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.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

The Gospel According to St. Paula

NB: Don't forget the CNN HLN 2 hour special on the Ramsey case, starting tomorrow night (Friday) at 9 PM Eastern time.

Paula Woodward has finally released her long-promised book. Current title: We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later. She's been a long-time Ramsey supporter (more accurately: apologist) practically from day one, so I more or less knew what was coming and was reluctant to shell out hard cash to read more of same. On the other hand, she did claim to have new information and also some access to images and files that have never before been released. So, what the Hell, I decided to get it anyhow.


And yes, the book contains some useful information, so for those of us totally hooked on this case, I'd suggest getting a copy. It's an e-book, available via the Kindle store. Actually the e-book aspect makes it especially useful, as you can easily do a search on any term or phrase. And you can copy and paste. Which is what I'll be doing here. She also has a related website with some additional material on it.

I don't have a lot of free time at the moment, so I'll just be getting started now. But stay tuned as I'll be adding more to this post as I get more time and do more reading. Right now I'm roughly 2/3 of the way through.

Especially interesting, for me at least, is a photo of a snippet taken from John's left hand sample, an item I've been curious about for many years -- it's on location 3331. Tragically I don't see any way to copy and paste it here, but hopefully it will become available online soon. What I notice right off is that this is the first sample of John's writing I've seen that is mostly right slanted rather than left-slanted or, as in the case of the A&E tidbits, which may or may not be his, upright. To me it doesn't resemble the ransom note any more (or less) than Patsy's left hand sample.

The book, as I've read it so far, is more or less as expected. She makes no pretense to objectivity. Much of it resembles a legal brief, in support of the standard Ramsey version of what happened, not very different, I would think, from what a lawyer would present. (Note to my British readers: "from," NOT "than," an important distinction that seems to have been lost in your fog bound islands.) :-)

The book can get very tiresome at times, since she insists on ticking off all sorts of things that supposedly support her position (but not really). For example, she goes on and on endlessly, describing in some detail several cases where pedophiles or other psychopaths have done horrible things to children. Of course, there isn't one single case where the monster in question took the time to write a 2 1/2 page ransom note on paper from a notepad in the house, supposedly to relieve boredom while waiting for his victim to arrive.

Some things she writes are simply inaccurate. One glaring example:
The coroner also clipped JonBenét’s fingernails to look for DNA under them that might belong to her killer. Later tests would find the same foreign DNA in three places: under fingernails from each hand and mixed with blood in her panties. (Kindle Locations 1731-1732).
It's hard to imagine how she could have got that so wrong, as so much information on the DNA evidence has been available for so long. No skin cells were found under her fingernails. The DNA found there was ultimately attributed to a contaminated nail clipper. While there may be some grounds for dispute on that, none of the DNA found under her nails matched any other DNA found anywhere else on her body or her clothing. The three places where matching DNA was found were on both sides of her pullups and in a blood stain on her panties. Since this has been so widely reported, this glaring error castes serious doubt on her credibility as a reporter.

There are also many misleading allegations. Regarding John's discovery of an open window in the basement,
He knew something was very wrong. A Boulder police report added more information: “( sometime before 1000 hours) [10: 00 a.m.] John Ramsey went down into the basement to the train room and he found the train room window open so he closed it.” (BPD Report #5-2473.) (Location 426)
When first asked about this incident, in the police interview of 1997, John said he could not explain why he closed that window. And when asked whether he reported the open window, he said he couldn't recall -- and then  offered a lame excuse that it didn't seem all that unusual to him, as the window was often left open to let in fresh air -- ignoring the fact that it wasn't necessary to open a broken window to let fresh air in. Fresh air, and in fact freezing cold air, would already be coming in through that break.

Years later, when interviewed by Katie Couric, he claimed he did in fact report his discovery to Linda Arndt, implying that she ignored him. Well we now have a copy of Arndt's very detailed report on what she observed that morning, thanks to Woodward's very useful appendix, titled Additional Resources. And try as I might, I could find no reference to any such statement by John anywhere in that report. Woodward's reference to BPD Report #5-2473 is undated, and the source she's referenced is, as far as I can tell, unavailable to the general public. Nothing from that particular source is presented in her book, as far as I can tell, and a Google search turns up empty. I have no doubt there is somewhere in the BPD files a thick volume of numbered police reports, and maybe some day we'll have access to them. Since Arndt doesn't mention any open window, my guess is that the BPD Report in question concerns John's testimony during his police interview, not what he reported on Dec. 26th. Woodward never addresses this issue and the police report is (misleadingly) offered as though it referred to something John said on that day.

to be continued . . .

OK, it's late Thursday night and I'm back. The most interesting thing I've come across in Woodward's book so far is her claim that what was found in JonBenet's intestine was more than just pineapple:
According to previously unreleased BPD reports, laboratory testing revealed that JonBenét also ate cherries and grapes as well as pineapple. Remnants of cherries were found in the stomach/ proximal area of her small intestine. “Another item besides pineapple was cherries.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) In that same report: “Another item besides pineapple was grapes.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) Another report expands on the grapes, saying “grapes including skin and pulp.” (BPD Report #1-349.) The food described resembles what is included in most cans of fruit cocktail. (Kindle Locations 1856-1859)
A friend of mine did a little digging and found this recipe:
Libby's Fruit Cocktail: Ingredients: Diced Peaches, Diced Pears, Water, Corn Syrup, Grapes, Pineapple Segments, Halved Cherries Artificially Colored Red, Sugar.
Very interesting. Since Woodward can be so unreliable we need to take this info with a grain of salt. I've never heard anything about her eating fruit cocktail before now, and since I'd assume Lin Wood would have jumped all over it by now, I'm not sure what to believe. If in fact she had some fruit cocktail, then the bowl of pineapple means nothing.

So far I've found several outright errors and/or misleading statements in Woodward's book, in addition to what I mentioned earlier. Here's a partial list:

1. She brings up the nonsense about the "open Butler door," years after it had been determined that the door had been opened by a police technician. (See my post, The Lou Smit Show)

2. She reiterates the similar nonsense about all the "open doors and windows" in the Ramsey home, despite very clear police reports indicating that any door or window that could have served as  a point of entry or exit was checked and "no sign of forced entry" was found.

3. She misleadingly plays down the evidence of previous abuse: "The Boulder Police Department initially suspected John of incest, but there was no prior evidence for that, according to JonBenét’s pediatrician, the coroner and the specialist he brought in from Children’s Hospital in Denver, and the director of the Kempe Child Abuse Center." (Kindle Locations 3615-3616) See CC's Guest Post on this blog for a list of the many pediatric experts who found clear evidence for such abuse.

4. She discusses the scene at the broken basement window at great length, striving mightily to resuscitate Lou Smit's old claim that the intruder must have entered and exited that way. In the process, she brings up an issue that's long been settled:
To further complicate issues related to the southwest window well, green foliage that had grown at the edge of the window well’s grate was found folded over and underneath that grate. The folded foliage was still fresh when it was examined in the days after December 26, indicating the grate had recently been lifted and closed, according to Detective Lou Smit. (Kindle Locations 3651-3654)
Here's what Smit himself had to say about that foliage, while interrogating John:
LOU SMIT: And I don't want to mislead you. Because, obviously all of us have seen that. And at first we didn't know exactly why that was. But we think a perhaps an officer may have moved that grate. So I just wanted you to know that. Because it's very easy to make the conclusion that it was done. But we have had some real discussion on this and did find out that an officer had moved that grate. I usually don't tell you whether we know about that. But otherwise that's misleading. (See my post, The Lou Smit Show.)
For a thorough refutation of Smit's basement window theory see the same post as above: The Lou Smit Show

5. There's a long and confusing discussion of the well known police report of no footprints in the snow or frost that morning. Lou Smit claimed to have refuted that report by showing photos of the house the following morning, with only fragmentary patches of snow. But the policeman had also reported a light coating of frost that would not have shown up on those photos, and would in any case have melted by that time. Woodward notes that no snow was seen on any of the paved areas around the house. But again, a layer of frost may well have melted by the time those observations were made. What can't be disputed is the lack of any prints or any other disturbance in the ground near the grate leading to the basement window. For more, see once again my post on the Lou Smit Show.

Some additional items of interest:
A neighbor who lived a few homes away from the Ramseys found a latex glove in her trashcan in the alley. (BPD Report #1-1924.) She didn’t know how it had gotten there. (Latex gloves are used by law enforcement officials to avoid contaminating evidence with their fingerprints.) The glove, if part of the case, could have been used by an intruder. Or it could have been discarded there by a BPD officer. (BPD Report #2-37.) (Kindle Locations 3988-3991)
 Or discarded by John Ramsey when he went AWOL? Apparently the glove was never tested for DNA.
The Ramsey housekeeper did not remember anything about the broken glass in the train room, the scuff mark on the wall or cleaning up glass underneath the broken window. (BPD Report #1-1068.) (BPD Reports #1-101, #1-90 re: scuff mark on the wall.) The housekeeper’s husband “supposedly washed the windows at Thanksgiving time and supposedly went down in the basement and washed the basement windows.” (BPD Report #5-29.) “Last time [housekeeper’s husband] was there was around Thanksgiving. Cleaned all of the windows inside and out.” (BPD Report #5-607.) (Kindle Location 4048)
Time for bed. More tomorrow.

258 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry about the deleted page. There was some sort of software glitch while I was saving the first portion of this post, and an empty post was created on which a few comments were placed. I had to delete the empty post and in the process the comments were also deleted. Not too many I hope.

      Delete
  2. That's so strange to gimmick up the crime scene with certain knots, as even in 1996, knots were totally a great way to find forensic evidence on killers. It's just a bozo move to utilize that "skill".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I've said before, I suspect the knotting reflected some sort of fetish, and the strangulation had an erotic motive. If John had been able to carry out his original plan, the whole device would probably have been discarded.

      Delete
    2. When I think of it as a fetish and not a staged scene, it makes me lean towards an intruder and not John. But in the same rights I can see whoever doing the staging trying to jump the shark on it just like the ransom note. Both of them were over the top with too much stuff going on.

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

      Delete
    4. Would be interested for Doc to elaborate on the fetish theory further. That strikes me as unlikely at first blush, and given I'm one to think beheading in this case, it shows we at least both see more than meets the eyes.

      I agree anon. John would have known the cops would see his knots. There's no way in hell the garrote was some staging that the cops were supposed to find. It had a purpose, and seems like overkill if just to strangle her. Can you name me a better purpose than getting her head off so nobody finds the skull cracked?

      Delete
  3. I just flipped through some pages of the book when I saw it at the store. I read the accounts (written very shortly after 12/26) from Rick French, the very first officer at the scene and then Linda Arndt's. The things that stood out to me are:
    - French said that John told him that he read a book to both JB and B when they got home from the party
    - Arndt said that John told her that he read to JB and B and P went to bed shortly after they all got home.
    All the interviews I've seen state that they took her up to bed since she fell asleep in the car. I don't think this is really too hard to remember and he is obviously lying. Nothing said anything about pineapple or a snack.
    -Arndt states she saw JR joking and smiling during those hours she was there. I saw her interview but she never said that in the tv interview. If that's true then that's just sick. Also she stated he seemed to look around the room before showing lots of grief after JB was found.
    There are other really interesting things I read but can't totally recall as I didn't buy the book.

    - The book says (according to one investigators account) that the window that was broken was in the room where the Christmas decorations were kept. Wouldn't Patsy or John have noticed that when they were getting out the decorations a few weeks earlier? Why oh why would you not get a broken window fixed in the middle of winter? I can't even imagine how many rodents were in that house if the window was broken for 4 or 5 months! Even though the window well was deep, mice, etc. fall down there all the time.

    Also the book states 5 theories - PDI, PDI and J covered up for her, BDI, IDI and there was also another one I can't recall but nowhere in there did it have JDI as a theory. I thought that was interesting.

    The other thing is, as most of you know, the door where she was found was latched from the outside so that means that an intruder would have had to escape the house a different way however all the doors and windows were locked when the police arrived. So how did someone get out and lock the doors behind them? Am I missing something or is this insanely obvious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also- the book goes through the RN and points out several lines that were taken from the movie Dirty Harry, Speed, and others and that none of these movies were found inside the home (big whoop). However didn't some seem to come from the book MindHunter that was found in the home? Why was that not mentioned?

      Delete
    2. The intruder is still hiding in that house somewhere

      Delete
    3. The supposedly open/broken window, was not in the same room that her body was found. The intruder could have left her in the wine cellar, locked it from the outside, and gone out the basement window. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying the external lock doesn't mean anything.

      Delete
    4. He probably knew the alarm wasnt set by then and just walked out the door..

      Delete
  4. Ugh. Paula Woodward. We Denverites had to suffer her "investigative journalism" for 15 years. Total Ramsey shill.

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

    ReplyDelete
  6. DocG - Clearly, there are posters on here with an anti-JDI agenda. Leigh Too has even responded to herself, implying she's creating misdirection via multi-alias drivel. Just an observation. They are adding nothing of value while filling up this blog with GB's of emotional drivel.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong.. I had to switch ID because the site was hotting me up with capcha thingys to click on matching pictures with every post..

      Delete
    2. The capcha thing should now be gone. I finally realized I could get rid of it. So long as there are no problems with spam I'll keep it disconnected since it can be a pain, yes. If anyone sees it from now on, please let me know.

      Delete
    3. I have no problem with Ramsey defenders, who are always welcome to post. Many of these people have been misinformed, so this is an opportunity to set them straight. Providing they are willing to learn.

      Delete
  7. How come nobody discusses the chair that was supposedly moved by John to enter the train room? Detectives were there earlier and mentioned nothing about having to move a chair. If this is the case then the intruder was still in the house when the detectives were there and after a few sweeps of the basement. Which obviously is pure ridiculousness. Source: Foreign Faction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a feeling John was down there before anyone else. But the story about the chair just makes no sense. I think he was improvising at that point and got caught in an obvious contradiction, so backed off.

      Delete
  8. The problem with the blog owners theory is that he assumes the Ramsey's intended to move the body. This assumption comes from the "tomorrow" part of the note. But this too is opinion. Why is this part of the note canon but (say) the $118k is misdirection? Fact. Someone killed JB. Fact. Someone left a note containing disturbing imagery. I don't see any inconsistency if the objective was a revenge killing. Or a power trip. Or the dual products of a disturbed mind.

    Ripping out one part of the note and demanding a single interpretation is not "case proven".

    The only problem "fact" is the apparent lack of entry. But was entry truly impossible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "he assumes THE RAMSEYS intended to move the body"?! Oh boy, Doc is gonna love that you've read his theory so carefully.

      Delete
    2. Also IanK, I don't quite grasp your logic. In Doc's theory NONE of the note is 'canon' - it's ALL misdirection. I don't quite get your point. Apologies if I'm being dense.

      Delete
    3. Doc is clear.
      There was no forced entry, ergo parents.

      There was no kidnapping so the note had to serve another purpose. The "call you tomorrow" only makes sense if it was to buy time to move the body. PR called the police before this happened. Therefore JR.

      Ancient Astronaut theories follow a similar 'logical' pathway.

      Delete
    4. There were 7 unlocked doors and windows that night and no alarm set.. and the spare key was missing.. They could have entered anywhere...

      Delete
    5. I thought police and JR came to a different conclusion.

      Delete
    6. The "seven unlocked doors and windows" is totally misleading. Sure there were unlocked doors and windows -- but all the doors and windows that could have given entry to the house were checked, and there was no sign of forced entry anywhere. All the ground level doors were checked, both by John and a policeman, and all were locked. A basement window that was partially open to permit electric wires to go through was barred. And the broken basement window was checked and there was no sign that anyone passed through it. The seven open doors and windows is a shameless red herring and it's depressing to learn people are still taking it seriously.

      Delete
    7. Just making the point that we dont really know how anyone would have come in..other keys were out..te missing key.. the basement window.. who knows.

      Delete
    8. That huge residence could literally never have been considered locked down and safe, especially considering its juvenile occupants.

      Keys from Schlage, Kwikset, and cheaper variety locks - can be cut at any Home Depot, Ace, locksmith shop for very little money.

      In Los Angeles, drive yourself over Coldwater Canyon, Beverly Glen, Laurel Canyon and on any given day see dozens of gardeners, maids, pool maintenance, delivery people, and other low wage occupations directly accessing million dollar properties. Do you really think key control is anywhere near “safe” for 90% of these properties ?

      There’s nothing “red herring” about assuming any large bldg. with juvenile occupants is “safe”. Children obviously cannot be expected to conform to rigid bldg alarm, door and window security SOP. Without a rigid adherence to SOP, you have no security !

      CC2

      Delete
    9. If what you guys are saying is that we cannot be 100% absolutely definitively certain that it was positively scientifically impossible for anyone to have entered the property, then sure, I agree.

      But that's really not the point. The point is, there was no evidence of anyone entering the house, and that fact, taken alongside all the other facts (overly long ransom letter, written over not less than a half hour, on Ramsey paper, using a Ramsey pen, being left - as DocG astutely notes - unfolded, on the stairs where a family insider would expect Patsy to descend in the morning, the tape staged over her already dead mouth being taken from the back of one of her own dolls, the abrasions being made by Ramsey toy train tracks, fiber evidence from JR, her being wiped down and redressed in fresh panties, her being left carefully wrapped, alongside one of her cuddly toys - the list goes on and on) adds up to point in one direction.

      You're right, entry by an intruder cannot be ruled out with 100% scientific certainty - but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points absolutely at a killer from within the family.

      Asserting that an intruder *could* maybe have entered the property gets you nowhere, if - once he's inside - everything he does looks exactly like a domestic murder disguised (badly) as the work of an intruder.

      Delete
    10. You could be a bit more charitable, Ian. There was no intruder. No forced entry. Everything associated with the crime came from in the house. Victim left in the house, making the note pointless. The note by itself makes no sense with an intruder; no intruder would be so comfortable.

      Therefore one is left with either John, Patsy, or Burke. Patsy called 911. Burke was 9. John was an adult male.

      Put another way. Leave all the weirdness of the case aside. Leave aside the note, the garrote, the pineapple, the vaginal penetration, etc. A little girl died in her own home. Who's your first guess at the perpetrator? Stick with that and the case gets a lot less complicated. If you see that as confirmation bias, I will note I only came to John after exhausting Patsy and Burke.

      Delete
  9. Btw actually moving the body introduced a lot of risk. Neighbours, more trace evidence, tire marks, clothes, accounting for your behaviour for 24 hours, bank enquiries as you withdrew $118k cash. Not going to happen.

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

      Delete
    2. They found hair and traces of decomposition in the trunk. Apparently not enough evidence for conviction though. :-0

      Delete
    3. That was a rather scary way of saying if a young mom could get rid of a body then JR could have pulled it off. He got rid of other evidence that night.

      Delete
    4. Yes IanK but no one saw her dump the body. And it was right down the street. Of course J couldn't have waited that long.

      Delete
    5. Regarding the $118 K - John didn't leave the house that morning. They said he "got together the money". He didn't go to the bank as I had originally thought. He had it in the house. He knew he had that much on hand. It wouldnt' have been a problem. Now I took this from the pbs.com JonBenet Encyclopedia website.

      Delete
    6. Hmm. I thought consensus was that he organised a friend to collect. 118K in cash on hand seems excessive. Esp given it represents 12 months bonus pre tax.

      Delete
    7. I'm sure JR could have moved the body. The trick is to do so without leaving more evidence. But this is opinion. Maybe he was planning to move the body. Maybe he didn't kill her. The RN reference to "tomorrow" doesn't move opinion into objective fact.

      Delete
    8. It's much more than the reference to "tomorrow." I urge you to read my post titled "The Purpose of the Note." Use the search mechanism and you should find it.

      Delete
    9. Ok I just did. It's a little bit circular. You need to assume Ramsy guilt for the narrative for form a body disposal plan which in turn is used to prove guilt. Even if this is overlooked, others have noted issues. Why leave the paper and pen in house, why use 118K, why not manage the crucial interface of PR and RN.

      But really, the ransom note operates just as effectively as a cruel tease with its "I know you but you don't know me" hints. The entry issue remains the key problem in my mind.

      But assuming an intruder, it's clear they knew or knew of JR - so the access options widen.

      Delete
    10. There is no circular argument. Nowhere do I assume guilt. And there is no attempt to use the note to prove guilt. What my post does is demonstrate how easy it would have been for John to use that note to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, and as a pretext for doing all the things he would have had to do the following day. It is frankly speculative. But it DOES go a long way to explain the contents of that note. In fact it's the only scenario I know of that comes close to explaining it.

      As I see it, there is no question that the person who wrote that note had a plan. And the analysis I've provided spells out what that plan could have been and how it could have worked.

      Delete
    11. I beg to differ, based on your "case solved" post. Your initial conclusion, no intruder, assigns guilt to either John or Patsy. Ie you enter your discussion of the note with guilt as a given. You then narrow the perp down based on what this guilty person seeks to achieve with the note. While you discuss RM taking control via the money and addressing himself, the real gotcha is the assumption the note was all about buying time for the perp. And when PR blows that, John is left as the bad guy. That's why your underlying premise about entry is the crux.

      If an intruder could have gained entry then the notes alleged (entailed) purpose disappears. But even if a parent did it, I'm still not convinced that moving the body was a necessary priority, that the note wasn't possible misdirection and the "call you tomorrow" wasn't just a standard issue part of the ransom genre. Plus it would have made sense to place the body in the boot ready to roll rather than relatively out in the open. Your theory is a good one, but not necessarily a slam dunk.

      Let's assume entry was possible. The objective is to kill JBR and punish. The note writer obviously knows the Ramsey's. Robbery is not a motive and the note is part of the toying. 'Hiding' the body is a form of control too. If entry is possible this is plausible though unproved.

      Has there been a Bayesian approach attempted?

      Delete
    12. What you see as my assumption that an intruder can be ruled out is not an assumption but a logical inference, based on facts and evidence. And it has nothing to do with whether or not entry was possible. You need to read what I wrote in the first two posts. Once I established that no intruder theory makes sense, all subsequent posts are based on that inference.

      Delete
    13. "Casey Anthony drove around with her dead daughter in the trunk of her car for days. " That's a state theory which you can expect to be even worse than anything Boulder PD came up with, FYI.

      Delete
  10. Ya'll are screwing with me arent you.. Deleting posts that have links but then there is no post and the the link is gone..WTH? Argh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't deleted any of your posts. But there might have been a software mess up earlier today. Try again, please.

      Delete
    2. Im ok with the Leigh ID now.. thanks.

      Delete
  11. Hi Tech boots.. Did the BPD measure the print for shoe size? I doubt it.. that could have clarified whether it was the cop or Burke or neither,,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This wasn't really a shoe print since only the HiTec logo was visible. Which meant it was not possible to determine the foot size. Since most of the print was gone, this was almost certainly old and irrelevant.

      Delete
  12. To everyone waving the magic BDI wand...

    How and why did the garotte happen?

    If it's just John covering for Burke he had zero reason to garotte his daughter. He could've hid her in the basement and still have tried to fool Patsy with the ransom note. John had no reason to garotte his daughter if BDI.

    If it's both Patsy and John covering for Burke, why the hell wouldn't they just dump the body and say someone took her? Everyone was in on it in this scenario so why take the added risk of making a garotte and ransom note with household supplies?

    I want to read in detail and logical steps exactly what the BDI theory is that incorporates the garotte. I seriously do not understand how this is being looked past. Please help BDI people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The garotte and stun gun were to control her..A parent would not have used either

      Delete
    2. Leigh Too have you read any of this blog or just the comments? 75% of all the evidence you're touting has been disproven, so you're not even following the same narrative.

      Delete
    3. Disproven, by whom... lol Nothing can be disproven really can it..no

      Delete
    4. The stun gun for sure. You're mentioning a lot of 1997 National Enquiror evidence.

      Delete
    5. Like the stun gun.. square marks on her and the blacken charred skin in her face.. Its a freaking stun gun!

      Delete
    6. Every single thing discussed here points towards john and or the Ramsey's as the culprit. Do you believe an intruder leisurely mulled about the house and wrote a 3 page ransom note in the time before or after she was dead? Which it turns out she was up pretty late eating pineapple?

      All staged crimes are either found by the perp or a close friend of the perp. John darted for the basement as soon as he realized Linda was going to canvas the house. It was all controlled by him on purpose.

      Delete
    7. The ransom note is so long because he had nothing to do for hours while waiting...

      Delete
    8. I get the feeling Leigh Too here is pulling out leg, so I wouldn't get plugged in (as in upset) with what Leigh Too says. Leigh Too has every right to be on this site until Doc G decides otherwise but Leigh Too I don't think you are really believing anything you are putting out there, I mean how could you? BTW the darkness around the marks on her cheek and side the coroner said are from beginning decomposition.

      Delete
    9. I doubt that.. she was essentially in a refrigerator..

      Delete
    10. Yea, Inquisitive, I agree...just ignore it...with any luck it will go away. *L*

      EG

      Delete
    11. Why do you think they called it the wine cellar..

      Delete
    12. Not upset, just trying to decipher if Leigh is an aloof housewife or a troll.

      Delete
    13. I am neither.. I am a college educated medical professional..

      Delete
    14. No, Leigh Too represents the mainstream of Ramsey supporters. Who refuse to accept any evidence pointing to anyone in the family. Woodward does that too.

      Delete
    15. No one has proof of any theory really... and there are many

      Delete
    16. the "evidence" in its near entirety on this case has been much too controversial. I think 20 years of heated arguing on public sleuthing forums such as PBWorks, CandyRose, WebSleuths, et al, pretty much cements it.

      Thus the attraction to your site Doc, with your “logic and facts only please” methodology. Like any well principled legal counsel, you forcefully admonish your audience to stick to “just the facts ma’am”. Fantastic !

      However, the main problem with any RDI / PDI / JDI / BDI theory is – first you have to “snip off” IDI. And you simply cannot do this, and you know it intuitively. No jury is going to buy “the place was thoroughly locked down, yeah sure, completely, and oh yeah, we have two kids, one 6 and one 9”.
      One loves to play with Nintendos”.

      Few jurists / theorists with their own kids are going to believe a house can be locked down for long, surely you cannot dissent this. Worse for those with 15 room / 30 window “mansions”.

      Since intruder break-in cannot be disproven, not by you, or LE, or any web sleuth today, intruder break-in unfortunately - remains on the table.

      CC2

      Delete
    17. Again it's the facts and the logic. Considering the fact that the ransom note was written on a pad from the house leads to the conclusion that no intruder theory makes sense. Reread what I wrote in the first two posts.

      Delete
    18. Leigh - is that what you do when you have time to kill? Write ransom letters that you know won't be actually needed? And please, how did your Mexican intruder KNOW that he had hours to kill? How did he know when the Ramseys would return? How did he know they were coming home that evening?

      You must be suggesting someone very close to the family.

      So a search of all John Ramsey's Hispanic friends should yield the killer, no? Case solved, well done Leigh.

      Delete
    19. Hispanic doesnt mean Mexican.. Could be Guatemalan.. or Cuban or Colombian.. Remember, in the 90's the US had heavy military and political involvement in Central and South America..So a small foreign faction or drug lord or gang is completely feasible.. But go sit in the dark for an hour or 2 or 3 and see if you arent looking for something, anything to do.

      Delete
    20. And your Hispanic gent knew key phrases PDI and JDI used about the house and in their Christmas Cards, and also utilized a brand of English such as "attache" and other words that most people don't normally use, and HENCE. A true Mastermind I must say.

      Delete
    21. Well, I use the word hence and I know I didnt kill her.. Its meaningless..

      Delete
  13. the house/crime scene was contaminated by police, by a lot of people moving though it. They eventually came to the conclusion that the boot print was probably left by an investigator or police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably? At a murder scene? tsk tsk..BPD failure again..

      Delete
    2. See the problem with the BPD.. That print could have been exculpatory for the Ramseys..so they ignored it..A boys size 6 and its Burkes.. a size 11 and its the cop.. a size 9 and its an intruder..

      Delete
    3. You have a lot to learn about this case. Instead of improvising based on what you've seen on TV, I suggest you do some reading.

      Delete
  14. Has there been any discussion that JDI staged the "extras" such as the garrot, mouth tape, brush in the hour he was missing when Linda Arndt was there? It seems more logical to me he realized what was going down and where the body was located put together all of that in haste. How the wrists were tied over the clothes to where it didn't make sense. Seems rushed, on the fly staging since he knew he couldn't remove the body now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well I just read bits and pieces of the new Paula Woodward book (IDI). In addition to the pineapple in JBR's intestines they also found bits of grapes and cherries -- fruit cocktail.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've been off this blog, trolling the Internet about the case. I'm like millions of other Americans, haven't been following the case and saw the most recent 20th anniversary specials. Haven't read any of the books about it. I do have to admit this- I was at Lake Tahoe on a skiing vacation when this story broke. The first words out of my mouth were-"The father did it." At that time the choices were the father, the mother, the 9 yr old brother, and the kidnappers. I'm talking Day 1. So here we are 20 yrs later. I didn't know at the time Burke was a weirdo who had hit JonBenet before and was probably jealous of her, so now I'm conflicted. I don't think PR hit JBR with a flashlight because she wet the bed or whatever, so that leaves JR or BR. I didn't know there was a woman who had accused Fleet White Sr and Jr and John Ramsey, of being involved in a pedophile sex ring. Of course, her claims were investigated and tossed aside, and Fleet White went into orbit about these allegations. But I think she said Fleet White Sr was her godfather or something. Some sort of connection with this woman (who was a little girl when this happened) with Fleet White was proven. She said one of the things they did to her was the garrote. She said " Uncle Johnny was involved and she pointed to a picture of John Ramsey as Uncle Johnny. OK, proof? NO Some shred of something that may show JR was a pedophile. YES I've lived long enough to believe pretty much anything about human nature, we all know pedophile rings and horrible child porn exists online, as disgusting as it is. And it's often rich men who can afford to pay for it. So I'm conceding Docs theory is possible. I just don't understand why JR hit her with the flashlight why he could have just strangled her.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know Bgh. That's why I said earlier that it almost seems like two different murders. Two different implements. What was going on after the blow to the head? Coroner said she was alive 45 min. to 2 hours after that blow. Let's say it was 2 hours. Let's say the blow was struck just before midnight. Now we're at 2 a.m. and alot has to be done before Patsy gets up at 5 a.m. I don't know. It could be a. sexual molestation b. blow to head c.strangulation wipe down change panties get blanket get favorite nightgown write note mess with basement window it just all seems a bit bizarre. And even if you think it happened a. Burke does blow to head b. tells mom or dad or both c. Dad sexually assaults and strangles and writes note that seems very odd too. Two different murders. On one victim.

      Delete
    2. Key portions of this woman's testimony have never been released and Fleet has sued to make them public. Much of his anger is directed toward this person's testimony which he feels has reflected negatively on him and his family. The consensus seems to be that she is a complete nut case, but the fact that parts of her testimony remain sealed means that she will never be totally dismissed. Some of the things she's said are known to be false, but some might contain some grain of truth, which is why Fleet is so eager to see it all come out -- so it can be definitively refuted. I have no idea why the authorities won't release it.

      There is no evidence of any sort of pedophile ring in Boulder nor any reason to assume such a group played a role in JonBenet's murder. That's a myth.

      Delete
    3. Anon 5:21 - that would mean that John actually killed her while the BPD were in the house. The garrote was tightened on a living person, it bruised her neck.

      Delete
  17. I think BDI has too many problems ( Not call an ambulance!? Kill a daughter to save a son? Make a cover-up that is bound to make a bigger scandal, than the truth? etc). And PDI and IDI are even more problematic. And why make things complicated?
    JDI is so simple and straight forward. It can work even without the sexual abuse.

    First a JDI scenario with the sexual abuse element.
    JR is a CEO with sociopathic tendencies. Cool, manipulative, charming, dynamic. And he is a pedophile

    After the busy and stressful Christmas days (most people find Christmas stressful) JR needs to relieve stress, he goes looking for JBR. (Fact: stress makes it more likely that a perpetrator offends)
    He uses a flashlight because he doesn't want to wake up anybody.

    But JR notices BR, not sleeping in his bed but playing and snacking in the kitchen. Irritated JR marches BR back to his bed (that is why the bowl is still nearly full).

    Then JR gets JBR, they go to the basement, safely away from prying eyes. Usually she is obedient enough. But the Christmas day has exhausted her and made her cranky, and maybe JR was brusquer than usual because of the stressful days. Either way JBR starts crying, protesting and makes too much noise. JR worries gets angry (he may know that it is more likely that people outside the house will hear her there) he hits her with the flashlight to quiet her, not to kill her, but he hits her too hard. She loses consciousness and doesn't wake up. In JRs mind there is a very good reason not to call an ambulance, even without sexual abuse, this situation would ruin him. BR hitting her would be bad, but BR is a child. And it wouldn't have ruined JR. But if it became known that JR hit JBR so hard that she lost consciousness, even if that was not what he intended, he would be ruined. And the sexual abuse makes it even worse. JR waits longer but she still doesn't wake up. By now JR is calm again, he already started planning. .
    He plans to fake a kidnapping to get her out of the house, but that fails because of PRs call, he switches to a new plan. He acts, does gruesome things, he manipulates, pulls strings. He lies and convinces PR and BR to help him. The cover-up he creates is bad and will make a huge scandal, but for JR it is better than the truth because at least he is free and he can pretend he is innocent.

    Without the sexual abuse the scenario is not much different. Only this time he goes looking for the children because he hears something, he is irritated it has been a long day and tomorrow will be another long day. He finds BR and sends him to bed, but JBR is still excited after all the Christmas parties and she is naughty and keeps running away, JR is exhausted, gets angry, he wants to tap her with the flashlight to get her to quiet down but it goes wrong, it's way too hard, she loses consciousness etc

    I think JBR is by far the simplest scenario and makes the most sense.
    Why make it more complicated with twists like BDI or IDI or even PDI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good post and what you write may very well have happened. But I see the JDI as a much larger "twist" (as you call it) compared to BDI.

      Had John any history of smacking JBR? No.
      Had Burke? Yes, with a golf club.

      Had John any history of sexual abuse on anyone? No.
      Had Burke? Not that we know of but he did share a room with JB. Plus smeared feces on her stuff...even on that day.

      Was John awake at the time of her murder? Possibly
      Was Burke? Probably given he was eating pineapple.

      I just dont find it difficult to imagine a family like the Ramseys covering for their son. I honestly think they thought she was dead and the only way to make it look like an intruder was to stage. The RN was just part of that staging so there was hard evidence that an intruder had been in that house. They wouldn't have had time or been in the right mind space to think how it would all look once discovered. They just did it and it all spiralled out of control from there.

      Delete
  18. Doc- Agree, the pedophile ring, if it existed, wasn't in Boulder, it was in California, where this woman lived. I agree she sounds like a nut ball, but it seems there was a definite connection between her and Fleet White. And her family was apparently lowlifes, druggies, hippies, etc, who sold her and her sister (and a couple of other kids), for sex (she said). Doc- we are looking for some shred of evidence that JR was (is) a pedophile. This is it, if you have something else, let me know. I'm agreeing with you. This as a shred of evidence, even if it's not proven.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, "Nancy's" story is too far fetched. I don't see that as any sort of meaningful evidence. There are far too many cases of father-daughter sexual abuse that no one suspected for years, as the fathers in question were upstanding citizens with no criminal history. Thus no need to prove a history of child abuse on John's part. The evidence of prior abuse, and the likelihood of him being the abuser, rather than his frail 9 year old son, would be sufficient as far as a circumstantial case is concerned. You wouldn't need to prove it, because it's not the crime for which he'd be prosecuted. But it would provide a credible motive, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think most everyone can agree that the Ramsey's are involved. What happened or why they're covering it up is the big mystery. I have a theory: Say that they're both involved in some way, directly or indirectly, and want to cover it up. Maybe one decided ransom and the other decided sexual assault by an intruder pervert. They couldn't agree so they say what the hell let's do em both. It will confuse the fuck out of everyone and they won't know what to think. And they have succeeded, as no one has been convicted and we have spun our wheels analyzing the bullshit minutiae of this case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Doc- So what you're saying is you have a "gut feeling" that JR was the abuser and killed JBR to cover it up. That was my gut feeling at the beginning, But there are now questions about Burke. You keep referring to him as frail, but he doesn't look frail in his pictures, or in his interviews, either at 9 or 11 yrs old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I don't go by "gut feelings." The preponderance of evidence points to John as having abused his daughter prior to the night of the murder. And imo that, plus a good amount of additional evidence can be used to make a circumstantial case against John.

      Whether Burke was too frail makes him an unlikely candidate for sexual abuser for sure, but no it doesn't rule him out completely. What rules him out is 1. the far greater likelihood of his father being the abuser; 2. the lack of any evidence linking him to the crime; 3. the bizarre and truly incredible nature of the coverup on the part of his parents that would have been necessary.

      Delete
    2. "The preponderance of evidence points to John as having abused his daughter prior to the night of the murder."

      You crack me up. Please enlighten us on the preponderance of evidence starting with the autopsy report.

      Delete
    3. I've already enlightened you. It's all laid out on this blog and if the blog is too much for you to deal with, then get my book.

      Delete
  22. Doc, there is evidence linking John to the staging...no doubt about it. And thats enough in my mind. There is next to no evidence for the headblow and Burke is a far greater liklihood of having struck JB.

    I'm sorry but you cant say John gave the headblow because there he is a more likely suspect for sexual abuse which may have not even occurred. And why is John more likely anyway...because of stats. Serious? I haven't got stats to go off but I reckon brothers ans sisters mucking around would probably be higher than daddy molesting his daughter. So you may say you dont go off "gut feelings" but that last post was exactly gut feelings!!

    I honestly think if this case is to be solved they need to forget about the headblow and just focus on what happened after. If they do that John has to be found guilty. Anything prior to that will forever be up in the air but the "liklihood" of John hitting JB over the head (compared to Burke) is low...and yes, that is based on evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well someone hit her over the head. And if it wasn't an intruder then it was someone in the house. Burke was never considered a suspect, and there is no evidence pointing to him. Patsy could not have written the note or she would not have called 911 at that time. Burke could not have written it. Leaving John. The person who wrote that note is obviously the most likely to have murdered the victim. So yes, there is a basis for a very strong circumstantial case against John. And if he wants to argue that he was "only" covering for his son, then let him. I doubt any jury would believe that. And for good reason.

      Delete
    2. I give up. There is no evidence whatsoever pointing to John. I feel confident I know what happened so that will do me.

      Delete
    3. All theories here are circumstantial..unless an Hispanic guy shows..

      Delete
    4. And he will have 'splainin to do..

      Delete
    5. I almost feel like Leigh is trolling this forum. I don't know how many times I have to say that this isn't a DNA case and that the "expert" who said the DNA was of Hispanic origin isn't a trained forensic specialist and was thrown out of the Casey Anthony trial for it.

      Delete
    6. I guess you will have to keep saying until someone respects your opinion..

      Delete
  23. I'm more and more intrigued by the staging of the window, and the preposterous accounts John gave of his one, two, or three earlier entries through the broken basement window.

    Question for Doc.

    In the time that John spent finding the doll with the duct tape on its back, peeling the tape off, and placing it over her mouth, then fashioning a useless ligature for her wrists, and given that he already had the suitcase in place, why didn't John hoist himself up onto the window sill, into the well, and just displace the grate slightly, before climbing back down?

    If he does that he leaves scuff marks on the wall, he destroys the cobwebs, he leaves clear signs of entry and exit in the dirt on the ledge, he leaves the grate unmistakably moved, he deposits more debris on the cellar floor. He leaves clear signs of probable intruder entry.

    It would've taken no more than one minute. It wouldn't have taken him any longer than it did to undo his partial staging by clearing up glass and closing the window.

    In other words, it would have been easier, as well as more productive, for him to have completed the window staging than to have partially unstaged.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he climbed into that well to displace the grate and produce evidence of an intruder, he'd have been a royal mess. And by that time the police would have been on the scene, so how would he explain that his clothes were covered with a layer of dust and grime?

      Delete
    2. He could've brushed and patted himself down and any residual dust could easily have been explained by the generally grotty state of the basement in which he'd been busy searching.

      But I know you hate this sort of speculation, you prefer to infer what can be reasonably inferred from the definite facts, which is fair enough. My point is only that if the incomplete window staging was a big problem for him, it would have required maybe one minute's effort to complete it. He had an hour and a half, by all accounts.

      Delete
    3. No, he had hardly any time at all. A policeman was down there very early and would have observed the state of the window at that time. John's hour and a half "window" of opportunity came much later. Any change in the state of that window would have been noted.

      Bottom line: the FACT is that the window was found in the following state: one pane broken, with a hard suitcase under it and debris from the well on the floor. Combined with the FACT that the thick layer of dirt and dust on the window sill was not disturbed, not to mention two spider webs.

      So what can we make of that scene other than an attempt at staging? And since there was no displacement of dirt or webs, the staging was incomplete. Which is consistent with my theory that John's plan would have given him an extra day to complete his staging while he was home alone.

      Instead he was forced, out of sheer desperation, to explain away the broken window by concocting a story about having broken in earlier. Amazingly the police bought it, probably because they couldn't understand why he'd want to undermine his own staging by coming up with such a story. They had no clue that his original plan had gone up in smoke and he was improvising a plan B.

      Delete
  24. MHN -- you said in an earlier post "her being wiped down and redressed in fresh panties, her being left carefully wrapped, alongside one of her cuddly toys - the list goes on and on) adds up to point in one direction" -- what was the cuddly toy that you referred to? First I have heard there was a cuddly toy found with her.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon - I shouldn't have included that - well spotted. I read that somewhere and I've just been trying to locate the source but can't remember where I read it. I remember thinking at the time that it was news to me, never read that anywhere else either. Very likely a piece of mythinformation and I shouldn't have included it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Good morning!

    The fruit cocktail certainly changes things, IF it's true. That's the thing with this case. We have far too many experts coming to totally different conclusions. I mean, how don't you know that a child has been sexually molested? Why is this something that two groups of experts differ on? I would think that's pretty easy to discern, to prove, to see, especially if that's your field of expertise. So why the different conclusions?

    How don't you know stomach contents? How was pineapple reported on and not cherries, grapes, etc? These are experts in their fields and they have different answers for everything.

    If the "facts" keep changing, based on which "expert" is examining them and when, what chance does anyone have of solving anything?

    It's ridiculous. If we don't know the answers to key questions we can theorize all we want but can't prove a thing.

    1. Was JBR sexually molested or not?
    2. What were the stomach contents at autopsy?
    3. What came first? Strangulation or blow to the head?
    4. Was the window broken earlier like JR claimed or not?
    5. Why was she at the doctor 27 times in 3 years?

    These are questions that should be easy to answer, and yet they still remain a mystery. Why?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always said that the evidence is all but worthless because it's all inconclusive. Which is why I decided to base my principal conclusion on the facts and logic of the case, rather than endless speculation regarding the meaning of hundreds of pieces of inconclusive evidence.

      Delete
    2. You're right, Doc, but why is everything inconclusive? Could there be SO many questions that can have multiple answers? Certain things should simply be a yes or a no, as in the sexual molestation, stomach contents having just pineapple or other fruit, etc.

      EG

      Delete
  27. Hi EG. It's a pretty easy thing to look up the autopsy report online in pdf format. As far as I know and have read it several times, pineapple was the only thing in her stomach. Of course she ate at the White's, but that was already digested.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here is exactly what the book says about the fruit:

    The exact material in JonBenét’s stomach and intestines was first discussed with experts at the University of Colorado on October 15, 1997 (BPD Report # 1-1156), more than ten months after JonBenét was killed. Their reports about the contents of her stomach/ proximal area were given to the Boulder Police Department more than a year later in January of 1998, (BPD Report #1-1349) one year after JonBenét’s death. And that’s when the mystery deepened and the misconception about what JonBenét actually ate was discovered. According to previously unreleased BPD reports, laboratory testing revealed that JonBenét also ate cherries and grapes as well as pineapple. Remnants of cherries were found in the stomach/ proximal area of her small intestine. “Another item besides pineapple was cherries.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) In that same report: “Another item besides pineapple was grapes.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) Another report expands on the grapes, saying “grapes including skin and pulp.” (BPD Report #1-349.) The food described resembles what is included in most cans of fruit cocktail. The new information wasn’t released publicly, and the pineapple-only myth with its handy bowl of fruit on the kitchen table of the Ramsey home continued to be circulated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, then this is one for Doc.

      Delete
    2. WOW--I shouldn't be surprised, as this case is nothing but contradictions and discrepancies.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Thats another issue with this case.. The BPD only release info that is incriminating to the Ramseys.. There is so much more that we dont know.. evidence that was not deliberately leaked by them.. even one bit fo info could change everything..

      Delete
  29. The window element of this is what is the brain twister for me. I would want to go back and read Doc's specific blog on John again. To me though doing too much to the window, as MHN thought he could have done, such as climbing up, disturbing the cobweb, etc. I think would have been too much staging. And John didn't know that there were cobwebs out there. He couldn't have known everything that would be found. He could have picked a different window, sure,but he would want to make it look like an intruder came in at the lowest of levels in that house so as not to be heard. I certainly do not buy his story that he broke in earlier because he couldn't find his key, then took off his clothes so as not to get them dirty. What a fantastic story! That was enough to cook his goose right there. Then he couldn't remember if he had the window fixed or not. He even makes a big deal of pointing it out to Fleet White. Guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The window was easy enough to prove, I would think. If the edges of the broken glass had debris and dirt from months of exposure, it was broken previously.
      If it didn't, it was broken recently.

      What is so difficult about proving that? I'd love to see a report on the broken glass.

      EG

      Delete
    2. I can't prove it beyond doubt. But if the edges of the glass hadn't been clean, then there'd be no reason to question John about that incident -- or ask if the window had ever been repaired. Hopefully that evidence has been encased in plastic and saved in an evidence drawer somewhere.

      Delete
    3. So he tried to undo the staging because he knew it wasn't complete, but to complete it would've been too much staging? I'm now officially confused.

      Delete
    4. It's pretty simple. He initiated the staging at the window on the night of the crime by breaking the window, dropping packing peanuts from the well onto the floor, and placing the suitcase. But he was probably reluctant to actually climb through that window as he'd have been a mess and Patsy might have noticed. Also it's possible he just ran out of time.

      So when Patsy called 911, he realized his staging wasn't complete and it was too late to complete it because the cops were already on the way. Thus he needed to unstage, because it would have looked like what it actually was: the staging of an intruder break-in.

      He had time to run down and collect the broken glass in a bag or something so no one would see it. But he couldn't crawl through that window without messing up his clothing, which would certainly look suspicious.

      By the time he came back upstairs, the police were already in the house. So it was too late for him to open a door. He was forced to admit that all the doors were locked because a policeman was about to check.

      Delete
  30. There are so many people in the BDI camp now, sorry Doc that must be frustrating for you.

    I've been reading this blog for a few years now and the JDI theory is the only one that makes logical sense to me. Even if by some strange twist of events BDI, that makes John a murderer. JBR still had a pulse after being struck and there was no blood. John would have had no reason to suspect she was mortally wounded if he didn't strike her so why then finish the job with a garotte?

    There's so much speculation around Burke, yet so little around John. It's crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Burke is like Tommy by the Who. He didn't see it he didn't hear it he didn't feel it no nothing at all. But he could sure play a mean pinball.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've always preferred to think that JB was knocked unconscious from the back and never suffered more than that, since she would have been unconscious during the strangulation. However, looking at and reading the autopsy report, she had mucous coming from her nose which makes me think that she was crying at one point. This doesn't prove anything but leans toward the fact that something was happening that she didn't like and was not knocked unconscious right away. If an intruder came in to her room and covered her mouth so she didn't scream, I'm not sure tears would be coming out of her. When you are THAT terrified, do you cry? I don't know Just an observation.

    Unrelated to that, I also find it strange that she wet the bed so early into the night. If she was up, which it seems like she was, wouldn't her parents have made sure she went to the bathroom before she went to bed? She must have been asleep at some point before all of this happened which changes all of these theories.

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

      Delete
    2. I meant changes "a lot" of these theories not "all".

      Delete
    3. Anony, I have heard two stories. Or possibly three! That Patsy woke her up when she got home and took her to the bathroom so that she wouldn't set the bed. The bedding from the room doesn't look like it was stripped. Still intact. But there was a puddle of urine on the basement floor, which was hers, and her long johns were wet so either her bladder gave way after the blow or during strangulation. Whether she went before, I have heard nothing definitive on that.

      Delete
    4. There was urine in the bed though right?

      Delete
    5. One thing I always thought was odd, was that JR described JBR as peaceful when he carried her up the stairs and laid her down on the floor.
      Could it be that when JR and PR finally found JBR after BR fractured her skull with the flashlight, (45 minutes to two hours later) she may have been in distress. (seizures, death rattle, etc). Feeling she was close to death, but suffering, might they have thought of the garotte as a mercy killing kind of thing? JR was adept at knot tying, as he was in the Navy. Couldn't use his bare hands to strangle her, and she was face down so he wasn't looking at her when he did it. Just a thought.

      EG

      Delete
  33. I cant see where JB had been sexually abuse as she still had her hymen..

    ReplyDelete
  34. What do we now about the rope.. in a 'brown paper bag' as the note writer liked to use

    ReplyDelete
  35. Doc have you seen the Statement Analysis of Patsy's 911 call and the clear deception involved? What do you think of this in light to your theory PDI didn't know about JDI? It seems to almost if not confirm they are both in on it..

    http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/remembering-jonbenet-analysis-of-911.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the analysis of the 911 call is correct. Lots of odd things there with the way Patsy worded things. She is blonde, was another odd thing. You'd say she is my daughter, she has blonde hair and blue eyes. IMHO, of course.

      EG

      Delete
    2. She said that because she think JB is the most beautiful, most wonderful daughter that ever lived (as we do about our own children) and thats why she was taken..

      Delete
    3. I read that statement analysis some time ago and debunked it then, probably in a comment, as it wasn't worth an actual blog post. I'd dismiss it as pseudo-science but it isn't even that. There isn't one reference to any actual research done in this realm.

      This person simply decided for himself what is and what isn't appropriate and applied those standards to statements by only one person: Patsy Ramsey. Gee, why would he do that if he hadn't already convinced himself that Patsy must be lying.

      This document could be used in a classroom as an illustration of the evils of confirmation bias. Yet people fall for it. Why? Because it confirms their own bias.

      And yes, statement analysis has been the subject of scientific research and it has been deemed useful as a profiling tool in the early stages of an investigation, to help spot certain "red flags" that MIGHT be consistent with deception or guilt. In a certain percentage of cases certain types of statement have been associated with deception, yes. But there is always a significant percentage of cases where the opposite is true.

      In Patsy's case it is clear she is out of her mind with panic and just blurting out the first thing that comes to mind. If she were faking it her words would have been more carefully chosen. That's MY version of statement analysis, thank you.

      Delete
    4. She starts to say "We have a (RANSOM NOTE)" and then changes to "We have a note" You can clearly hear "We have a ra... we have a note". Just find it interesting.

      I find the analysis a bit far fetched even if it is true. It's also actually incorrect in analyzing what she says. Patsy says "I just got the note" Not "just found a note" as the analysis states and then it goes off on leaving out the pronoun "I" however it is clear that she says "I". You would think they would have gotten that right.

      Delete
    5. I have also noticed that people who want to be chic use that type of distancing language.

      Delete
  36. From time to time I get the feeling the house was bugged.. Anyone else think about that... It just seems that they were being taunted by the RN..

    ReplyDelete
  37. If you read the analysis he proves beyond doubt that she is being deceptive and ends it like this:

    The first thing you know about the Jonbenet Ramsey case is from the 911 call. The other, Patsy Ramsey, deliberately withheld information about what happened to her daughter, of whom she has shown an awareness that Jonbenet is dead, and not in need of a mother any longer.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Doc ignores all evidence of PR knowing on the premise that she would not have called 911. I have spent a large portion of studying this case on if PR knew or not and I would stake my life that when that 911 call was made she knew. She almost asked for an ambulance instead of the police or "an" something but it surely was not going to be "an" police. That call is full of distancing and alibi setting. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'd like to hear Doc's thoughts on it. It seems to tie together JDI and PDI conspiring to stage this event. Especially the "LISTEN CAREFULLY!" which does seem as though JDI is directing PDI what to write.

      Delete
    2. I'm baaaaaaaaaaaack. Or Anony, John wants Patsy to listen carefully and do what the note says to do. Do not so much as look at a stray dog or she dies.

      Delete
    3. Then you need to explain the egregiously deceptive 911 call by Patsy...

      Delete
    4. See my take on this incredibly biased "analysis" above.

      Delete
  39. A clip form A&E upcoming Sunday Special

    http://www.aetv.com/specials/the-killing-of-jonbenet-her-father-speaks/preview-the-killing-of-jonbenet-her-father-speaks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought he said the Dr. Phil interview would be his last.

      Delete
    2. Prolly didnt expect the CBS bullshit.. :)

      Delete
  40. I like how Leigh Too says the BPD is corrupt yet has no problem taking the ransom note at face value, and looks past the many Ramsey lies, half-truths, and deception.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What Ramsey lies..We know the BPD lies..ie., no footprints, concealing the DNA evidence for 7 moths etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't help but think that you don't know a lot about this case. The footprint comment is an observation, and a valid one at that. What lies? Where do I begin? Their contradictions on whose idea it was to call 911, denying the pineapple, John stating he didn't recognize the flashlight in the crime scene pictures yet years later admits he used it to bring Burke upstairs. The same flashlight CBS dubbed the murder weapon which was totally wiped down batteries and all. John's lie about breaking into the window months earlier. Thats just the beginning.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear... Burke had the pineapple.. and in hysteria, who is going to remember exactly who said what..And I have doubts about the flashlight as weapon as the curvature is reversed for it to be what hit her head.. And who says that the light didnt come with batteries already in it..And if someone with gloves on handled it, that could wipe off any prints

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

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

      Delete
    5. If it was used by JR, how did it get back on the counter..

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

      Delete
    7. In the rush of all the staging, I can totally see JDI wiping down a flashlight, setting it on the counter, going about to do something else and forgetting it was there. Even more so if PDI was in on it and they're darting about snipping at each other on what needs to be done.

      Delete
  42. And I dont take things at face value.. I just dont discount things till proven otherwise..

    ReplyDelete
  43. docG ive got to give it to you. years ago i read extensively about the case. now with the renewed interest i literally have stayed up nights watching the new programs (theyre idiotic!) and pondering all the theories. none of them make sense. so far fetched and full of holes! and this theory youve put forward is so simple and complete. the only question now is why the heck hasnt this been seriously considered? the handwriting is even a perfect match even to the untrained eye! how the heck could the police have missed this? and to this the police thought the mother did this. why the mother instead of the father? it doesnt make any sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. My theory HAS been seriously considered by at least one person in the media, a producer who wanted to interview me for an upcoming series on the case. She assured me that my input was going to be a key factor in her show. But then at the last minute a decision was made by higher ups in the network to leave me out. Possibly for fear of a lawsuit. But what I was told was that I was dropped because I was "only" a blogger with no direct connection with the case and no expertise.

      The heart of the problem is that the great majority of people following this case have already made up their minds that it was either an intruder or Patsy or Burke.

      No one wants to consider John, either because he "has no history of child abuse" or "he was ruled out as writer of the note." It's very hard to argue with these people. Also there are aspects of my theory that go against widely held assumptions, such as the assumption that John told (or even forced) Patsy to make the 911 call, and the completely erroneous assumption that Patsy's handwriting matches the handwriting on the note.

      It's only really devoted readers like yourself who are patient enough to sift through all the many reasons for suspecting John, as presented in so many of these blog posts. Unless you can see the big picture, it's easy to make unwarranted assumptions.

      Delete
    2. So you think John did it because he was a pedophile.. that is way out in left field, if you ask me,.

      Delete
  44. For you youngins that dont know about Latin America and our involvement there in the 90s.. This is one example.. others are worse..Noriega
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega


    ReplyDelete
  45. What else in the house could have made that odd shaped hole that cracked the skull? CBS eliminated a hammer I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Could be anything the intruder may have brought or taken when he left..But the curvature is wrong for it to be the flashlight..Unless he was left handed and struck from that side...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. which would be odd hitting the right side if you were left handed

      Delete
    2. Even when CS did the test hit.. it gave a straight cut..not arced... something else was used

      Delete
    3. So Leigh, are you saying Dr. Smidt and Dr. Lee (the experts) are wrong, that it couldn't be a flashlight?

      Delete
    4. The flashlight experiment on CBS proved them wrong,

      Delete
    5. Huh? Of course it isn't going to be EXACT, as they weren't using a human model and the angle/force could have been different. It doesn't mean it couldn't be something else, but it most certainly didn't rule out the flashlight.

      Well, we for sure know the flashlight was used for something since all of the fingerprints were wiped.

      Delete
    6. Uh yeah..could have been used as a flashlight.

      Delete
    7. Look up the definition of Strawman. Leigh Too seems to fit that definition in her comments and devisive "arguments". Pretty obvious to me. Work for Johns lawyers much?
      Jon

      Delete
    8. Everyone who has a different theory is divisive. What are we up..5-6..8?

      Delete
  47. Yeah the "intruder" brought his own murder weapon but it didn't dawn on him to bring his 2 1/2 page ransom note prepared. Makes more sense to count on a house having all the materials without knowing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe he did bring a note.. but rewrote it..since he had time to do so..

      Delete
    2. It could be anything..something in plain site.. Like banging her head against a doorknob... who knows

      Delete
  48. Good thinking. Maybe while the Ramsey's were at the White's the intruder had a creative writing seminar with his or her foreign faction buddies on ransom notes in the basement.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Or maybe after 2 hours alone in the dark he had to find something to do..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you feel even slightly embarrassed when you keep re-using that nonsense?

      Delete
    2. I lost electricity after a hurricane a few years ago.. The nights were the worst.. No TV no radio no computers nothing.. I started writing..it was the only thing you could do

      Delete
    3. Oh okay because that's exactly the same scenario we're talking about here. Did you also write an essay long ransom note while in a strangers house and not actually kidnap your target too?

      Delete
  50. Oh of course, because he knew exactly when the Ramsey's would be back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right.. he was done with the note by 830... hows that

      Delete
    2. Why not? He left without leaving a trace of his existence. Maybe Jonbenet was killed by Genghis Khan.

      Delete
    3. Everyone knew about hair fiber and fingerprint evidence.. this was planned ahead of time with all precautions taken.. But there is unknown fibers and the DNA in 4 places..

      Delete
  51. The 911 call, the ransom note, the staging of the wrist ties not even on her skin and JDI's lies about the broken window only point to JDI or a combination of JDI and others inside the house. No intruder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ransom note, the brutality and the lack of history or motive point to an intruder

      Delete
    2. Yeah the same ransom letter where the intruder didn't actually kidnap anyone. Why is the brutality a factor? Because you don't think a Christian family couldn't possibly do this? You don't always need motive to prove a crime.

      Delete
    3. She screamed.. loudly... he made a quick exit,,No parent would be that brutal to a child..unnecessarily..

      Delete
    4. Turn on the news. It happens all the time. Casey Anthony is a popular example.

      Delete
    5. Entering your child into beauty pageants at that age already certifies that the Ramsey's are bizarre. Flowing from that ideal you can see that any of this absurd staging would follow suit into people who think that's ok for their 6 year old to partake in. In fact, almost everything lines up with it. PDI behaved like an aloof stepford wife and JDI was an oddball. Simply look at his behavior during the time the police arrived to finding the body. The simple fact he went directly to the basement to make sure Linda Arndt didn't find jonbenet is telling, he was concerned she was going to comb the house with him and Fleet only doing so not under his control of where to lead her.

      Delete
  52. I think it is crazy that people who believe BDI are so calm about JR strangling her instead of calling an ambulance! She was alive! And even if she had been dead most parents would have called the ambulance, hoping they would be able to resuscitate her, but JBR was alive.
    They (most BDI posters think that JR and PR worked together) couldn't have known how bad it was. They weren't brain surgeons and they didn't have x-ray vision.
    How could they know for sure that the hospital wouldn't be able save her?
    Why weren't they desperate to save her? They were only desperate to save BR with a cover-up so they killed her? They were certainly not trying to save their image or lifestyle, the cover-up was always going to be much worse than the truth if the truth was BDI. Lots of rich people have a crazy or delinquent child, it doesn't ruin them or make them a pariah. Something far worse was going on than BDI.
    I think some of the BDI people have a much too dreamy and romantic idea about how she looked, she was not a serene sleeping beauty, this is reality, her body would have started to react: fighting for life for oxygen, probably cramping, gasping, gurgling and what not. And very likely her body reacted to the JRs garroting.
    They should have called the ambulance! Even the pathologist wasn't sure. He said she would PROBABLY have died anyway.
    And some are talking about "putting her out of her misery"?! What! She wasn't a dog!
    It looks more like JR didn't WANT her to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  53. So, you think JR did it and PR thought an intruder did it? Or are you saying that JR did it and PR covered it up with him?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea what lies JR told PR and what or who she thought she was covering for. My guess is she believed the IDI, and JR told her the police were going to try to frame him, and she had to help him.

      Delete
  54. i think john besides pushing the intruder theory he also retained the possibility that patsy had done it as slight a possibility as it was. he was 100percent excluded from writing the ransom note but patsy as far as patsy it was only more likely she hadnt written it than written it. this way if it ever proved to be an inside job he could always blame it on dead patsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think JR would throw anybody under the bus to save his skin.

      Delete
  55. "What my post does is demonstrate how easy it would have been for John to use that note to frighten Patsy into not calling the police." You just said it right there. How EASY it would have been had that been the plan.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Leigh Too:

    https://www.google.com/amp/kdvr.com/2016/09/01/dna-expert-in-jonbenet-ramsey-other-famous-cases-debunked-in-denver/amp/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "The Illinois Innocence Project said investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case contacted Eikelenboom and his wife about using Touch DNA, but the Boulder Police Department said Thursday that the report was not true."

      Delete