The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey - Part 2 continued

It's now tomorrow -- and I've decided to start over on a new page.

While the investigators heading up the CBS team make much of their decision to make a fresh start, they fall into many of the same old traps. First, they accept many of the same assumptions that have led everyone else astray. Second, they overestimate their ability to interpret the evidence, which remains elusive, ambiguous, and -- to use that magic word we see so often: inconclusive. Third, they tend to neglect or downplay the logic of the case, which, for me, is of the greatest significance. And the profiling to which they attach so much importance is rife with confirmation bias.


The readiness with which they are willing to uncritically embrace confirmation bias is seen in their reaction to the enhanced 911 tape, where they hear the phrases they've already been programmed to hear, ever since Steve Thomas originally quoted from the "enhanced" version of the tape in his book. Note how one hears "help me Jesus" while another hears "what did you do?", two completely different interpretations of the exact same sounds. And of course, since "what did you do" fits the agenda much better, they all agree yes, that must be it. And from then on "what did you do," as uttered by Patsy, becomes, for them, a fact. As does Burke's voice on that tape, which forgive me but I recognize not at all. What I hear is pure garble that could mean anything and could have been uttered by anyone via crosstalk.

While it's certainly within the realm of possibility that sibling rivalry could lead to murder, it's a huge stretch to go from there to the conclusion that Burke must be responsible for the blow that felled his sister. It's all too tempting to connect that odd bowl of pineapple to a fanciful scenario in which JonBenet grabs a piece, swallows it, runs away, to be followed by an enraged Burke carrying the Maglite, with which he slams her on the head. Yes, it's a possibility. It could have happened that way. But once that narrative is proposed, it's immediately accepted by them as the only possible explanation for what happened. Once again we see confirmation bias hard at work.

Unstated assumption: John Ramsey could not have written the note because he was "ruled out" by a panel of experts.

Logic: An opinion, no matter how "expert," is not the same as a fact. Forensic handwriting analysis is not science, and the methods used to rule John out seem to have been based on methods developed to detect forgery rather than expose deliberate deception. No matter how different someone's normal writing might be from a deliberately deceptive text, that is no reason to rule him or her out -- deception involves just that: deception. There is no reason not to rule John back IN.

Unstated assumption: John Ramsey can safely be ruled out as the killer of his daughter.

Logic: wha??????? Where is THAT coming from?

Unstated assumption: "the Ramseys," at the very least, collaborated on the staging of an intruder breakin and the writing of the patently phony ransom note.

Logic: If the Ramseys were in this together, then

• the 911 call would not have been made while the victim's body remained in the house. The note is clearly intended to stage a kidnapping, and the warnings in the note are clearly intended to provide the writer with a reason for not calling the police until he's had a chance to get rid of the body. By calling the police at that time, Patsy completely destroyed the plan implicit in that note. If they were in it together they would have agreed to wait until the body was out of the house before notifying the police.
• "the Ramseys" would have prepared their story in advance and would therefore have had no problem "fully cooperating" with the police from the start. And by the way, it was John and his lawyers who stalled the investigation, while Patsy lay in a drug induced stupor for weeks.
• "the Ramseys" would have had no reason to lie about the pineapple. If both were aware that JonBenet had had some pineapple, either with or without Burke, there would have been no reason to claim they knew nothing about it. It's only if one knew and the other did not, that both would deny that knowledge -- only for two very different reasons.

Unstated assumption: either an intruder was responsible for JonBenet's death or "the Ramseys" were involved in an elaborate coverup.

Logic: there was never any such animal as "the Ramseys." It's perfectly possible that one was responsible for both the murder and the coverup and the other is innocent.

Unstated assumption: the scene greeting the police when they arrived was the scene "the Ramseys" intended for them to find, as part of their plan to stage a phony kidnapping.

Logic: the ransom note makes no sense if the plan was to call the police on the morning of the 26th, with the body still in the house. The only reasonable explanation for both the note and the body is that something went wrong with the original plan.

Unstated assumption: fingerprints on the pineapple bowl and tea glass tell us that the persons whose prints were found must have been present when the pineapple was consumed.

Logic: fingerprints can be deposited on an object for all sorts of reasons and at any time. Since Patsy and Burke were living in that house there is no reason to assume their prints could not have gotten there prior to JonBenet's consumption of some pineapple.

Misreading of the evidence: according to the investigative team, there was no evidence of sexual assault.

Fact: then how do you explain the blood emanating from her vagina, the traces of "birefringent material" in her vagina and the damage to her hymen?

Misreading of the evidence: there was bad blood between Burke and his sister, as evidenced by the fact that Burke once struck her on the head with a golf club.

Correction: as described by Burke, the blow was inflicted as he raised his club, preparing to swing, not realizing that JonBenet was directly behind him. There is no reason to doubt his version of what happened since it's never been contradicted by anyone present at the time. And none of the reports I've ever seen mentioned any incidents where Burke showed any animosity toward his sister or vice-versa.

As I see it, the CBS investigators were led down the garden path by James Kolar, whose bizarre theory of the case was initially rejected by just about all his colleagues, but does seem to make sense as a motive for why two parents would want to collaborate on a coverup. Once we realize that "the Ramseys" could not have cooperated in the writing of the note or any other aspect of the coverup (see above), it becomes clear that Kolar's theory explains nothing. It's just one other hypothetical, among the many dozens proposed over the years. All sorts of suspects have been considered in all that time, and when we look closely at any of them the certainly grows that "this MUST be the one." Burke is no exception.