete
    2. If Burke can not be ruled out then the following must be true: a nine year old autistic boy made a garotte, which is used to suffocate the victim the more they struggle until they finally lose air or the garotte is loosened, with homemade supplies and used this device on his 6 year old sister on christmas morning all because she stole his pineapple. Then John and Patsy wrote a ransom note to cover for their sadistic son, but still left the body with all the evidence downstairs as the called the police.

      You can't seriously believe that right?

      Delete
    3. Sure they can. TV told them so it must be true.

      Delete
    4. "Then John and Patsy wrote a ransom note to cover for their sadistic son, but still left the body with all the evidence downstairs as the called the police."

      Excellent point! If the garrote was applied by Burke, and was not intended as staging, then they would certainly have gotten rid of it before calling the police.

      Delete
    5. I dont think for a second Burke made and applied that garrote

      Delete
  44. If it was an accident, two siblings fighting over a toy or pineapple or whatever, why would you not call 911 immediately?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This question is what stops me short every time. The whole thing is insane as I do not believe it was an intruder.

      Delete
  45. You know what? We all ought to get in one room, have someone film it and see if we can get it published by some network television station. Sleuths for Justice for JonBenet. It would be our answer to what's been shown recently everywhere else. We would walk through our theories, tell why we think they work, then tell why they don't. Like a debate. Argue one side - our own side and then take the other position. In the end we would try and come to some consensus, take a vote. If not a television station then how about radio. THe John is Guilty theory certainly has gotten little to no support in the world of public opinion. People need to know why we think JDI or BDI and why we eliminate P and the IDI theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are we meeting? And is it all inclusive of flights, accommodation and 1 or 2 beverages? :)

      Delete
    2. Zed I think like me you're British am I right?

      Delete
    3. Australian?, use of word mate?

      Delete
    4. Spot on evej!

      I didn't even realise I used the word "mate" haha.

      Anyway, I need to go throw a few shrimps on the barbie! Talk soon

      Delete
    5. Zed, but you've never suggested a dingo broke in and garroted JonBenet?

      Delete
  46. My personal mindset is neither of those scenarios actually occurred the way you described. But let's say they did... both would be horrifying. I mean what the heck do you want us to say!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel sure they never occurred no. But they, or something very much like them, are implied by the BDI theory offered on CBS. So yes, I confess, I had a hidden agenda. It's called reductio ad absurdum.

      Delete
  47. I have got some scenarios for you.

    1. Either of your scenarios

    or

    2. I'm a father of a 6 year old girl and a 9 year old boy and have been sexually abusing my daughter for a while and have a kinky knot fetish and despite her being regularly checked by a paediatrician I continue until one night I crush her head in with a blunt object and garrotte her and figure I'm pretty smart so I will write a RN to fool most people and will in due course dispose of her body. However I am not in the habit of spreading my feces around but I am so good at hiding in plain sight that no one has ever accused me of being a pedophile.

    Which one sounds more credible?

    CE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1- he sailed on sailboats, also could have a been a Boyscout. Same applies to me: I was a Girl Scout and I can tie those kinds of knots. 2 - Pediatricians don't examine a little girls privates unless there is good cause, and they surely don't do a pelvic exam. Even with a yeast infection, my daughter was given a cursory look for any rashes, the doctor spoke to me about the itching and discharge, and then he prescribed something. JBR's doctor visits were for other ailments as well. You don't get a full physical every time you go! 3 - Incest is real, happens in all kind of families, why discount the possibility? 4 - I think the feces were in JBR's pullups that she sometimes wore, and when she took them off, the turds fell out. Look at her room, it was messy. She may have spread them, or maybe it was Burke. Perhaps both kids were weird in that way or were just so unsupervised and were never scolded for doing stupid things like that.

      Delete
    2. I don't know of any precedent for either of my scenarios, CE. But there are plenty of precedents for father-daughter incest, as well as fetishism. Also staged kidnappings. And yes, I do think John has been hiding in plain sight. The invisible suspect. Amazingly he's made himself invisible, not only to LE, but the media and most of the public following this case.

      Delete
  48. More precedents for sibling brother-sister incest. Having said that I don't think B raped his sister with a foreign object. And who would do that even as part of a staging. Answer: it either wasn't part of the staging (it had been occurring for some time) or it was a cruel way to have his way with her one last time, thus John

    ReplyDelete
  49. 1. I would scream, cry, probably yank him out of the way, try to revive her/help her, then call 911 and sob horribly every day for the rest of my life. I would have a hard time dealing with my 9-year-old son after this too.

    2. Scream, cry, possibly attack my husband with a knife or hammer, call 911 and tell them what I found and what my husband claims happened.

    For either scenario you described, if that's what happened, the Ramseys acted insane.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Kids are more likely to rat out their siblings, so of course there are going to be more known instances. Abuse by an adult is way more insidious, and many a woman has come forward 20, 30, and 40 years later, if they ever do. Adults are very good manipulating children. The younger they are when it starts, the less likely they are to understand what is happening and to develop trust in the person, who they perceive as showing them affection. I think JBR was starting to develop an awareness that this was something that didn't feel right, made her physically uncomfortable, and that she didn't want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Good afternoon!

    There is something that has bothered me from the very beginning with this family and I'd like some of your thoughts on this:

    Why was the youngest child in the house, sleeping the furthest away from the parents? When the police arrived, and were shown JBR's bedroom they asked JR, "did you hear anything?" JR responded with "no, we are one flight up and on the other side of the house, we can't hear anything from up there". If you KNOW that, why would you EVER place your youngest child in THAT room? Especially that you know she wets the bed and that ALL kids awaken at night for various reasons. Why would you want your child to have to climb a set of stairs and walk across the house to be able to get to you? This has bothered me immensely.

    Now, that leads me to believe JR was molesting JBR and wanted her to be so far away from PR's bedroom, that they couldn't be heard. I would be curious as to who chose that bedroom set up.

    Any thoughts?


    EG


    ReplyDelete
  52. Here's what makes no sense to me: John would take JonBenet down to the basement if he was going to molest her, fondle her, do whatever he was going to do to her sexually that night. We don't know that some prior sexual act was done to her before the more violent act that drew blood. And I mean that night, not previously. The most sense would be to take her down to the basement, where they would not be seen or heard. Although the first molestation might have started in her bedroom. So now they are in the basement and perhaps she says she is going to tell, so he grabs what's handy, the flashlight, and hits her over the head. He's the adult, he couldn't explain to her yet again, not to run and tell? So hey, we'll just end her life right now. If you believe he was abusing her over a period of time, what made this night any different? He would have been able to keep her quiet a year ago, but not this one night? It was finally agreed upon that the blow to the head came first - before the strangulation. A hard crack like that, with an instrument that was handy, makes more sense to me that Burke used. Not to quiet her from being molested, not because she took a piece of pineapple from his bowl (how ridiculous to kill her over that!) but because she annoyed an already resentful brother by doing something to him or to his project he was working on before he went to bed. He had struck her before - and not that long before Dec. 25 - it was hard enough to have Patsy take her to a plastic surgeon to remove the scar. That is in the timeline record from the police. His mode of dealing with his emotions is to strike out and hit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI: If you're still relying on the JBE, those timelines are compendiums of various sources, but none of them is a "timeline record from the police".
      CC

      Delete
  53. Sorry, that read rather rambling. My point: JR couldn't keep his daughter quiet that one night so he grabs a flashlight and ends her life? Doesn't make sense. Burke being disturbed by her meddling in his project and striking her makes more sense. The rest was done by John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Inquisitive---but as a parent myself, you want your youngest child near you at night, because you know they wake up all the time.

      I believe the flashlight is a key piece of evidence. Not only because it could have been the murder weapon, but because it was used so as not to put a light on anywhere. Kids, playing downstairs and not wanting their parents to know, someone walking around and not wanting to be detected by lights blaring, etc.

      I, too, think the kids went down for a snack of pineapples and milk, she ate a piece and might have said she'd race him downstairs to the play room. He may have tried to stop her on the stairs by hitting her with the flashlight, which would account for the bruising on her body (a stair fall).

      What happened after that, is anyone's guess--but lean towards Burke being a troubled kid. How long after that the parents found her, I don't know, but I think it was awhile. If that neighbor heard a scream, it might have been JBR as she fell down the stairs.

      The parents then covered it up with PR writing the note, as JR dictated it. IMHO

      I just wished they would have asked the parents why they chose that particular bedroom for their daughter, especially that is was so far away from theirs. That just never made any sense to me.

      EG


      Delete
    2. If Burke can not be ruled out then the following must be true: a nine year old autistic boy made a garotte, which is used to suffocate the victim the more they struggle until they finally lose air or the garotte is loosened, with homemade supplies and used this device on his 6 year old sister on christmas morning all because he resented her. Then John and Patsy wrote a ransom note to cover for their sadistic son, but still left the body with all the evidence downstairs as they called the police.

      You can't seriously believe that right?

      Delete
    3. EG and Inquisitive... your logic and theories to keep Burke as a suspect are conveniently ignoring the garotte.

      If Burke smashed his sisters head in with a flashlight then why the hell would John make a garotte AFTER that? It makes zero sense. Seriously before either of you post again tell us all why John would've made the garotte after Burke hit JB. Otherwise your points are completely nonsense.

      PLEASE think this through, or argue that Burke could've made the garotte, but don't waste everyone's time and keep ignoring the garotte!

      Delete
    4. In that case, who would believe two loving parents could do such a thing? Your point?
      Let's face it, it's hard to believe any of them would do such a thing. So, then, an IDI?

      EG

      Delete
    5. Anon,

      IF JR made the garotte, it was to throw the investigators off, it was over the top and they'd never suspect a 9 yr boy or two loving parents of doing something like that.

      Take you, for instance, you simply cannot believe it, can you?

      EG

      Delete
    6. There's a difference between "hard to believe they were evil" and "hard to believe it's plausible".

      In other words, it's hard to believe John garotted, molested, and murdered his daughter on xmas morning and wrote a ransom note to try to fool his wife so he could safely dump the body, but it's plausible.

      On the other hand, it's hard the believe the plausibility that a nine year old boy made a garotte, molested his sister, murdered her, had his parents write a ransom note, and then the parents put her body with all the evidence in the basement while they call 911 in the morning.

      Put another way: it's hard to believe Burke made the garotte because that's not possible. It's hard to believe John could be so evil, but it IS possible.

      Delete
    7. EG Let's walk through this again.

      Burke and JB get pineapple and have some kind of scuffle that winds up with a flashlight smashing JB's head.

      John comes downstairs.

      John is confronted with two scenarios:

      A) JB is alive. He would immediately call 911.

      B) JB is dead.

      Now what you're saying is that option B happened and John may have made the garotte as a "coverup" of sorts.

      Here's the only scenario where that makes sense: John's primary plan was to use the ransom note to fool Patsy so he could dump JB's body and coverup his son's murder, but garotted his daughter as a "hedge" of sorts in case Patsy called the police so John could then say "see my son didn't do it because of the garotte!"


      I mean if you want to believe that... go ahead.

      Delete
  54. Dont you find it odd that the police never had them take a polygraph test.. They didnt because they knew they would pass.. then what would they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR refused to take a polygraph and PR said she'd take "ten of them", if they wanted.

      Neither of them every took one.

      EG

      Delete
    2. John was never asked.. none of the Ramseys were asked to take one.. John was asked in a hypothetical situation.. as in what if I asked you to take one, what would you say. There is a reason..especially on a case like this that the police didnt ask them to take a polygraph.. not once, in 20 years..and still havent..

      Delete
    3. I thought they asked him and he said no--then I read later on that he would if it was done independently. Not the FBI doing it.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Yes.. but the police never asked for one... very strange

      Delete
    5. The only thing stranger would be two parents not taking one to clear themselves first, so the police could focus elsewhere.

      EG

      Delete
    6. They were never asked to..

      Delete
    7. They didn't need to be asked to, did they? Couldn't they have done it on their own? With all of their power and influence? They wouldn't even agree to speak to the police let alone take a polygraph test. Highly suspicious. Most parents of murdered children BEG to be cleared in any and every way so the investigation can move beyond them. Not the Ramsey's.

      EG

      Delete
    8. No lawyer would allow them to talk to police after they held JB body from burial.. illegal btw.. But you are missing the point.. Lets start again.. ... Why didnt the police request they take a polygraph?

      Delete
    9. No lawyer could have stopped me from talking to police regarding the death of my child. No one would have stopped me from clearing myself first, when knowing I was suspected of such a horrendous act. I would have done anything and everything to clear the way for them to find the murderer. Not hinder the investigation, not hide behind lawyers.
      EG

      Delete
    10. They did talk to police.. on the 26,27 and 28.. They also invited them to come to the house and talk.. They refused. Ans no one would talk to police if they were being accused.. You would be a fool to.

      Delete
    11. Again.. Why didnt the police want to polygraph them..

      Delete
    12. Yes, they did. They said "this isn't a good time for us, or Patsy is in no condition to, or can we do this at another time".

      You're right. They did TALK to the police. *L*

      EG

      Delete
    13. It's pretty hard to polygraph someone when they have a wall of lawyers in front of them. You need to have a conversation first. Which they never had. That's why.

      EG

      Delete
    14. They wouldn't take lie a detector from the Fbi, they did take there own independent ones from a very dodgy agency

      Delete
    15. Yes they did.. they were questioned and recorded.. check youtube,, They were asked about who they thought it was.. about each friend and who is suspicious.etc John was asked the hypothetical polygraph question...They knew nothing more than they went to bed and found a note in the morning...

      Delete
  55. However, where the pineapple IS significant is that it was not digested, and coroner said the blow to the head would have come not long after eating the pineapple. Burke puts himself downstairs staying up late, so would have had the opportunity to slug her. Burke. John told the police he went to bed at 10 p.m. and didn't see her ever again. They both admit that Burke was up later. Of course there are those that will say then John was lying and they were BOTH up late - presumably when JonBenet would have come down for her piece of pineapple. If that is the case then John would have witnessed Burke hitting her over the head. I'm not buying that Burke took her down to the basement, out of parental range, when he was engaged in putting together his toy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not allowed to post along these lines again until you either argue that

      A) Burke made the garotte
      or
      B) John made the garotte after Burke smashed JB's head with a flashlight

      Until you argue either one of those everything you're typing is nonsense.

      If Burke did it then either A or B has to be true.

      Good luck making a case for either A or B because both are completely ridiculous scenarios that the BDI people don't want admit.

      Delete
    2. The only statements I find ridiculous are yours.

      I've posted my theory many times on here, and have made it pretty clear how I think this went down. I don't presume to know everything, but I see that you surely think you do.

      EG

      Delete
    3. No you haven't made it clear that's why I'm hammering this point home!

      I don't presume to know everything, but I do know you can't just ignore important pieces of evidence to promote a certain theory.

      Delete
    4. Do you mean the BDI people here, there and everywhere? You mean the BDI people who are experts in their fields? Do you mean the BDI people who looked at ALL the evidence and came to a logical and plausible conclusion? THOSE people?

      EG

      Delete
  56. JonBenet and Burke were both up.. The neighbor said she saw the kitchen light on at about midnight.. The attacker would not have done that... Burke was up playing and JonBenet got up, changed and got her blanket from the dryer..swiped a pineapple and they both went back to bed..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree that they were both up at Midnight, but they didn't go to bed. T

      EG

      Delete
  57. You think Burke hit her that hard, in the head over a piece of pineapple?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was not over a piece of pineapple at all.

      I've already posted how I think it MAY have happened.

      EG

      Delete
    2. I dont follow your postings.

      Delete
    3. You've done pretty good, so far. *L*

      EG

      Delete
    4. Not really.. I have no idea who you are or what your personal opinions are..

      Delete
  58. That is a pretty big Maglite... a normal one is pretty heavy, in my opinion. That one has a long handle. I just see it more easily used by JR.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Re: Polygraph -- the BPD did request polygraph tests. JR/PR refused (through their attorneys) and the DA's office would not force it. They (BPD) kept pushing and they finally took polygraphs privately through their attorneys. I know PR failed (inconclusive) the first one (and JR may have failed it too...can't remember) and subsequently they hired other PG examiner(s) and took two or three more tests that they say they ultimately passed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you-- I thought that's what I read.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Apparently so.. but refused an independent tester..and that it be public.. Anyway.. Polys mean nothing really.. My son bamboozled a tester once for 3 hours..lol

      Delete
  60. RE: PR/JR talking to the police -- the police were allowed to talk to them for about an hour on the 26th, about the same time they lawyered up. All other requests by the BPD were shot down. The BPD went to Atlanta (where the Ramsey's were staying) several times trying to get an interview. One time when an interview had been set up, the Ramsey's left before they arrived and went to stay with a friend. They totally avoided the police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's what I had read as well. Totally uncooperative when it came to the investigation of the murder of their beloved child. Makes no sense and is highly suspicious.

      EG

      Delete
    2. And rightly so...After the burial incident.. they knew what the police were looking to do..But again.. they dont know anything .. they told them what they knew..how many times do they need to do that? They gave testimony with the Wolfe case.. what did they learn new from that.. nothing.

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

    ReplyDelete
  62. They basically refused to cooperate with the police on day one. Everyone is a suspect on day one. The fact they would not cooperate only made them look more suspicious. If you read all of the interview transcripts that were held months later (April/June) you can see the inconsistencies in statements and lots of "I don't recall." They never did anything to clear themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  63. But anyway.. The DNA is from an Hispanic male.. so all this talk about the Ramseys is for naught.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The fact that the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramsey's indicates that there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. The DA made the decision not to proceed with a trial. ---this is all public record.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Actually The Grand Jury only get the prosecution evidence... The DA had both sides and knew they had to case that wuld stand up in court..There is NO evidence the Ramseys did anything.. SHow me ONE bit of evidence against them..theres nothing.. The DNA and the pubic hair are exculpatory,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not saying they would have been found guilty (I don't know who did it). And there is a lot of evidence (the police have) that we likely don't know about. There is evidence that has been published. For example fibers from PR jacket on the duct tape, and I believe JR shirt fiber found also. That's why the police needed to interview them (sooner) so they could be ruled out, but that never happened.

      Delete
    2. There was also beaver fur on the duct tape.. the families DNA is easily explained.. even expected

      Delete
  66. The DNA can be explained. DocG has a post regarding the DNA on this website. BTW I believe they now have identified DNA of around 6 people.

    ReplyDelete
  67. No it cant be explained... Its an hispanic man.. inside her underwear,,under her fingernails and on the outside of her jammies..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you watch "The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey? I'm not an expert that can explain it, but they do cover it quite well in the program.

      Delete
    2. Yeah but they didnt know it was from an hispanic man.. It could have been from a factory worker.. but not on her jammies and under her fingernails too.. And how did the pubic hair get on her blanket after it had been washed and dried..

      Delete
    3. The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm, back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body. Mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.

      Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 2979-2982). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

      Delete
    4. Scrapings from the fingernails of JonBenét’s hands revealed miniscule samples of DNA that belonged to two different male subjects, and one unidentified female. The samples were too small to identify their biological origin, i.e. blood or skin cells, and investigators came to theorize that the unknown DNA samples had been transferred from contaminated fingernail clippers used in the post-mortem examinations of other bodies processed through the morgue prior to her homicide.

      Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 1844-1847). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

      Delete
    5. Here is the rest of the above post re: fingernail scrapings:
      Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét. These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases.

      Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 1847-1850). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

      Delete
  68. At the waste..on both sides... right where you would pull down someones pants,,

    ReplyDelete
  69. Nothing much to add...just some food for thought.

    If Burke was sent away to "get helP' from a psychiatrist after JBR's murder and for any issues he had in the past (such as the autism, bedwetting, feces smearing, anger he had with his sister and hitting her with the golf club" if he revealed anything that would be pertinent to the murder, wouldn't a psychiatrist be required to report it to the police?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Then you have to look at the whole situation.. THe BPD, certainly not the sharpest knives in the drawer..who botched the case, admittedly, compared to a 30 year career Homicide Detective who solved over 200 murder cases.. and the DA.. Who ya gonna believe?

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am sure it was JR who did the garroting, it was done long after the blow on the head and it is hard to envision a scenario in which BR first hits her and than after nearly an hour (some say molesting her) he garrotes her. That is absurd. (Also he was in the autistic spectrum, people like that are late in sexual development (among other things), 9 is way to young)
    So JR did the garroting and she was still ALIVE when he did that. To me that is one of the most important aspects. He didn't rush her to the hospital, he killed her. To me that says he wanted her dead. That is why I think he was the one who had hit her in the first place.
    Maybe some parents would do those horrible things to their daughters body to cover up for their son. But no parent would kill their daughter to cover-up for their son. It was not a cover-up for BR.

    ReplyDelete