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

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

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Burke's Interview

The full transcript of Burke Ramsey's 1998 interview is now available via the Oct. 3 issue of the National Enquirer. Thanks to diamondlil16, we have a link to a Websleuth's page where the entire document has been reproduced. You'll need to scroll down a bit, but you'll eventually find it, as posted by "DrollForeignFaction." While most items emanating from the NE should be taken with a huge grain of salt, this one looks authentic. It's also important, as it provides us with some information we didn't have before, and either clears things up or muddies the waters, depending on how reliable a witness we take Burke to be.


As I recall, Burke told Dr. Phil that the baseball bat found just outside the house was his, but in the interview he apparently denies that. He says he had two knives. One of them has "this little hook thing that you tie knots better with." So he was into tying knots. Interesting.

And now for something completely new: Burke explained how his dad, John, broke the basement window once when they got locked out, so they could enter the house through the basement. . .
"One time we did get locked out and there are - this is the basement but there are two windows to the basement, and my dad had to break the window and go around and unlock the door."

VERY interesting. It's possible, of course, that Burke could have been coached into telling that story, but to me it appears genuine. Which tells us that John was probably being truthful when he referred to breaking in via that window on more than one occasion. Does that make the rest of his story more likely to be true? Not really, no -- not as far as I'm concerned -- but it does make him a tad more credible, I suppose. It would be interesting if Burke had said something about noticing if that same window had been broken again -- and left broken for months afterward -- but he wasn't questioned on that.

He says he sometimes slept in JonBenet's room when his room got too cold. But he doesn't say whether he slept in the same bed as his sister and isn't asked.

When asked what his favorite snack was, Burke says "pudding and yogurt."

"DS: So what kind of fruits would you typically have at home? BR: I wouldn't have fruit. DS: You wouldn't? BR: Like pineapple. DS: Yeah, do you like that? BR: Yeah. DS: That's your favorite fruit? BR: (Nods)"

Now that's an interesting response. And the BDI'ers are going to have a field day with it, no doubt. He first denies that he'd ever eat fruit. Then he specifically rules out pineapple, without being prompted. If that's how we interpret the phrase "like pineapple." It's also possible he said "I like pineapple" and the "I" got omitted from the transcript accidentally. When asked if it's his favorite fruit, he nods. Could pineapple be a problem for him? Could that be a sign he was eating pineapple on the night of the murder after all? Or could it reflect his awareness that pineapple was known to have been found in his sister's stomach and that his prints had been found on that bowl, which would make it a sore point for him whether he was involved or not. Or did he simply say he liked pineapple? That passage is ambiguous and puzzling.

"DS: Okay. I interrupted you when you were saying what you had heard. And you were talking about your dad telling your mom to call the police or something? BR: He was like okay, calm down, like we can call the police; let's call the police. DS: You could hear that quite clearly from your room? BR: Pretty clearly. In the distance."

This is especially interesting for me as it provides a context for Burke's reference to his parents' decision to call the police. In the version made available, in bits and pieces, via the Dateline show, we hear Burke say what could sound like either "He" or "It," followed by "was like okay, calm down, like we can call the police . . ." Now that we can see the question he was responding to, it's clear he was saying "he," referring to his father. I'm bothered, however, by what appears to be a leading question. The interviewer refers to Burke "talking about your dad telling your mom to call the police," but Burke said nothing of the sort -- though it's possible that part of the interview was cut. So. Did Burke overhear his father telling his mother to call the police? Can his version of what happened be trusted?

Well, first of all, if we can trust what he's reported about his mother going ballistic and his father trying to calm her down, that doesn't sound at all like what would have transpired if calling the police that morning was part of a plan they'd already concocted together the night before. If they were both involved in staging a kidnapping, there would have been no need for hysterics.

Secondly, as we know, Patsy reported, in both A&E documentaries, that she told John she was going to call the police, not the other way round. Did Burke accurately hear, from his bedroom, what was being said in the kitchen, located in a completely different part of this very large house? Could he have been prompted by his father to say what he said? Or was calling the police John's idea after all?

If it was in fact John's idea, then we have no choice but to return to considering an intruder theory after all. Because both of them would not have agreed to call 911 with the body in the house unless both were innocent. As I see it, Burke's version of what happened that morning is no more credible than the version presented in their book, where John tells Patsy to make that call. If, as I feel sure, John was able to manipulate Patsy into going along with that story, he would certainly have been able to manipulate Burke as well. Our only alternative would be a return to the intruder theory, which makes no sense at all.

292 comments:

  1. Well I tend to believe Burke is lying entirely about remaining in bed that whole time, so everything regarding that morning is garbage. In the interrogation tapes with the Detective he makes some ridiculous comment like "I wouldn't have heard anything because I'm a real deep sleeper."
    Doc, for a few minutes there it felt like you were starting to come around to the BDI side

    -J


    ReplyDelete
  2. "DS: Okay. I interrupted you when you were saying what you had heard. And you were talking about your dad telling your mom to call the police or something? BR: He was like okay, calm down, like we can call the police; let's call the police. DS: You could hear that quite clearly from your room? BR: Pretty clearly. In the distance."

    I interpret this statement as Patsy being hysteric and wanting to call the police (quite logical if she wasn't involved), and John trying to calm her down by AGREEING to call the police (he had no choice at this point).

    ReplyDelete
  3. The biggest issue people have with BDI, is the gruesome staging which followed...what parents would do that? I, for one, have no trouble believing the Ramseys would if it protected their son, their image and if they thought that their daughter was dead.

    However, the idea of Burke also doing the garotte as really gained some momentum, at least in my own mind. If Burke did the garotte it would make perfect sense why everything happened the way it did. No loose ends and no conjecture.

    I honestly don't believe for one second that Burke wanted to kill her or was some evil little kid out to inflict horrendous pain. I also don't believe he sat up at 10/11pm that night fashioning the garotte. I thinks it is very possible that he made the garotte days/weeks or months in advance. Not as a weapon. Just practicing his knot tieing abilities and fashioning something that looked cool (instead of just a plain old knot). Its even highly possible that his dad helped him make it. After he made it, he didn't want to throw it out...so what do you do with "junk" like that...you chuck it in the basement somewhere.

    On the night of the 25th, after Burke and JBR had some pineapple a scenario occured. It could have been an argument which lead to a headblow near the basement. Or maybe the garotte did actually come first and the headblow was to quiten her so she wouldn't wake the parents. At the end of the day, if Burke was in the basement with JBR he may have saw the garotte he made and thought it would be cool to try it out. He didnt mean to kill her and he had every intention of taking it off....but things like that once it gets too tight (which could happen very easily) it could be fatal. At the end of the day, she died and Burke panicked. Poked her with train track and then eventually woke his parents. They then had no choice but to protect his son after he cried it was an accident and he didn't mean to. Patsy then wrote the RN with John assisting and the rest is history. Is this speculation? Of course. Just like all theories. But to me this certainly does not sound outlandish or a far away fantasy that could never have happened. I would believe this over JDI by a county mile as JDI just has way too many serious flaws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Torn off strands of her hair were entwined in the knotting of the "garrote." They are clearly visible in the photos. It was not constructed ahead of time, it was constructed right on top of her while she lay unconscious.

      Delete
    2. If that is proven, I am happy to acknowledge it. However I think it would be perfectly possible for hairs to be entwined within the knotting, even if it was made earlier. In fact I would expect that. But as I said, if its proven that the garotte was made on top of her then I dont think it was Burke who made it.

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

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

      Delete
    5. Her hair is entwined in the actual knot, Zed. This is pretty solid evidence that the knot was tied whilst the perpetrator lay on top of an unconscious JonBenet, and not prior to that.
      So assuming the garrote was made whilst JB was lying unconscious, due to the overwhelming, physicl evidence that supports this scenario, you concede that it couldn't have been Burke who fashioned it, correct?
      So, we're left with three alternatives - either Patsy alone; John alone; or the Ramsey's as a team, strangled their daughter to death, even though they would have certainly known she was still alive at the time (it is more than likely, due to her specific head trauma, that JB would have been displaying very obvious, physical signs she was experiencing Agonal respiration, which is characterized by "gasping, labored breathing, accompanied by strange vocalizations and myoclonus". Therefore, there is absolutely zero reason to believe she would have appeared to be dead - quite the contrary, as her breathing would probably have been quite noisy. At any rate, parents who allegedly loved their daughter, would have certainly checked for a PULSE before strangling her, don't you think?!), as they could not have had any way of knowing her head injury was fatal, therefore would have logically called for help in the hopes of resuscitating their much loved daughter, but instead chose to sacrifice her life in order to protect their son's.
      In essence, the Ramsey's made a conscious decision to end JB's life (in one of the most violent ways a parent could possibly kill their child) so that their son would not be considered a suspect in her accidental death (at least, it was an accident until the parents intervened). They decided that a murder/obviously-staged-kidnapping-gone wrong/rambling ransom note/sexual assault would be a more believable scenario than an accident.

      Is that the gist of it?

      Delete
    6. Ms D - If it was premeditated solely by JR, then in your words made a conscious decision to end JB's life (in one of the most violent ways a parent could possibly kill their child).
      IF JR killed her by accident, then once again made a conscious decision to end JB's life (in one of the most violent ways a parent could possibly kill their child).

      IT happened, regardless of how crazy you believe the motive was, she was hit over the head and then strangled. It doesn't make any more sense if it was just John

      -J

      Delete
    7. No, there is quite a difference between the two, J.
      My theory suggests JR made a conscious decision - premeditated or not, we can only speculate - to end his daughter's life, and that reason was probably to protect himself from being exposed as her abuser. The attack was vicious because it was full of intent, unlike your scenario, where it is merely staging.
      The BDI theorists claim that John and Patsy Ramsey reluctantly killed their daughter - and I say that one does not garrote their child simply as a means to an end. Or, as most BDIs believe: John and Patsy presumed JB to be dead, subsequently staged the scene and weren't aware they actually killed her in the process of doing so - and I don't buy that for the reasons stated above.
      In a nut shell: if John felt he may soon be exposed, he had a motive to murder JB in a brutal manner (penetration had to be performed as he needed to cover up previous sexual assault. Penetration wouldn't likely be required in the BDI scenario, because it is not something any parent would even consider doing to their dead child, especially as it wasn't necessary - remember, they were staging a kidnapping, not a sexual assault)

      If Burke struck JB, her parents had no reason to stage her death in such a violent manner - one that is SURE to attract lots of unwanted attention and investigation by LE. If John killed her, it was the murder itself that was violent, not the subsequent staging.....or, Burke may have done the lot, the blow, the strangulation and the assault, this is what I'm trying to ascertain from Zed, because whether Burke actually ended her life, or her parents did, matters a lot.

      Delete
    8. Regardless if it’s premeditated or not (pick a lane) you believe 100% that JBR was murdered to cover up John’s molestation? The reason this is SO important is because IF that is the case then Patsy Ramsey is NEVER allowed to dial 911. If his plan as soooooo many have said on here was to get the body of the house by using the RN’s instructions, John would have felt that body in the house = his arrest. That’s how he HAD to feel, so John at 5:52 AM decided to just leave it up to pure chance having PR find the note, then just lets her call the very people who could lock him up for life? As Cousin Eddie would say “you serious Clark?” The JDI’s want us to believe Mad John Ramsey was a pedophile, but also this brilliant man who controlled this entire situation. Was able to foil the police, his son and his wife. YET, he lets her just call the police…seriously, this is such a joke.

      -J

      Delete
  4. "BR: He was like okay, calm down, like we can call the police; let's call the police."

    It sounds as though John was just giving in, surrending. "We can call the police". I could almost hear him saying "if that is what you really want, let's call the police, calm down". As if they were arguing and each of them giving the reasons as to why they had do it or not do it. It looks as if John gave in after having unsuccessfully tried to convince PR to wait until the following day. Could it be that she went "psycho" also because JR suggested that they should have to wait a whole day for the kidnapper/s to call with instructions and then eventually they would call the police if JBR didn't appear?
    Of course, the plan to remove the body out of the house the following day would not work with the police present and monitoring every movement but maybe there could be another way, given the circumstances. For some reason, he could not stop Patsy from calling and he had to figure out another way to end the story.

    The interview is interesting as it gives more light to the previous moments to the call (among other things), and it's reasonable that if they lied about it, giving different versions of how it happened, it's probably because they just couldn't tell the truth, that there was a huge fight over the issue at the moment as each one was defending their grounds to call or not to call. Finally, Patsy made the call and he had to change to plan B.
    Patsy is innocent, otherwise she would not have called 911. Burke is innocent, otherwise he would have never been sent to their friend's home to be with other kids, after having tortured and killed a kid.The intruder's theory is non sense.

    I'm new to the blog. I joined it because I believe JDI and would like justice to be met for JBR. Thank you, DocG for your valuable contribution and commitment and I hope this blog continues to keep the talk alive until justice is served.
    med

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I see it, there was only one reason for the body to be moved to the wine cellar, and that was to hide it from Patsy. Early on I did consider all the possibilities, yes. But I could never think of a motive for Patsy to kill the child that was obviously the most important thing in her life. And bedwetting never cut if for me, no. I think that was just desperation on Steve Thomas's part, because he couldn't imagine any alternative to Patsy, once John had been ruled out, and needed to grasp at straws to produce a motive.

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

      Delete
    3. "As I see it, there was only one reason for the body to be moved to the wine cellar, and that was to hide it from Patsy."

      This thinking definitely works for your theory, but the body wasn't found for hours with the police in the house. If they didn't just want to dump her body they did a pretty good job of keeping the body from the police until they decided to reveal her.

      -J

      Delete
    4. There is no "they".
      That's where you keep going wrong.....

      Delete
    5. There is no "they". - 100% Ms D's opinion

      Patsy was involved. Not sure how this isn't clear to so many on here, but only reason for all the lies she tells or stories changing is because it is not the truth. 1 guy didn't mastermind this entire thing and was able to avoid detection from his wife and the police.

      -J

      Delete
    6. I believe somewhere down the track....weeks, months, years, perhaps, that Patsy did possibly suspect her husband. But not on the morning she picked up the ransom note from the bottom of the stairs.
      It wouldn't be the first time "one guy" masterminded an entire crime and wasn't detected by a spouse or police.
      It happens.
      In fact, I would bet my last dollar that it is much more common than parents resorting to killing their kid in order to cover for an accident committed by their other kid.

      Delete
  6. "The biggest issue people have with BDI, is the gruesome staging which followed...what parents would do that?"

    The biggest issue is that its not believable based on what actually happened. Considering the fact that a majority of people believe the Ramseys were involved, how can their "biggest issue" be them doing the murder and staging? Obviously it cant but BDI people will not stop parroting this statement, just like how the next thing they say is people who don't believe BDI cant imagine a child murdering another child... which is just another hogwash statement.


    "On the night of the 25th, after Burke and JBR had some pineapple a scenario occured."

    Yeah yeah....she grabbed a piece of pineapple and he bludgeoned her for it. THis isn't believable to most no matter how many times this CBS hogwash gets parroted.


    " I would believe this over JDI by a county mile as JDI just has way too many serious flaws."

    Too many serious flaws? That's funny. Out of all the various theories in existence, BDI ignores the most evidence. It contains holes that Helen Keller could fly a B-52 through. It has to be simplified to the extreme in an attempt to get people to believe it and even then, only people who will genuinely swallow it are those who never did much if any research.

    Kolar's version was swallowed by a small yet very vocal minority, and CBS had to really dumb it down for a casual audience. Even for a casual audience it takes about five minutes of research to see past the thin surface of BDI and notice a mountain of evience left out.

    Some people have the gall to say there are "no more unanswered questions" and that "everything fits now". I've noticed a pattern how this is always said by those who parrot the CBS theory so it doesn't really surprise me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the night of the 25th, after Burke and JBR had some pineapple a scenario occured."

      Yeah yeah....she grabbed a piece of pineapple and he bludgeoned her for it. THis isn't believable to most no matter how many times this CBS hogwash gets parroted.

      A kid just murdered his Grandparents because they grounded him.

      -J

      Delete
    2. And did his parents subsequently stage the murder scene to look like a kidnapping and write a three page ransom note to throw suspicion off of him, J? I doubt they did......because that would be utterly ridiculous, and no one would ever buy it. ;)



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

      Delete
    4. Burke said he went downstairs after everyone was asleep and he saud his father brought him back to bed with a flashlight..... if JR or Burke were molesting JB that is the reason to stage

      Delete
  7. If JR was molesting JB it is unlikely he would do it in JBR’s bedroom, especially since Burke is known to sleep in her room when his room gets too cold (it would be too risky). His best opportunity would be when he was home alone with JB, or alone with her in the car…. neither sounds very likely. He would need to coax her into an area of the house (at night) where no one else would normally go (not the basement because Burke played there). Or, he could molest her in an area where he could observe/hear someone coming, but not be seen from the outside, and have a logical explanation for why they were together in the middle of the night (and know that JB would keep their secret). Could JR have been the secret Santa JB was referring to?

    Unlikely JR would use gloves during an “ongoing” molestation as he would not be intending to kill her, and would have no reason to be worried about leaving his DNA. Gloves would add risk if he was caught in the act… that would be hard to explain unless he could claim he was cleaning up a soiled JB, which appears from all reports to be Patsy’s job. It appears from the AR no DNA was found in/on the genitalia. If there was DNA in the genitalia it hasn’t been reported. So, it is clear, the perpetrator did not want to leave evidence behind that could identify him/her.

    DNA would have been left on the ropes/garrote unless someone was wearing gloves. If they were wearing gloves, then their intent was to not leave DNA. So, it is clear, the perpetrator did not want to leave evidence behind that could identify him/her.

    The flashlight contains no fingerprints on the exterior nor on the batteries, indicating it was wiped clean. Now some flashlights come with the batteries already installed, and maybe who ever put the flashlight together in the manufacturing process wore gloves (this seems reasonable to keep the product clean during packaging). That could explain no prints on the batteries, but not the exterior of the flashlight. It’s impossible that none of the smooth surfaces of the flashlight, especially around the on/off switch, had fingerprints, or palm prints on the end unless it was wiped down. So, it is clear, the perpetrator did not want to leave evidence behind that could identify him/her.

    But why was the flashlight left behind when other evidence disappeared? Because it was needed to find one’s way around in the dark when the other evidence was being disposed of, and/or it was needed to provide light during the writing of the ransom note.

    If Burke was molesting JB and/or constructed the ropes/garrote, then he would have left DNA evidence. He was too young to know his actions would leave DNA behind.

    Other than the stupid RN, the flashlight is the key. The only reason it was wiped down was to eliminate evidence of the head trauma – it was the (main) murder weapon. Otherwise, who cares if the family’s fingerprints were on it? If an intruder used the flashlight, he would have had gloves on, so there would have been no reason to wipe it down, and he wouldn’t care if it had JB’s DNA on it, and why would he leave it behind if he did use it (I guess he forgot to bring his own flashlight).

    If JR was molesting JB and was afraid he was going to get caught, and intended to kill her and cover it up, it doesn’t make sense he would hit her over the head with a flashlight without knowing that it would NOT penetrate the scalp and leave blood all over the place, and possibly him …more evidence to clean up.

    Someone intentionally hit her in the head with the flashlight, either out of spite or anger (PR or BR). I think it’s obvious that JR did the cover-up based on his actions the next morning after the police arrived. I think he was anxious for the body to be found and was probably thinking what idiots the police were. I think both PR and JR wrote bits and pieces of the RN.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks DocG for making a new entry for Burke's Q&A. Irrc the questioning at the time was around 6 hours. This just fleshes it out a bt more than what the tv programs aired.

    As far as the question posted on the previous entry about why not use the knife (for a weapon) and upthread having him go to the Whites around other children I wanted to reply to that.
    He was in Boy Scouts (and John said his eldest son was an Eagle Scout) and possibly only considered it as a tool and would not ever be inclined to use it as a weapon. Not sure if BR ever went fishing, and haven't read anything that the family hunted.
    Burke being around his friends (rather than police questioning him) makes sense as nothing has been reported that there was any peer rivalry. Sibling rivalry is not the same as peer relationships. And for the topic that pops up that as an adult wouldn't he show some aggressive behavior towards others - why? His parents were not going to have more biological children (ovarian cancer).

    ReplyDelete
  9. For a refresher since Burke was asked about the window and pineapple and knives- here are John and Patsy on the window (and DocG is quoted on here too!)
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-window-grate.htm

    John and Patsy on the "bugaboo" pineapple http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm

    John and Patsy on knives
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-knives.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for these links, lil. Here's an interesting passage I hadn't noticed before:

      PR: And so I would, it seems to me like she and I talked about that window or did, somehow I vaguely remember that if it would have gotten fixed he [Linda's husband Mervin]very likely would be the one to fix it. And at any rate they were going to wash all the windows, so they would have known……
      TT: Whether it was fixed or not?
      PR: Yeah.

      Very very interesting. If Patsy had been lying about cleaning up that glass, why would she have provided the information above, knowing very well that neither Linda nor Mervin would verify it. She even mentions washing the windows. According to Woodward's book Mervin claimed he washed all the windows around Thanksgiving and Patsy appears to be confirming that.

      Now if Mervin washed the windows and didn't notice that any were broken, then that would expose both John and Patsy as liars. Linda also denied any knowledge of any broken glass. Yet Patsy had no problem referring her interrogators to both of them. If she'd been lying, why would she do that? And if she'd been telling the truth, then why wouldn't Linda and Mervin have confirmed her story?

      Patsy's testimony also tells us how unlikely it would have been for her to have noticed whether that window had been broken or not. She doesn't say she herself would have noticed if the window had been repaired, she says only that THEY would. This suggests that she rarely if ever went down into the basement, which as I recall, she had already mentioned on some other occasion.

      While an implanted memory might seem unlikely, I see no other explanation for the above testimony. She sounds like she knows she's telling the truth and is genuinely unsure whether or not the window had been repaired.

      Delete
    2. From the link, further down the page Patsy says she was in the basement Christmas day at the washer and dryer wrapping (presents) but did not go into the area where that window was to notice if a pane was broken or not. Are there any statements from Mervin or Linda from a depo or LE transcript? I just hesitate to go with only authors or attorneys purport (and the DA said).
      If the window had been broken on several occasions and Mervin denies ever repairing it, then perhaps the painters did, and never came forward. From the police interviews it seems that John relied heavily on his wife to arrange repairs and imo was lazy and thoughtless not to clean up a mess he made during his 'break ins' and since aware of the mold and moisture problems never got a dehumidifier, argh! Reading back thru old discussions some labeled it "Ramnesia" and it seems that way about very specific items in their home and daily routines.

      Delete
    3. Linda is quoted in PMPT as saying she knew nothing about any broken window. Years later, in a tab interview, she restates this claim, adding that she thinks the Ramseys are lying about that window and that "Patsy" must have broken it herself to stage an intruder. In Paula Woodward's new book, Mervin is quoted as stating he washed all the windows in the house around Thanksgiving. If he'd noticed a broken window he would certainly have reported it.

      Delete
    4. Thank you DocG. And I have another question for you I will ask after I read the new entries.

      Delete
  10. James wrote:
    "Out of all the various theories in existence, BDI ignores the most evidence."

    I am sorry but that is hogwash. There is NO evidence which implicates anyone. In fact, out of all the evidence in the house it implies Burke and Patsy far more than John. The ONLY piece of evidence we have on John is the shirt fibre on JBs crotch. Thats it.

    This is an unusual case because what the evidence does is paint a timeline. And that timeline indicates Burke is the most likely culprit. The staging points at parents covering for someone...and it wouldn't be each other!! And Patsy was involved, without a shadow of a doubt. I would bet my last coin on it. There is just too many inconsistencies, lies, deception and evidence that says she's not. Patsy wrote the RN, she called 911 knowing the body was in the house and this all points to one LOGICAL conclusion...BDI.

    I will not (and cannot) belive that JDI. One there is no evidence. And I can't believe that he molesting his daughter on an ongoing basis, completely risking JB telling someone, Patsy finding out, JBs doctor finding out (who JB saw a lot) and then decided it was getting too risky to continue so decided to end JBs life by fashioning a garotte, writing a huge RN, without Patsy waking up or realising he wasn't in bed. But then you say John probably drugged her and then made sure he used gaslighting techniques on her over time. All of this on the worse possible night (they had to be up early) and without leaving any evidence.

    I mean, please!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  11. It is diffucult to understand how John could not convince Patsy not to call the police. If I were him, I would have responded to her every objection, by pleading with her, not to risk the life of their daughter by ignoring the kidnappers warnings, and to take seriously the kidnappers assurances that every move they made was being carefully scrutinized.

    If Burke is telling the truth, I'm inclined to believe that Patsy harbored borderline suspicions about the authenticity of the ransome note herself, that John sensed while they were arguing. John's fatal flaw may turn out to be that, while he is excellent at the art of mis-direction and gaslighting, he is a terrible actor. To take on Patsy while she was behaving hysterically, yet still thinking somewhat logically, he would have needed to behave in ways unfamiliar to Patsy, Burke (if he was listening in), and most all, to himself.

    For JDIers, like myself, this makes things more difficult in that John may have had to gaslight a "Patsy" (no pun intended) who may have been more suspicious of him from the start than originally conjectured. On the other hand, it might better explain why he led the charge to keep himself and Pasty from being interviewed by the police for as long as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above comment by Mike G

      Delete
    2. Surely a small pun intended, Mike G?

      -Sisu

      Delete
    3. How can he plead with PR not to call 911 if he has not picked up and fully read the note in front of her ? Obviously he cant because he doesnt know that. According to some of her statements he was reading it while she was on the phone with 911.

      Delete
  12. Zed wrote:
    "And I can't believe that he molesting his daughter on an ongoing basis, completely risking JB telling someone"

    This is how it should be; however,incest continues and perpetrators continue to groom their victim(s).

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

    At 49 seconds Barbara Walters repeating the patriarchs words to him in an interview:

    'a six-year-old lolita, a pint-sized sex kitten'

    and wife sitting next to him nodding and saying 'there was just absolutely nothing wrong with it'

    Some blurry boundaries in that family.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That video has been manipulated.

      Delete
    2. 2000 transcript of John and Patsy with Barbara Walters http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03172000ramseyonbarbarawalters.htm

      Delete
    3. That video is very amusing. The re-editing was done with a professional touch. Unfortunately, people unfamiliar with this case could take it literally. Would that things were that simple.

      Delete
    4. You'd think Lin Wood would be on that to have it removed and sue YouTube. I am not pro-Ramsey but would never go there with manufacturing false info. I did watch a British lady scan radio channels for EVP messages 'from beyond', lol

      Delete
  13. Maybe someone can answer this question for me.

    If Burke actually did it and his parents covered up for him for any reason, how did they allow him to be taken by friends to be with them at their house, being tragically aware that their son was capable of killing a person?

    Med

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The immediate tragedy was the death of their daughter. That a son would be capable of murder would only be tragic to parents
      willing to confront the situation head on, not cover it up.
      I highly doubt the Ramsey's would be concerned that Burke might suddenly kill again just after killing his sister. More likely they'd be concerned Burke might talk, which suggests Burke did not kill his sister and that the cover up was for John and/or Patsy. To suggest otherwise, you have introduce ad hoc highly improbable scenarios which are purely speculative for which there is no evidence.

      Mike G

      Mike G.

      Delete
    2. Med, read upthread to my comments on that. I talk about sibling rivalry.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, guys, for the comments.
      BDI theory never seemed to make sense to me and that decision to send him away does not sound right if he really did it. It makes more sense that they wanted him out of sight from LE.
      Med

      Delete
  14. We do not know all the circumstances. First off, it is possible that JR had not picked up the note and pretended to read it yet in front of PR. Thus him being unable to say to a hysterical PR, the note says not to call LE as it would have been a sure giveaway to PR as to his prior knowledge of and most likely authorship of the note. We know he was supposedly reading it when the 911 call was placed but when did he begin ? He comes downstairs and hysterical PR is telling him she is calling 911 with phone in hand and what can he do ? Physically attack her ? BR may have been down there already as well. I dont want to hear that BR was not down there because he clearly was, I heard the original Aerospace and there is no doubt, as it was played at the Grand Jury and BR himself said it sounded like him. It was. Refuting things like this muddy the waters. It is possible that PR could have done this and we are fooled by her being who called 911. She called because she thought she had cleaned up and staged properly. She has a very good drama queen, acting type personality. All scenarios are back to being possible, someahere with whoever did this logic was not available, so possibly it can not be solved using logic. What we are not fooled by is that IDI. I would put more faith in the Ramsey,s dog sexually assaulting and garrotting JBR than I would an intruder. Which brings me to my next scenario ...lol

    ReplyDelete
  15. The following link contains an interesting analysis of the ransome note and who may have written it. In my opinion, the discussion surrounding the use of the phrase "and hence" points to John as its author.

    Patsy is asked about why the term was used in a "Christmas Message from the Ramsey's" that was read at JonBenet's funeral. Her answer is interesting, but what's even more interesting, is that only John is ever quoted as having used the term while speaking publically.

    Does anyone if it was John and not Patsy who wrote that Christmas message?

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I forgot the link...

      http://www.statementanalysis.com/jonbenet-ramsey-murder/ransom-note/

      Delete
    2. Mike G- I'll look at the site in a bit, don't think I've ever seen the message from the funeral before. I'm very familiar with that site for various cases over the years.

      I'm reading at acandyrose and cannot get over how the adults just contradict everything- Patsy is asked if either she or John smoked cigars. Nope, "no one did" but she knew John kept cigars in that moldy wine cellar aa a big old humidor room. Smh. I have coffee in my house. I don't drink coffee but I sure as heck know who does.
      http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cigar-box.htm

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.google.com/search?q=paintbrush+beaver+hair&safe=active&rlz=1C1AVST_enUS355&espv=2&biw=823&bih=448&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirpZv9ofnPAhUMDcAKHVNaBPIQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1.75#imgrc=K4iAdUgHXcO_OM%3A

      Delete
    2. Doc, as an artist by profession I thought of this a long while ago. I've done numerous searches and never come across beaver hair brushes. Badger hair brushes are common (and excellent) but if you type 'paintbrush beaver hair' into google you'll get lots and lots of links to paintbrushes - following through, it is almost impossible to follow one of those links and come across an actual beaver hair brush. The link you've provided is for a Chinese company but the link won't actually open when I try. Now it may be that yes you've managed to find one beaver hair paintbrush, but in my experience they are vanishingly rare.

      Delete
    3. Somehow, I don't think Patsy would have been stupid enough to wear the very boots she said she couldn't locate to the police station.

      Delete
    4. don't know when she was asked to turn over all clothing and how long they stalled

      Delete
  18. I have some questions here for J when you return to the site.

    1) if you think Patsy did the strangulation do you also believe she constructed the garrote using what looks like a complicated "clove hitch" knot?

    2)If you believe Burke possibly chased JB with the flashlight and struck her over the head do you think it all resembles the simulation done on CBS with a child a. stronger and sturdier-looking that what Burke would have been at age 9 (who his father says was 60 pounds, but then later says 90 pounds so we don't know the exact weight) and b. making impact from a running target that was so severe as to have caused that hole and skull crack? The boy in the CBS special stood over a model of a head that was not in movement. If you could just provide your comments on these questions i would appreciate it. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inquisitive,

      Thanks for the questions. I feel like Doc J 

      1. Regarding PR…No, I tend to think she wasn’t the one who did the strangling. A lot of the staging that took place would be sooooo much more easily explained if BR was the one who tied the knot on his own and committed the strangling. Because of the Enquirer interviews that got released, I am starting to think it was definitely possible that BR could have tied those knots. But, to answer your question, no I do not believe Patsy had any involvement in the actual strangulation. If John was involved in that, I don’t believe PR knew the extent of what took place.

      2. The size of the kid they used on the CBS special doesn’t bother me at all. JR even writes in his book it would have taken an “adult male” to cause the head blow. Such an odd thing to add as if somebody asked him specifically about Burke. The CBS Special chose the pineapple as the reason he struck her and though I think that could be the case, I also don’t want to say that’s the only thing it could have been. I have written this before, but JB could have taken the pineapple or wanted to play with his train which caused him to get upset. Between seeing the kid they used cause the damage it did and BR himself motioning the hit over the head motion, I have no doubt who caused the head blow.

      I hope I answered your questions. A lot on here know more details about this case than I do, but 5 years ago I stumbled upon this blog and so badly wanted it to be IDI. But, I quickly thought Doc’s theory just made the most sense. It made a lot of pieces fit together. The only problem with his theory is that I never trusted the motive John would have. I kept reading, watching and looking at other aspects of the case and when I saw the CBS special, it all made sense to me.

      -J

      Delete
  19. Thank you for your reply J.

    In the interview partially posted above, with Burke, he emerges as someone thoughtful, considerate, intelligent, and mature - using words that he would hear around adults - and expressing concern over JB's bedwetting, also sharing that he had had a problem with bed wetting with his friend (I think it was the White kid). So I have kind of drifted from the Burke scenario. Now I understand rage, impulse, lack of control - that kind of thing which could explain a blow to the head but he would have fully known what he was doing (and not be in a blind rage or impulsive act) by constructing a garrote and strangling his sister and raping her with a stick. That just doesn't fit to me. And it doesn't fit to go to such lengths to cover for someone else in that way. My early-on thoughts were Patsy. All of it. The housekeeper thinks Patsy hit JB in the bathroom with one of her trophies. But then we have a wiped down flashlight. Unless someone in that house used that flashlight for anything that wasn't innocent there would be no need to wipe it clean. AND leave it in plain site though? Again, confusion. In the Bonita Papers others witnessed Patsy's mood changes - from exuberant to down and depressed. They don't say whether you could attribute that to having been diagnosed with cancer or if it was in the last year of JB's life. So questions remain! One of the knives was found in the wine cellar in the corner. Patsy dances all around questioning on that with investigators she doesn't of course know how it got there. I think in many instances of the Ramsey's public appearances John attempts to steer Patsy, knowing she could easily incriminate herself with her emotional outbursts, even though heavily sedated (CNN). I believe by day one of the investigation both of the Ramsey's were in full out coverup mode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to hear we lost you from the BDI camp….Zed, it’s you and me buddy.

      These on their own don’t look like much until you start adding them all together it paints a very dark picture.

      • BR couldn’t identify a simple question regarding a bowl of pineapple. Despite Doc’s attempt to say it wasn’t clear what it was, it WAS pineapple and Burke would have known what foods were in their house. Not to mention the fact that his fingerprints were on both the bowl and the glass, so one can conclude that it was HIS bowl of pineapple. But why be so awkward when asked a very simple question
      • BR hadn’t spoken publicly for 20 years! After all that time, he decides to speak to Dr. Phil who was on his side and through creepy smiles he says he had nothing to do with it. The only reason this is odd is because it aired a week before another CBS special is released naming…..wait for it…..BURKE RAMSEY as the killer. Coincidence? I think not
      • Tells the therapist he has secrets and he wouldn’t tell her
      • Motions the hit over the head when asked what he thinks happened to his sister
      • Even though all of us on this blog have read the RN, the brother of the girl who was supposedly murdered by a foreign faction has never read the whole note and didn’t seem interested to do so.

      Regarding Patsy Ramsey, her stories have changed and she conveniently doesn’t remember important things. I don’t need to reiterate what I have written about her, but between her and Burke, there are too many things that can’t be just innocent coincidences.

      -J

      Delete
    2. Ha, J. No, I'm not gone completely. I want to consider Patsy again though. For many reasons, reasons that have been gone over countless times as she was the favored one from the get go. But stay tuned!

      Delete
    3. I think there is enough clear evidence to say John was involved somehow. So, for the PR theory to hold water, you have to include John in a way that makes any sense.

      -J

      Delete
    4. I beg you to not go down the PDI rabbit hole :-)

      Do you agree John clearly was involved one way or another? If so, then how would he fit into the PDI scenario?

      -J

      Delete
    5. Me J? Do I agree John was clearly involved one way or another - I agree he helped his wife cover up, I think he realized the author of the ransom note that morning after he read it, and I believe he went downstairs and looked for himself and cleaned up any loose ends. I think he chose to protect his family from being charged with a crime over getting justice for his daughter. And I can't put myself in his shoes and hope I never have to.

      Delete
    6. Inquisitive, you said:

      "In the Bonita Papers others witnessed Patsy's mood changes - from exuberant to down and depressed. They don't say whether you could attribute that to having been diagnosed with cancer or if it was in the last year of JB's life. So questions remain!"

      Well she lost a child to homicide. She had fought cancer and knew it could return at any point. She no doubt suspected (or maybe even knew) her husband had been molesting, and perhaps, murdered her daughter.

      Gee, I can't imagine why she experienced mood changes and depression.

      Some of the comments I read here beggar belief......

      Delete
    7. In response to J:
      "BR couldn’t identify a simple question regarding a bowl of pineapple...not to mention the fact that his fingerprints were the bowl...so one can conclude that it was HIS bowl of pineapple. But why be so awkward when asked a very simple question"

      Because it wasn't readily apparent that it was pineapple, so why would Burke naturally assume that's what it was? That *you* believe it appeared obvious, is a moot point. Regarding his fingerprints, the snack may have been prepared prior to attending the Whites house, and JB may have grabbed a piece from the bowl still on the counter on her way through the kitchen shortly before her murder whilst Burke was asleep in bed. In the excitement of xmas day, I don't find it at all odd that B may have forgotten he prepared that snack earlier, especially after the events that transpired the morning after. Or, if Burke did appear "awkward" when asked about the pineapple, it may be because it was something he had been cautioned not to talk about. Once John and Patsy had both said JB was carried upstairs, asleep, that was the narrative that had to be adhered to, and I'm sure Burke would have been instructed to stick with that story.

      "BR hadn’t spoken publicly for 20 years! After all that time, he decides to speak to Dr. Phil who was on his side and through creepy smiles he says he had nothing to do with it. The only reason this is odd is because it aired a week before another CBS special is released naming…..wait for it…..BURKE RAMSEY as the killer. Coincidence? I think not"

      No, of course it's not a coincidence. He agreed to this interview because he knew the CBS special was going to name him as suspect #1, so his lawyers went into damage control mode...why not? This neither implies guilt nor innocence as far as I'm concerned. If I was innocent of a crime I had been publicly accused of, you can bet I'd proclaim my innocence just as publicly! If I was guilty, however, I'd probably just shut up, as I had done for the past twenty years...when Burke was silent, people were suspicious. When he spoke out, the same people were suspicious...can the guy win?

      "Tells the therapist he has secrets and he wouldn’t tell her"

      One thing I know for CERTAIN, is that, as a child who had been sexually abused (not by a parent) for six years, I used to say the exact same thing. Yet my secrets weren't homicidal...I kept them because of intense shame, guilt and fear. Don't ever presume to know why a child says he/she will not tell his/her secrets.
      Or - has it occurred to you - that it is just possible Burke really was being a little smart ass? "If I tell you a secret, it's no longer a secret!" I'm sure I've heard a lot of kids say that...it seems every single thing this nine year old says is met with suspicion, no matter how innocuous!

      "Motions the hit over the head when asked what he thinks happened to his sister"
      I find it awfully convenient (and dishonest) how you left out the first part where Burke suggested his sister may have been attacked with a knife. If you're going to use his statement that the killer may have hit her on the head in order to indicate his guilt, then I will use his first response regarding a possible stabbing to indicate his innocence.
      "Even though all of us on this blog have read the RN, the brother of the girl who was supposedly murdered by a foreign faction has never read the whole note and didn’t seem interested to do so."
      What the heck does that imply?! If that is your idea of evidence of guilt, I hope to God you are never called for jury duty on a homicide case!

      Cont.....

      Delete
    8. (cont)

      "Regarding Patsy Ramsey, her stories have changed and she conveniently doesn’t remember important things. I don’t need to reiterate what I have written about her, but between her and Burke, there are too many things that can’t be just innocent coincidences."
      John's memory seemed to fail many more times than Patsy's, actually. In fact we know that John flat out lied several times. O.k, that may imply the two of them are in on it as a team. Well, in that case, you'd think they'd have gotten their story straight with each other in the four months they had to perfect it...unless, of course, one is guilty and one is innocent, in which case the inconsistencies make perfect sense.
      Your comments reek of confirmation bias

      Delete
    9. First off, I don't even want to try and understand what you went thru, but just want to say that I am sorry that happened to you.


      I don't want to go point by point, but regarding the pineapple bowl
      This is seriously getting R I D I D C U L O U S! It was Burke's pineapple bowl! Forget the case for one second. Kids fingerprints are on a bowl and a glass that has pineapple, milk and a large spoon in it. Kid likes pineapple as a snack. Kid is asked what is in the picture that shows a bowl of pineapple and kid gets awkward, says "oh" with an awkward laugh and won't answer the question. Therefore I think it is safe to conclude the the bowl of pineapple with drink was BURKE RAMSEYS PINEAPPLE! I don't want to comment on this again. It was his bowl of pineapple. Their isn't evidence to suggest otherwise! Neither JB or JR's fingerprints were found on the bowl. I am not sure how comments on this blog seem to just come from pure fantasy, but this pineapple bowl thing is bordering on lunacy.

      -J

      Delete
    10. Also something interrupted his eating of that pineapple - he didn't complete his snack! Most of the pineapple was left in that bowl. He did drink all of his tea, but he didn't finish the pineapple. What in the world could have interrupted him. That's the question. He was down stairs, he was in the vicinity, he was up later than the others, time, place, means, opportunity. Motive is always the hardest to prove.

      Delete
    11. EXACTLY!

      The pineapple bowl for obvious reasons creates a problem for the JDI audience which is why its been met with such frustration and lunacy

      -J

      Delete
    12. J, read my post again....never once did I say that was not Burke's pineapple. I conceded he most likely prepared that snack, so I am not sure who you're arguing with.......

      Delete
  20. Random thought, Patsy's voice saying " help me Jesus" sounds like a confession. It seems as though she has slipped several times, including the confession of "Two people know who did this, the person that did it and the person they confided in"
    Someone mentioned that the letter alluded that there is more than one kidnapper, but if that were true, they wouldn't need to "confide" in someone else as the kidnappers would already know and be in on it together. Confiding in seems like something a wife and husband would do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love this, good observations!

      Also, what made her think it was 1 killer? The note says "SMALL FOREIGN FACTION" and a "GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS"
      Hmmmmmmm seems a whole lot like Patsy doesn't really believe the RN...maybe because she helped write it!

      -J

      Delete
    2. And a kid doesn't confide in an adult. And if John confided in her, I would think she would call for help. She was scared about her butt going to jail. I go back and forth with all the theories but I think she was sedated for a reason. And she certainly didn't seem to hold any contempt for John or bitterness towards her son. In fact, they became " closer" after JB death.

      Delete
    3. Or Burke confided in his mother that night K1234

      Delete
    4. The wording troubles me though, "confiding" A child doesn't confide in his parent. Also, I am starting to think the simplest explanation is the answer. A child would not have been prosecuted and an ambulance would have been called. A absent father probably would not have lost his temper either. He would have instructed PR to deal with whatever. PR was a drama queen and probably stressed to the max. ANd JB seemed to be asserting her independence with not wanting to wear matching outfits, etc..And Patsy would have gone to jail whether it was an accident or not, whether JB lived or not.

      Delete
    5. "She was sedated for a reason."

      Yes, her child had just been brutally murdered.

      "And she certainly didn't seem to hold any contempt for John or bitterness towards her son. In fact, they became " closer" after JB death."

      Can you cite your sources, please?

      "A absent father probably would not have lost his temper either."

      Wow. Where did you come up with that?! Quite the contrary from my own experiences......

      "JB seemed to be asserting her independence with not wanting to wear matching outfits, etc..And Patsy would have gone to jail whether it was an accident or not, whether JB lived or not."

      The disagreement with the outfit happened before they went to the Whites, therefore, if that was a factor, I'm sure the assault would have happened right after, not many hours later. As far as Patsy "going to jail anyway", lol, sure...."I've just popped my kid on the head, so I may as well kill her now".....these comments are becoming so ridiculous, I don't really see the point anymore.

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

      Delete
    7. "Also, what made her think it was 1 killer? The note says "SMALL FOREIGN FACTION" and a "GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS"
      Hmmmmmmm seems a whole lot like Patsy doesn't really believe the RN...maybe because she helped write it!

      -J"

      Every rational person who has read the ransom note thinks it is a bogus ransom note. Patsy implicitly thought so too.

      I don't believe the ransom note: do you think I had a hand in writing it?

      You don't believe the ransom note: does that imply you helped write it? No. You doubt it because it is unbelievable.

      Maybe Patsy saw that too. Heck, maybe she is as smart as you are at reading! Patsy had good reason to doubt the ransom note: her daughter's dead body was found in the basement; she wasn't kidnapped; there was never a ransom demand. So yes, guess what? - She knew the ransom note was bull!

      I agree with Ms D: The level of circular debate here is getting quite tiresome. You have people who mention shirt fibers from John being found in JBR's crotch area, then saying later in the same post that he couldn't have abused her that night without leaving evidence.

      Hello?!

      Or... Burke did it because he is ambivalent over a photograph of some pineapple and milk in a bowl. Burke did it because his (second) guess was that JBR was hit over the head with a hammer (she wasn't). And look - he even acted it out! (Let's not mention the stabbed with a knife guess). And he said that he had secrets!

      Now I think we all know - any kid who says he has secrets must have murdered his sister. It's the only possible explanation!

      My 4 yr old talks about secrets too. Must remember later to ask her who she murdered...

      Delete
    8. WOAH....hold up 1 second! She either BELIEVED THE NOTE or DIDNT BELIEVE THE NOTE. You cannot have it both ways. The Note says "SMALL FOREIGN FACTION" and "GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS" yet she always says A killer is our there. Does it prove guilt? No, of course not. But you cant say she believed it, but also thought it was bogus.

      -J

      Delete
    9. I can have it both ways, J. It's a question of when she said what. I don't see what is so complicated about this: initially her daughter is missing and there is a ransom note. Then her daughter is found dead, not kidnapped, garroted, and no kidnapper ever calls. You don't think her view of the ransom note could then change? You call that having it both ways? Nonsense.

      Delete
    10. See this is where we are going to that special alternate universe again. IF PR wasn't involved (which I believe she absolutely was) then she sees her daughter missing and a RN. The RN is very specific when it says a "group of individuals" and "small foreign faction" and "the guys watching your daughter" etc. SO, if you are now claiming that not only was PR not involved, she decided for herself that the RN was a cover up by this crazy killer and therefore it was fake. Yet, minutes after reading the note Patsy calls the police which the note said not to do. She called friends which the note said not to do.
      Im curious MHN, when was it exactly that Patsy stopped believing in the note. Then if she felt it to be fake, why not look closer at the people around her? See, this is the NONSENSE that I am responding to when the easiest explanation is that Patsy was involved.

      -J

      Delete
    11. Wow, you need to get over yourself J. Or if not, then construct better arguments. If I found my daughter missing and a ransom note like that one I would be on the phone to the police and the FBI within seconds, regardless of any panic-stricken evaluation of the contents of the note. That's what you do. You don't take kidnappers at their word. Patsy's reaction was absolutely correct.

      When you say this - "SO, if you are now claiming that not only was PR not involved, she decided for herself that the RN was a cover up by this crazy killer and therefore it was fake." - it is hard to argue with it, because it is not a grammatically complete sentence and I cannot work out what you are arguing. You should work on that.

      I don't understand why you can't get your mind around this idea: the fact that Patsy called 911 does not indicate that at that stage she decided the note was fake. It indicates that when you find your child kidnapped, you call 911. It's what you do, regardless. Because of COURSE any ransom note will tell you not to. D'uh! But you do, because that's your best chance of getting the kid back.

      And then it turns out that it is bogus. Her daughter was never kidnapped for ransom, she was murdered in the basement. What reason would she then have to warn others about a foreign faction of kidnappers?

      You're treating this like a math equation. It isn't. When your kid is missing and you find a ransom note you call 911. Period. No parent is going to sit and wait and hope. You call the people who are trained to deal with these situations. Decisions about the provenance of the note can wait. If that's what you call a 'special alternate universe' then good luck to you.

      Delete
    12. Incidentally J - I'm not saying I think Patsy was completely innocent. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of thinking that because she ignored the instructions in the note she therefore must've known it was fake.

      Delete
  21. Also, the motive. I don't think John really bothered himself too much with the kids so I don't think he would have lost his temper, he would have simply instructed Patsy to take care of the children. Burke was probably happy as a lark with his new toys. And apparently they slept int he same room the night before. Doesn't seem like sibling rivalry. But there was some possible tension between Patsy and JB, wasn't there? JB didn't want to wear the matching outfit and daddy was home and possibly getting all the attention? Maybe JB smarted off to Patsy and Patsy lost her temper? One of the parents would have gone to jail, accident or not, whether JB lived or not. No telling whether they knew she was alive or dead, but a child would not have been prosecuted, an adult family member would have. Which is more likely, a pedophile or a tragic accident?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bet K1234. There was tension and arguments between Patsy and JB more recently before her death. And Patsy was overwhelmed during that Christmas season. The home tour, the Access Graphics party, all of the gift shopping, their home party, returning home late from the White's party, having to still pack for two more trips,turning 40, leaving early the next morning, JB's return to bedwetting and soiling, and calling the Pediatrician earlier numerous times - what was that about? Stress on top of stress. The silly argument they had that day over what JB wanted to wear to the party (Patsy wanted them to dress alike, JB resisted) all culminating in one awful event.

      Delete
    2. Tension and arguments between Patsy and JB? Such as? I mean, other than the outfit dispute which you said yourself was just a silly argument.

      Patsy may have had a lot going on at the time, but being a millionaire, I can't imagine she didn't have help with most of these things.

      Delete
    3. She had her housekeeper, who was there three days a week 9-3, but who knows how much help she was.

      Delete
    4. JR doesn't strike me as the type who would continue to employ someone who wasn't doing their job.

      Delete
    5. Housekeeper spent 18 hours a week there, cleaning a huge mansion which she said originally took 4 people to do. I suppose to some 18 hours a week would feel like alot but that was a big house and one of the things she was required to do was clean out Patsy's purses.

      Delete
  22. Question - After the head blow, could JB have been choked by somebody's hands and to cover up the choking, the garrote was applied?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlikely. There were no bruises consistent with having been manually strangled at any point, and more telling, there was no damage to her hyoid bone, which is usually broken during a manual strangulation.

      Delete
  23. Possible, but I think no one was thinking clearly. I think(at this time, ha) that the garrote was done to make it look like a "criminal pedophile" did it, not the parent. But, sure PR or JR could have choked JB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As well as the brother could've choked JonBenet. However that pillow at the breakfast table would've suffocated her but it seems that article from the house wasn't used in the murder/staging.

      Delete
  24. People keep saying that they would have called 911 after the accident to save their daughter. But, maybe not. Maybe they thought she would be brain damaged or would have died anyway, AND the parent or parents would be in prison regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  25. K1234 if Patsy did the head banging how would she be able to explain that she hit her daughter over the head with such force as to nearly kill her (had she been rushed to the hospital). If it was intentional, as In John hit her then it was with every intention of killing her, again, no need to call 911. If Burke hit her then he may have waited before running and telling, thus, the poking with the train track to see why she wasn't getting up. Then it gets very very fuzzy, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. DocG - you have been in the online trenches since the early days of this case. I wasn't, and my only membership on a big board was back on ctv/in sessions for the Scott Peterson and Peterson East trials, Robert Blake, and later Caylee. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the online sleuths that got involved off line with the family, attorneys, LE and if you think it helped or hurt. For instance, reading around "jameson" sold info to a tabloid for $40k, according to acandyrose. And it seems she still posts on topix and her forum. You have had correspondence with Dr. Cyril Wecht, irrc. Care to make an entry in the future of the "who's who" of the major online players in the case?

    ReplyDelete
  27. This may come as a shock to everyone; however, i believe this case has been solved and is under seal. If you research the history of Boulder Colorado, you'll find that prior murder cases with a 100% chance of achieving a guilty verdict have been resolved through deals with the DA and the deals locked up and cannot be released with the accused set free. These obviously took place prior to 1996. I believe that as much of what we want to call true events that took place at the Ramseys, the story is locked up and this thing will never be resolved for the public,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex Hunter did indeed make plea bargains with a number of perps he could have tried and incarcerated, because his personal preference was rehabilitation rather than punishment. Those plea bargains were not "locked up" or "under seal", their details were publicized and are well known.
      CC






      Delete
    2. "People keep saying that they would have called 911 after the accident to save their daughter. But, maybe not. Maybe they thought she would be brain damaged or would have died anyway, AND the parent or parents would be in prison regardless."

      I find this statement utterly bizarre for two reasons:
      Firstly, as a mother, I can say with all CERTAINTY that I would call 911 if I found my child injured, or if I injured her myself. I would risk going to prison in order to save my daughter...I personally don't know of any parent who wouldn't sacrifice themselves for their child, and if John and Patsy Ramsey cared for Burke to the extent they would end their daughter's life to protect him, then it makes no sense that they didn't care for JonBenet in the same manner. The BDI camp expect us to swallow the notion that The Ramsey's were the type of parents who would do the unthinkable to save their son, yet on the other hand we are expected to believe their daughter meant so little to them, they twisted a cord around her neck and inserted a foreign object into her vagina.....I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.

      In regards to the second part of your statement, I honestly have to say that is maybe the most preposterous reasoning I have heard here yet - and that's saying something! You do realize that the sentence for accidentally causing injury to your child, is substantially less severe than the sentence for intentionally murdering your child? Not to mention the fact that - prison sentence aside - one usually opts to save a life, rather than take one, when presented with the two options.

      It seems we've now gone from weird and wonderful theories, to complete and utter madness.

      Delete
  28. Doc, in anticipation of receiving the book I ordered and feeling impatient, I read some excerpts from "Little Girl Blu" online. It's creepy, and if true it would throw everything out the window here we have been discussing as no one has yet come up with the same theory as what was written in the book, although I don't have the book yet. Just snippets. I then went back to the Case Encyclopedia website to see what info they would have on the suspect(s) in question and there is indeed alot. But you have to wonder, if true, then the person would have been arrested long ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is direct evidence, there is circumstantial evidence and there is speculation. With regard to that book, everything is speculation, there is NO evidence. The speculation is interesting and her theory does make some sense, yes. But if you sift through all the many theories regarding all the various people considered suspicious you will find theories that make just as much sense, if not more. All based on speculation.

      As I see it we can eliminate all of them based on nothing more than the logic of the case. NO intruder theory makes sense. NO intruder would have done all that was done that night. When we add to that John's clear fabrication about breaking the basement window earlier, then ALL such theories are beside the point.

      Delete
    2. Okay. I"ll read it with a grain of salt (thrown over my left shoulder for luck) and try not to have nightmares over it.

      Delete
  29. Doc:
    At any point point prior to Patsy's death, do you believe John confessed his crime to her? What would be the soonest after the murder, based on your knowledge of the case, he might have?

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I can't imagine he'd have dared doing that. Since that night his whole life has been a lie, imo. One crack in that armor he's created around himself and he'd be through. By now he probably believes he too is an innocent victim.

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

    ReplyDelete
  31. The basement window grate...maybe someone has more info on this than I can find. From JR's 1998 interview when Lou Smit is asking how JR broke into his house the previous summer:
    LOU SMIT: [...] I'm going to show you these
    2 and see if, first of all, can you explain to me
    3 how you got into that window, while I'm showing
    4 (INAUDIBLE)?
    JOHN RAMSEY: Well you can just lift the
    6 grate out and slide it out, lay it on the ground
    7 and then jump down into the well.
    8 LOU SMIT: And when you slide it out, what
    9 do you mean by sliding it out?
    10 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I think there was a
    11 couple of supports on the side (INAUDIBLE) went
    12 here and just lift that up. I didn't lift it up.
    13 LOU SMIT: Right, and then straight down.
    14 JOHN RAMSEY: I think I probably lifted it
    15 up and just pulled it away from the hole.

    And from JR's earlier 1997 interview:
    ST: Did you remove that grate and get down into the window well?
    JR: Uh-huh.
    [...a few other questions from ST...]
    ST: Did you remove that whole grate off onto the, off the well, to jump down there and get in?
    JR: Ah, probably. I don’t remember.

    First up, notice JR's language: "you can just" [not "I did"];"I think" [twice], "probably" [twice] and "I don't remember". JR doesn't show any commitment to these statements.

    Second, if you watch the video of Lou Smit jumping in that well, he does NOT slide the grate out and put in on the ground. Instead, he makes it really tricky for himself by leaving the grate in place and dropping it back down over himself once he has climbed in. Why doesn't Lou Smit remove the grate? Maybe because it CAN'T be removed as JR (sort of) claims he did. Notice in the interview that Lou Smit ASKS how it slides out. I assume that the investigators have tried it out. Why ask? Is there more than one way to slide it out? Or is there perhaps NO way to slide it out, at least not easily or without tools? I'm wondering if anyone else has any more info on this? I could be totally wrong on this if the grate can be just slid out.

    In the video, Lou Smit seems to want to make it look easy to enter the house that way, but it still looks very awkward, and the section of the video where he should be manoeuvring his way in has been edited out. Plus he is pretty breathless when he finally gets in. To me, it just looks like a pretty dumb way to break into your own house: it is awkward, the small window frame means that squeezing through it makes the risk of cutting yourself on broken glass so much higher, and you end up in one of the darkest parts of the house (I assume) and having to work your way through a cluttered basement.You can see that the investigators pick up on all this through the questions they ask.

    In answer to HKH's question from a previous comment, JR does not mention breaking in multiple times in his 1997 interview. He first mentions it in his 1998 interview.
    JR says: "I've done it maybe twice, maybe three times during the period of time we owned the house."
    And yes, I tend to agree that JR's and PR's stories change over time because BR's answers don't match theirs (or each other for that matter).
    I think all three agreed on a general story, but the stories started to fall apart when detail was required.
    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've written about those interviews in some detail on this blog and in my book. If you search under "basement window" you should find those posts.

      You're right, John's language certainly comes across as deceptive. I'm not a fan of "statement analysis" and I don't believe it possible to tell if someone is lying simply by analyzing their speech patterns or their body language. But in this case the evasions are so frequent and so obvious that it's hard to accept this as a truthful account. He hardly ever says what he actually did, only what it was possible to do. In some cases, his interrogators fill in the blanks for him, as though they're actually trying to help him get through his ridiculous story. What a farce!

      I too had questions about that grate, because, yes, Lou's video gives the impression that it's anchored to the wall. But after reviewing several photos I found some where the grate had been removed, so it looks like John would have been able to remove it after all.

      My assessment of this story is based partly on the vagueness and evasiveness of his responses, but also on some of the obvious holes. He says he lost his key but later implies that he used the garage door opener to get in. He says he had no way to contact a locksmith, but he could certainly have called from the airport. He could also have called his neighbor who had a key. Or just walked over there. He claims he broke the window pane with his foot and reached in to undo the latch, but the break is so small he could easily have cut himself. Why not kick out the entire pane. And how could he have seen what he was doing in the pitch blackness of 11 PM? he could much more easily have broken into one of the first floor windows. Just break a pane, reach in and undo the window lock. Instead he is forced to remove his expensive business suit to dive down into that filthy window well.

      And of course the inability of either John or Patsy to recall whether that window was ever repaired is entirely beyond belief.

      NONE of it adds up.

      Delete
    2. Yes, thanks for you insight there DocG. I agree that none of it adds up. If Lou Smit actually believed any of that nonsense...well, I just don't understand that.
      AMD

      Delete
  32. Anonymous...instead of quoting that long post about JOhn's difficulty in being able to molest JB I'll just respond..

    YOu do make a valid point but these people appear to be very dysfunctional. I found the info concerning John(and Burke) using a flashlight to go room to room in that house to be very disturbing. If the power is out or something like that, its understandable. Why is a grown man walking around his dark house in the middle of the night using a flashlight when he can so easily turn on the lights?

    Zed...

    "I am sorry but that is hogwash. There is NO evidence which implicates anyone. In fact, out of all the evidence in the house it implies Burke and Patsy far more than John. The ONLY piece of evidence we have on John is the shirt fibre on JBs crotch. Thats it."

    I actually lean PDI although JDI always intrigued me. One thing IMO that helps make this case so confusing is the abuse angle. It's possible that it had nothing to do with her murder though. However, someone in that house was infatuated in her. The photos of JB found thrown in the basement imply someone had an unhealthy interest with her.

    "This is an unusual case because what the evidence does is paint a timeline. And that timeline indicates Burke is the most likely culprit."

    Unusual case indeed...but what exactly in the timeline indicates Burke as the culprit? Other than the CBS bludgeon over a pineapple snack nonsense, where are the indicators? A boy got up at night to play with his presents? So what. You also cant pinpoint the timeframe he did this. YOu act like the timeline is some smoking gun when one of the biggest issues in this entire case was their inability to properly nail down the timeline.

    Med...

    "Maybe someone can answer this question for me.

    If Burke actually did it and his parents covered up for him for any reason, how did they allow him to be taken by friends to be with them at their house, being tragically aware that their son was capable of killing a person?"

    This is one of many issues that causes BDI to crumble once you look past its razor thin surface. Sending him away during the kidnapping phase exposes him to possible interrogation where they cant monitor him. They have no clue the case will be botched to such a degree.

    diamond...

    "I'm reading at acandyrose and cannot get over how the adults just contradict everything- Patsy is asked if either she or John smoked cigars. Nope, "no one did" but she knew John kept cigars in that moldy wine cellar aa a big old humidor room. Smh. I have coffee in my house. I don't drink coffee but I sure as heck know who does."

    Its certainly an odd lie to tell since they both smoked. Patsy was seen smoking cigars at her birthday party. They were likely trying to just distance themselves from those two cigar boxes found in the WC. John wont even cop to owning that second box. God only knows what was really in it...possibly more photographs. When Fleet went down the WC again after her bodt had already been found, he zeroed in on two items...the tape and this cigar box.

    ReplyDelete

  33. Inquisitive...

    "Make of this what you will my conclusions are that
    1) engineers listened to this tape over and over - they heard what they heard and we can listen all we want to some youtube version of it but we are not engineers and have not heard the original tape.
    2) If all three can be heard on the 911 call and Burke asks well, what did you find - this tells me a conversation took place that Burke overheard where something was found or known about before John's trip around 10 a.m. where he disappeared for an hour"

    I don't consider this 911 call to be the smoking gun that BDI thinks it is. Actualy if it does anything it lets him off the hook. What 9 year old killer is going to be up at 6 am asking rhetorical questions to his parents?

    I would actually like to hear a much better version of this call before taking it at face value. You could hear whatever you want to hear but if he really said that, it doesn't incriminate him. We already knew he was awake.



    Inquisitive...

    "In the interview partially posted above, with Burke, he emerges as someone thoughtful, considerate, intelligent, and mature - using words that he would hear around adults - and expressing concern over JB's bedwetting, also sharing that he had had a problem with bed wetting with his friend (I think it was the White kid). So I have kind of drifted from the Burke scenario."

    This is exactly what I'm talking about concerning BDI. You're obviously an intelligent person, you swallow BDI whole hog because it "makes the most sense" and "answers all the questions" yet after taking other things into consideration, you quickly move away from it.

    THis is going to happen on a grand scale on these JBR sites. Once the smoke clears from the CBS doc and BDI stops being the trendy theory, it will go back to being a fringe theory and JDI and/or PDI will go back to being the main focus.



    J...

    "I hope I answered your questions. A lot on here know more details about this case than I do, but 5 years ago I stumbled upon this blog and so badly wanted it to be IDI. But, I quickly thought Doc’s theory just made the most sense. It made a lot of pieces fit together. The only problem with his theory is that I never trusted the motive John would have. I kept reading, watching and looking at other aspects of the case and when I saw the CBS special, it all made sense to me. "

    You don't trust John's possible motive but you trust a pineapple motive?

    Its laughable. Way too much emphasis has always been placed on that pineapple and now that the case is being dumbed down, the pineapple is an even bigger focus. All it tells us is she ate a piece of pineapple that night. That's it. Due to her taking a bite of fruit we have people claiming a 9 year old bashed her head in over it.
    BPD needs to comment on the police report in Woodward's book claiming there was other fruit in her system. BDI people are now claiming she falsified police reports. They have to because their theory is so thin that if you simply add in an extra piece of fruit of all things, everything crumbles. It would be like placing a dose of cyanide in their pineapple kool-aid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, it is seriously CRAZY to put so much emphasis on a bowl of pineapple that has Burke Ramseys fingerprints on it. Its so CRAZY to put so much emphasis on pineapple as we KNOW JB had some pineapple and pineapple wasn't served at the party. Let's get back to the fictional world of Crazy John Ramsey the Pedophile

      *There is no definitive proof she was being molested
      *If there was proof she was being molested, there is absolutely not 1 shred of proof saying it was JR

      Thanks for your time James

      -J

      Delete
    2. Every doctor who saw the autopsy or the resultant slides, photos and tissue samples agreed there was prior abuse.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Can you point me in the direction where any potential prior abuse that took place was committed by John Ramsey?

      -J

      Delete
    4. As I've acknowledged many times, of course not.
      CC

      Delete
    5. ok, thanks. It amazes me how little evidence actually points to JR, yet here we are

      -J

      Delete
    6. No less legally admissible evidence than points to Burke.
      CC

      Delete
    7. Forget legally.....other than a most likely made up window story, there isn't anything but pure speculation. BDI has at least some substance to it

      -J

      Delete
    8. Murder is very much a legal matter, so no, we won't "forget legally".

      BDI is every bit as speculative as JDI. Repetitively insisting otherwise does not make it so.
      CC





      Delete
    9. Thanks for clarifying that murder is a legal matter

      Im actually busy arguing that Burke's pineapple bowl was his

      -J

      Delete
  34. CBS Special had nothing to do with my thinking. I read.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "CBS Special had nothing to do with my thinking. I read. "

    You read and are now veering away from Burke. I see a lot of BDI people always say the CBS doc has nothing to do with their thinking yet before the CBS doc aired, there were a handful of people who believed in it. After it aired, there were many. Obviously that doesn't add up.

    Either way, you're reading and taking more into consideration than what CBS proposed. That's a good thing. This overly simplistic pineapple theory being pushed on several sites cant die off quick enough.

    IMO the CBS series was an insult to the intelligence of long time followers of this case. It excluded so much previously known and basically wanted you to pretend none of it existed. Some of us were expecting them to show a bunch of new evidence. Instead they did the exact opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, you don't want to give CBS credit for at least presenting something completely different than other programs that push the intruder theory?
      How about those that know this case inside and out make their own counterpoint and upload it to YouTube? Make it so the public is aware "what CBS, a&e, et al left out". It would reach more people than another book would.
      *Note - the CBS special was originally to be 6 hours and was cut down to 4 hours

      Delete
  36. But I will say, James, that that spoon in Burke's pineapple bowl was as big if not bigger than the giant spoon Mammy used to boil the uniforms with in "Gone With the Wind", wouldn't you agree? :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks...
    I don't believe BDI but agreed with you that some people changed their minds after CBS docuseries, esp after seeing reenactment with the boy and the skull. What CBS could not address is how JBR ends up dying from strangulation.
    There is a lot of things in this case that can only be answered in a speculative way. Doc's theory is based on the facts known by all that lead to logical conclusions and, to me, in that way he lays a structure from where the case can be understood and most questions answered.
    Having said that,speculation on all aspects that are not certain or proven, seems to be something we can't stop doing...
    Med

    ReplyDelete
  38. James said:
    "BDI stops being the trendy theory"

    Trendy theory? Besides IDI, it's probably the most unpopular theory on this blog.

    And the pineapple is only one piece of evidence that points to Burke possibly being involved. The staging, the flashlight being wiped down (kids would use flashlight...but not an adult). In fact John only claimed he used it on Dr. Phil for the very first time 20 years later! Only because Burke let it slip out.

    There was obvious staging and I am extremely confident both parents were involved. If both are involved, I don't see them covering for each other. Do you think Patsy would do that after finding out what John did to her beloved JB? And vice vera...John wouldn't stick his neck out like that for a wife who just made him lose his SECOND daughter. It all leads them to covering for Burke.

    Wrap that with his strange demeanour, the train track marks on JB (I firmly believe thats what it was), the fact that JB's pillow was left on the kitchen bench (which indicates that it most likely happened shortly after eating pineapple with Burke), the fact Burke was the ONLY one in that house to have struck JB in the past (with the golf club - he was lucky he didn't kill her that day...and an eye witness said it was on purpose), the fact that Burke was kept out of the public eye for 20 years and only made an interview because of the CBS documentary that came out (Burke claimed he did it because "apparently there is still interest in this case" lol).

    What else?
    There is no evidence that points to an intruder, John or Patsy (besides the staging).

    Burkes demeanour changing when he saw the pineapple in his interview and realising that they may have knew he was up with her. The fact he so cooly said "even if I knew something, I wouldn't tell you"...he was a very vindictive/cheeky little boy and was probably used to getting away with a lot due to not being disciplined (John was away a lot) and they didn't believe in smacking their kids.

    Is any of that proof it was Burke? No. But all put together it is simply the best theory out there. I try to think of things for John and Patsy but just come up short time and time again (besides the staging).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy's friend was not an eyewitness. She claimed that Patsy told her it was intentional. I don't believe her.

      Delete
    2. Burke's early LE interview with him acting out the motion and saying he thinks she was hit on the head was prior to the autopsy report being released.

      Delete
    3. Not sure what you mean by "released", Lil, but autopsy reports are available to next-of-kin as soon as they've been filed with the state.
      CC

      Delete
  39. One thing that has always stood up from the beginning to me is the way their story line has changed over time, some details added here, some details there, some of them are important differences, some are minor ones. Also, the way they told the story the first time in that CNN interview was way different from the way they told it in other ones throughout the years, as far as confidence in what they were saying, especially.
    This is personal, but maybe I can share it as an example of what I mean...I had to go through some traumatic event in my life when my spouse had a major stroke and we were alone in the house. Many things happened on that day and it was a story that we told over and over again to family and friends, after we went back home. The way we told it, my spouse's perspective and my perspective of what happened has never changed, we never had to agree on what we would say but we did say the same things without contradicting one another or ourselves since it happened three years ago...the event of the stroke and every detail of what happened and how it happened, what I did and when on that day and the days after, remain in my memory and probably will never be forgotten, because it was a trauma. Our story and the way we share it has always been the same over the years.
    So, I believe that there is no way they cannot remember how things happened in a more accurate way on that day, and about that day being,to my belief, the most dreadful day in their lives. Their story developed over time or, at least, that is what it seems to me. Comparing their story to a story like ours, (which of course I understand is way different, but have the common element of something life threatening happening) where there is no need for lying or deception, I see that when you are telling the truth, no matter how old the trauma is, you happen to remember details and you are able to keep consistency and accuracy.
    This is just my perception and I may be wrong but, I think their behavior speaks of deception and manipulation. No need to do such and you would certainly not giving that impression if you were telling the truth.
    Does this stand up like something remarkable to anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Med, sorry you both had to experience that. I have a dad who cannot recall events how I recall them and it's frustrating as heck. Two years ago I saved his life by getting him up to urgent care and from there to the ER where he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes. He still tells everyone, especially medical professionals, how he called me that day...and it is all BS. He just turned 78. That day I spoke to my husband and brother and had a friend in town that met me at urgent care, and still my dad's story is totally different than what the rest of us that recall that day. I don't know if it's attention seeking or what. For the Ramseys, I think issues with retaining the agreed upon script along with the 'scripts they were popping and whatever their attorneys were telling them.

      Delete
  40. Sorry.Comment made by Med.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the developing story seems remarkable to me too. I'm sorry that you had to go something so traumatic Med. It must have been awful. I too remember so many details about the day my dear old Dad died years ago (suddenly, from a heart attack). I wasn't there when it happened, but I remember heaps of little things, trivial things from that day...the conversation I had earlier in the day with him, what I cooked for my family that night, the music I was listening to on the radio earlier that day, the way my husband told me what was happening. I've only seen snippets of Burke's Dr Phil interview, but his almost flippant comment about not remembering what you have eaten 20 years ago is strange. This was not an ordinary day. Okay, he might not remember, I can accept that. But don't pretend that it is comparable to any other day 20 years ago. And don't pretend that you don't know that the pineapple is an important detail which was flagged very early on.

      I started keeping a list of all the discrepancies that I found in their stories (in their own stories from time to time and as compared to each other). Here's one that jumped out at me:
      Patsy's 1997 interview:
      TT: Right around the corner. Okay. When did you check on burke during all this? You talked about John going to check on Burke.
      PR: Yeah. I think he ran and check on him when I was up, up there uh, you know, it just all happened so fast. I said, ‘Oh, my God. What about Burke?’ And I think he ran in and checked him while I was running back downstairs or something.
      TT: Okay.
      PR: But I remember he, you know, I think he ran and checked on him and, and he told me he was okay or whatever.
      TT: Okay. Was Burke still in the same bed? He hadn’t moved beds or anything like that?
      PR: I don’t know. I didn’t go in there and look..

      Burke says in his interview to Dr Phil: 'The first thing I remember is my mom bursting in my room, really frantic, saying, "Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh!" running around my room - now I know looking for JonBenet,'

      So...did Patsy go in his room that morning or not? Someone is lying. Or having huge memory issues. Ramnesia someone called it - lol!

      I read PR's comment "and he [JR] told me he was okay or whatever" and I think seriously??? You don't remember the moment when you found out BR was okay and not missing or dead in his bed???
      She is so incredibly casual about it, it defies belief in my opinion.
      AMD

      Delete
    2. As I've stated many times, their version(s) of what happened after finding the note is not credible. The giveaway is the difference between Patsy's version, from the A&E interview, where she states that she told John she was going to call the police, and the "official" version in their book, where John tells her to call. What actually happened may have been very different from either version, we have no way of knowing. I have strong feeling Burke knows the truth, but has been browbeaten by John and his lawyers into going along with the "official" version.

      However, if we ask ourselves what the motive could have been for obscuring the reality of what happened that morning, it becomes clear that this could have had nothing to do with any intruder theory. How would altering the truth about who did what that morning have any bearing on an intruder? It could only be about: WHO did WHAT? In other words: did they argue about whether or not to make that call? And if so, who wanted it made and who didn't?

      Delete
    3. Thank you, guys.
      Yes, it was a horrible experience but we can tell the story...thank God!
      Like you said diamondlil16, not everyone reacts the same way when going under stress or illness but I believe there should be some more consistency in the versions if they both were at the same place at the same time ...Some people said they saw Patsy stressed and moody around that time but noone said she was lost or confused...She was in remission at that time...
      And like DocG states and AMD shows, they gave different versions about the call and previous moments and I would add almost about every single detail in this case...that does not help as far as their credibility goes, I believe...
      I really think JDI all but I find Patsy's role very difficult to understand...to the point that she seems to have been involved ...until I remember that she was the one that made the call and foiled the plan. She certainly made it but was it her decision or his decision? ...if we could only answer that question...
      Med

      Delete
    4. Doc, can you clarify your argument above? Are you saying that since both P and J had different versions of who actually instructed the other to call 911 then we have to wonder what the motive was for one suggesting the call be made over the other one? That that's where we ought to focus.

      Delete
    5. My argument is simple: if both were involved in the staging of a kidnapping, the 911 call would not have been made that morning, with the body of the victim still in the house. Patsy is the one who made the call. If she were the guilty party and John were innocent, then she would certainly not have wanted the call made. And if John had insisted that it be made anyhow, there was nothing to prevent him from making the call himself.

      In view of the above, the discrepancy between the two versions of who told who to make the call tells us that there is something very wrong with John's claim that he was the one who made that decision. And in view of the logic outlined above, Patsy's version makes much more sense. If we see a very different version presented in their book it's not difficult to conclude that an innocent Patsy must have been persuaded by John to change her story and go along with his. Since he'd been ruled out as writer of the note by that time she would have had no reason to suspect him and no reason to resist when he insisted that her memory must be impaired (due to all the meds she'd been taking).

      Delete
  41. Good point AMD. Patsy certainly told some fibs to try and prove it was an intruder.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Ramsey summer 1995 - Burke spent "every day taking golf and sailing lessons". He's "quite the sailor".
    Patsy's 1995 Xmas letter
    http://blabbieville.tripod.com/1995xmasnewsletter.txt#su
    Btw, back in '05 "bluecrab" posted on WS that Burke started to type all his correspondence after the murder. No idea if that info is accurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if that is accurate, I don't believe it is relevant, as a nine year old did not write that ransom note, I think everyone can agree on that much!

      Delete
  43. Yep, everyone was eliminated but for Patsy

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous above made a GREAT point above that I have thought about for awhile. It is very possible that this case has been solved and is under lock and seal. What has occured since that grand jury and the way the Boulder DA has acted has been fraudulent, downright criminal since that point. Hunter and Lacy should have been prosecuted long ago, UNLESS it is under lock and seal, then all of the actions make complete sense and why they have not been prosecuted makes complete sense . Also the sealing of the Grand Jury documents and transcripts not being let go and the charges that were being levied all make SENSE.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I posted something further up so I'll bring it down here. Regarding the bowl of pineapple. I don't see it as a motive for murder. I see it as placing someone, Burke, downstairs at the critical time a tragic event took place. He was in the vicinity. Also, he finished his tea, but not the bowl of pineapple - something interrupted the completion of the snack. Whether he heard something or did something I'm guessing the snack held no importance for him later, which could be why he didn't recognize it immediately from the photographs. Not because he doesn't know what a bowl of pineapple looks like, not because he was being evasive and didn't want to say what it was because he might "know" it connects him to JB's death, but because he either witnessed something - or caused something - a traumatic event that REPLACED the event/experience of eating that pineapple. I wouldn't remember it either.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Which could explain the years spent in therapy as well. If you witness a catastrophic event one of the first things the mind does is suppress it. Burke appears cavalier in his dealings with the social worker. He said himself he just wanted to play video games and move on. (Not exact words lest someone try and pin me to a transcript). He even draws JB OUT of the picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke tells Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs to play with his toys. I have absolutely not 1 reason why he would lie about this. The word snuck implies to me he is sneaking from his parents because he wasn’t supposed to be out of bed. His fingerprints are on the BOWL and GLASS of a snack that is half eaten on the table. The EXACT snack he is eating is also found inside his dead sister. JBR’s pillow is found on the kitchen counter which tells me that she was put to bed just like the parents said, but came downstairs carrying her pillow like kids will do. Burke is downstairs with the light on and she wanted to see what was happening. Whether it was the pineapple or something else can be debated at a different time, but you are correct. It puts them in the same place around the time she was most likely murdered!

      The fact that the JDI’s can’t concede on this shows you how little credibility their theories have. Forget the bludgeoning part….they won’t even concede it was Burke’s pineapple. That’s literally where this blog has gone.

      -J

      Delete
  47. Anyone catch the a&e John speaks ?

    ReplyDelete
  48. We know that a man killed her.. Pageant Princess Patsy didnt tie that knot.nor did 9 year old Burke..That leaves JR or an intruder.And due to the sadistic, brutal nature of the crime, that leaves out John as he had no history of that behavior.. So, an intruder did it. Follow the evidence. dont create a story to fit the evidence..

    ReplyDelete
  49. No woman or child could tie that double noose garrote

    ReplyDelete
  50. In fact, how many men could do it. This guy was a pro.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

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

      Delete
    2. Thanks Inquisitive....is that serious? She is an actual Ramsey? This is so great on so many levels

      Honestly, when she said it was a Mexican guy, I was completely hooked and just had to talk to her.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Who knows, INQ... lol NO, I am not a Ramsey..

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

      Delete
    5. I m not.. even if only 1% believe in IDI.. thats 3 million people. :)

      Delete
    6. Then 3 million people are absolutely delusional

      -J

      Delete
    7. Hey,,we arent the ones making up fantastical stories to fit the evidence.. :)

      Delete
  52. There is no evidence, at all. that someone in the house did it. None.. Not even crappy, stupid, fantastical evidence..Ya got nothng.. Zip, zero, nothing, nadda.. none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. There is no evidence other than a fake ransom note that was written on paper from inside the house with ink from a pen from the house. There is absolutely no evidence of a break in, nor is there clear evidence of an entry point from an intruder. Oh.....AND there was a dead body hidden away in a room that an intruder most likely wouldn't have known about. JBR was most likely hit over the head with a Flashlight from inside the house and she was strangled using a garrote that's paintbrush handle was from Patsy Ramsey's art basket.
      So, the intruders you are referencing planned a kidnapping of the daughter of one of the wealthiest men in Colorado. YET, they didn't bring a pen or paper to write the Ransom Note. They didn't bring any type of weapon and instead of trying to collect their money, they left the body inside the house.

      -J

      Delete
    2. Agree it was a man.
      I believe nowadays -and actually for a long while now-it is all about DNA and matching DNA. And without any physical evidence you have no case against anyone. And, in that way many killers get away with murder...
      The killer, sophisticated imo, cleaned the scene/s of the crime very well and made sure he was not leaving traces behind him. I think he had time and knew were the elements to clean up were and also knew his way around the house. Do you think it was an intruder?

      Delete
    3. Again, J.. evidence.. not supposition.

      Delete
    4. Yes.. I think it was an intruder..Remember.. the OJ Simpson trial had just been on TV for months.. People, in general, knew about trace evidence..DNA hair and fibers.. Again.. a pro at this.

      Delete
    5. LT....you have no evidence of an intruder. Actually, was OJ out in 1996? Maybe he did it

      -J

      Delete
    6. Unknown male DNA.. and a ransom note written by an unknown = intruder.

      Delete
    7. Unknown DNA put there by the person in the China factory

      Yes, what was so crazy about the RN is that the handwriting just so happened to look like both John and Patsy's. Think of how unlucky these parents were. This crazed intruder who murders their daughter happened to not only share a love of movies like the Ramsey's, but also had oddly similar handwriting to the Ramsey's.

      -J

      Delete
    8. Both were eliminated on the RN.. And yes,, a Mexican guy, living and working in a Philippine girls underwear factory for 10 cents and hour theory.... LOLOL

      Delete
  53. From Wikipedia:
    John Ramsey joined the Navy in 1966, served as a Civil Engineer Corps officer in the Philippines for 3 years, and in an Atlanta reserve unit for an additional 8 years.
    It seems to me that this guy might know something about knots...
    Med

    ReplyDelete
  54. He was an officer.. an engineer.. on desk duty. Not out on the front lines garroting people. And its one thing to tie the knots..and another to create a double noose garrote, instrument of death.
    ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also from Wikipedia..
      -During Spanish colonial rule, the most common methods of execution in the Philippines were death by firing squad (especially for treason/military crimes, usually reserved for independence fighters) and garrotte -
      I think that 3 years in the Philippines were enough to learn many things...
      of course, that does not make him the killer automatically,but it is suggestive.
      Med

      Delete
    2. Yes.. and it could be someone that knew him in the Philippines. But you dont just make a garrote like that on the fly.. You would have to practice that.. know which knot goes where and how long the cord needs to be, the double noose etc...

      Delete
    3. I don't know where you get this double noose business. That looks like a couple of hitches. Sailors use a knot like that to tie up to cleats at a dock.

      Delete
    4. One noose was around her neck.. the other was around her right wrist.. I mean who would do that.. think of that.. on the fly

      Delete
    5. the ties around her wrists were so loose her hands could just slide right out. So, she was clearly not alive when they were applied.

      -J

      Delete
    6. Prolly right... Or maybe sleeping..So?

      Delete
    7. yea, she was probably taking a nap......

      They were put there as clear evidence of staging. The intruder theory is so insane that I might as well argue against an alien. But, for sake of discussion. Were the intruders there for money or to kill? Why write a note and leave the body?

      -J

      Delete
    8. i dont know.. maybe he couldnt fit her in the suitcase and didnt want to be walking down the street at 3 AM with a dead body..

      Delete
    9. I also think that when she screamed.. all bets were off and he made a quick escape..

      Delete
    10. So he planned this whole plan, only to leave the body in the house which potentially had his/her DNA on it? AND there was now no way to get money back? Makes sense

      -J

      Delete
    11. Would you risk life in prison for money? Neither would he

      Delete
    12. But leaving the body that contained potential hairs, DNA, etc made sense?

      -J

      Delete
    13. Well.. I think it was most likely the Ninja guy who was breaking into the neighborhood houses.. Wearing that stuff to prevent hair and DNA.. also plain black clothes so not identifiable to any one fabric.. He was a pro..as I said..

      Delete
    14. Well... thought he was.. he was very grandiose about himself

      Delete
    15. I wonder if it's a guy who is on American Ninja Warrior? We should look into this

      Are we on candid camera or something? You can't be typing these responses with a straight face

      -J

      Delete
    16. I dont know how old you are but.. all that stuff was VERY popular at that time.. Karate etc..

      Delete
    17. Reading the history of the garrotte I found this:

      " ...a weaker form of garrotting method was depicted in the U.S. Navy’s World War Two Hand to Hand Combat Manual for Naval Aviators, the famous "V-5" manual. "

      Then, going back to his JBR's biography,I read:

      'Ramsey was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, the son of Mary Jane (née Bennett) (1919–1978) and James Dudley "Jay" Ramsey (1916–1992), a decorated World War II pilot."

      There may be not physical evidence, but there are too many coincidences, don't you agree, Leigh?
      After all, it could simply be that his father taught him how to make a garrotte, it's not only an instrument of death, it can also be taken as a tool for self defense...
      Interesting...at least.
      Med

      Delete
    18. Yes, interesting.. I would like to see what the used.. I am not an avid intruder theorist per se., no matter what.. Just saying there is no evidence ..as yet..of anyone else

      Delete
  55. The only evidence we have is a brutally murdered dead body... a ransom note, a sophisticated garrote and unknown male DNA... That doesnt scream JR..

    ReplyDelete
  56. LT...if you are Melinda Ramsey, first off my condolences for the loss of your sister. This is such a senseless crime. But I beg you....if JBR means anything to you and you truly want to find out who killed her, please let go of the Intruder theory. You will waste the rest of your life searching for Rolo Tomassi. In other words, this intruder doesn't exist.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not a Ramsey.. I am one of many people that believe IDI..

      Delete
    2. Ok....well there would be no way to prove if anyways. Are you possibly Dr. Phil? :-)

      -J

      Delete
    3. lol Nope.. Just a nobody..like all of us here :)

      Delete
  57. The suite case was not brought by an intruder, it was John Andrews and it was full. The intruder theory is not something that should even be considered. No one validated it including Lou Smits.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thats the definition of THEORY.. I know the suitcase had a blanket and a child's book.. Maybe set up for JB ..again.. none of his things with his DNA.

    ReplyDelete
  59. And I dont believe I said he was Mexican.. More likely a Guatemalan or Nicaraguan at that time.. Maybe Colombian..

    ReplyDelete
  60. To med, if you've been on this blog a few years ago, I vaguely remember posting something about Jr in the Philippines, at that time, there was a club the navy used. It was called subic bay tailhook club.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This exchange of one-liners is getting very tedious. If you have some points to make, then make them as part of a coherent argument rather than a series of unrelated comments.

    Now Leigh Too, with reference to the evidence you are demanding, please let me reiterate what I've written already on the question of an intruder:

    A pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. Someone entering the house with the intent to kidnap would have prepared a note in advance. Someone deciding to kidnap while already inside the house, such as a burglar, would not have taken the time, trouble and risk to pen such a long and detailed note, dotting every i and crossing every t, adhering closely to the margin, etc. Someone attempting to frame Patsy or John would not have written the note in his own hand (disguised or not), but attempted a forgery. All of the above are logical inferences based on the nature of the note itself and the fact that the note was penned on paper torn from a notepad found in the Ramsey home.

    When we add to this the fact that NO conclusive intruder evidence was ever found, no pattern of footprints (an isolated single imprint of a HiTec logo means nothing), no fingerprints, nothing taken from the house, nothing introduced to the house, it becomes literally impossible to argue for an intruder. No intruder would have done all that was done that night, and an intruder bold enough to leave a hand printed kidnap note plus a dead body would certainly have had no reason to hide other evidence of his presence. The DNA evidence is completely inconclusive, as any expert in this field will tell you, as it could easily have been due to perfectly innocent primary, secondary or even tertiary transfer. And of the long, long list of potential suspects investigated in this case, including one who actually confessed, the DNA of NONE matched the DNA sample taken so seriously by Mary Lacey.

    As far as evidence of an inside job, there is a mountain of such evidence: a ransom note written on a pad from the house, with a pen from the house, and left for the Ramseys to find DESPITE the fact that no actual kidnapping took place; a broken window in the basement, found open by John with a suitcase under it, with NO SIGN that anyone had actually entered or left at that point; John's fantastic story about breaking in via that window months ago, clearly a fabrication; the strangulation of the victim at least 45 minutes after an initial head blow; strong evidence of chronic sexual molestation based on the condition of the victim's vagina.

    Instead of continually insisting on the lack of evidence, I suggest you make some attempt to address any or all of the above.

    ReplyDelete