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.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Granddaughter of More Room

More room for comments . . . .

95 comments:

  1. Ah, thanks DocG. I had posted 3 posts on the Burke entry and it appears nothing showed up.

    So to condense to trying to reply to earlier comments - I added the link as Patsy writes about her son taking sailing lessons daily. One could infer that he might be taught knots as well.

    See bluecrab's 11:52am entry about how Patsy's own attorneys uncovered the writing in a photo album http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20043-Examples-of-Patsy-s-handwriting-(and-Burke-s

    As for the autopsy. It was performed on the 27th, Burke's interview was the 28th. Perhaps CC knows when the AR was filed and when the family picked up their copy. It was said that Burke's school held a special meeting that Saturday for parents and students. The head injury was not known at the time to the general public so was not mentioned during the special school assembly. Not sure if Burke attended that.

    Searches here- if on a phone like me, it doesn't show unless you click on web version.

    For J- I'd hate to see anyone stop posting. I only belong to one message board (Cheri's Corner for the Missing) that is similar in layout to websleuths (except no ads and one mod, me) and then I comment on a McStay blog and the charley project blog. I do read around and find interesting tidbits.

    Thanks E for reading some of the links I've come across. There is so much documented and yet, so much that isn't clear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, that DrollForeignfaction has done it again over on WS with finding this info on a 2000 lawsuit filed by the Ramseys on a book that was BDI.
    http://jwarchive.tripod.com/05092000JW-RamseySueWindsor5107.txt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you elaborate? I was not able to access that link.

      Delete
    2. That Burke was 13 at the time the suit was filed, and it has the court filings with the plaintiffs named, but Ramsey team also listed a few "John Does", think they were asking over $7 million in damages. There was another link they posted too. (and my posts keep disappearing) The book is still available on Amazon.

      Delete
    3. Your posts probably are not disappearing, but not directly visible until you go down to the bottom of the page and select "Load More." That's what happens when a page fills up with too many comments.

      Delete
    4. Actually it seems as though some posts ARE disappearing. I have no idea why. Here's a post from diamondlil that turned up recently in my email but not here:

      Ah, thanks DocG. I had posted 3 posts on the Burke entry and it appears nothing showed up.

      So to condense to trying to reply to earlier comments - I added the link as Patsy writes about her son taking sailing lessons daily. One could infer that he might be taught knots as well.

      See bluecrab's 11:52am entry about how Patsy's own attorneys uncovered the writing in a photo album http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20043-Examples-of-Patsy-s-handwriting-(and-Burke-s

      As for the autopsy. It was performed on the 27th, Burke's interview was the 28th. Perhaps CC knows when the AR was filed and when the family picked up their copy. It was said that Burke's school held a special meeting that Saturday for parents and students. The head injury was not known at the time to the general public so was not mentioned during the special school assembly. Not sure if Burke attended that.

      Searches here- if on a phone like me, it doesn't show unless you click on web version.

      For J- I'd hate to see anyone stop posting. I only belong to one message board (Cheri's Corner for the Missing) that is similar in layout to websleuths (except no ads and one mod, me) and then I comment on a McStay blog and the charley project blog. I do read around and find interesting tidbits.

      Thanks E for reading some of the links I've come across. There is so much documented and yet, so much that isn't clear.

      Delete
    5. Diamondlil, you've confused two different interviews. Burke was interviewed briefly by officer Patterson on the 28th, yes. But that interview was apparently not filmed. The filmed interview in which he spoke with a Dr. Bernhard, and mentioned a possible knife and hammer assault took place on Jan. 8 (see PMPT). The relevant portion of that interview can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6iy6ZhMjTs

      Burke would have had plenty of time to learn about the autopsy results by then. Of course, the Ramseys always claimed they never discussed the case with Burke, but that seems unlikely.

      And what Bluecrab claimed in that post was that the captions were taken from Burke's album and were written by him. I wonder where he/she got that and whether it's ever been confirmed.

      Delete
  3. Now its proven that Burke could probably tie knots and had a knife to do this, surely some of you JDI people are going to come over to the BDI side :)

    Also Mrs D, I respect your posts and I dont think the pineapple is "everything ", but I do think that its awfully important. The fact it was mostly uneaten and prepared by a kid tells me there is a reason he didnt finish it. What kid makes himself a yummy snack and then doesnt eat it???

    Also I dont think his parents knew that pineapple would be found in JBs stomach and therefore didn't see the need to clean up the kitchen. But they did wipe down the flashlight completely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed, what do you make of the chair that John told LE he had to move out of the way? Does make me wonder if a much shorter person in the house used thst to latch that top latch of the wine cellar door...or sumthin'

      Delete
  4. And yet he had more than enough time to drink all of his tea, Zed.....so, your point is? :)

    The pineapple cannot be ignored. I have never denied it's importance because it means JB was awake, left her room and was comfortable enough to indulge in a snack at some point during the night (unless it turns out that traces of grapes and cherries were also detected - but I digress - that is a post for another time). However, J continued to insist, ad nauseam, I was denying it was actually Burke's pineapple, which was patently untrue. I said several times that Burke probably prepared the fruit earlier in the afternoon, forgot he did so in light of the chaos the next day, left it on the counter top, JB helped herself to a piece when she came down stairs later that night. The fact that Burke prepared the pineapple at some stage is not evidence of his presence when she ingested said pineapple, and I am getting tired of repeating myself in regards to this topic. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, or correcting me when I'm wrong, but I have a major problem with people posting blatant, disinformation, which J and Leigh appear to be doing on an ever increasing basis. Thus my response regarding the pineapple (which I can't seem to find now - certainly not the one I posted about an hour ago, on the previous comment section, anyway. But I seem to be missing a couple) was addressed to J.

    Re: the knots. John Ramsey was an avid sailor, he knew how to tie a knot like the one seen on the garrote also. So, is it feasible that Burke could have made the device? Sure - maybe just as likely John tied it - but would his parents cover for him in such a way? No, I'm certain they wouldn't, so we're back to John as suspect #1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just an observation... Ms. D, your writing style is eerily similar to DocG.

      Delete
    2. Well, Ms. D is not DocG, I can assure you. And the assumption that Burke's connection with the bowl of pineapple is a given is not something I would have posted. While Ms. D and I are generally in agreement, I must say I was disappointed when she was so willing to concede that point. Burke's prints could have gotten onto that bowl in any number of ways. He could have used it when he ate his breakfast, for example. Or he could have moved it out of the way when he was getting something else out of a cupboard. Fingerprints from a stranger found at the scene of a crime are meaningful evidence. Fingerprints from someone living in the same home usually mean little to nothing.

      Delete
    3. It goes to the family's saying what their timeline was for the evening and that statements made to LE talked about breakfast and all denied pineapple. John had trouble recognizing the bowl, he thought the spoon and glass looked liked theirs. They both thought the kleenex box shouldn't be there.

      Delete
    4. "Or he could have moved it out of the way when he was getting something else out of a cupboard."

      I posted the exact same thing a couple of weeks back and it was shot down in flames by an incredulous Zed or J, but I do believe it is a real possibility. Though, it's very likely he put out that bowl of pineapple sometime on Xmas day, prior to going to dinner at The Whites, and simply forgot he did so, because it was Christmas and he had more important things on his mind, namely toys. (Which is why he didn't immediately recognize it when he was shown the photo. Investigators knew the significance of the fruit - Burke probably didn't. It was incidental to him, and long forgotten). JB grabbed a piece of the pineapple that still sat on the kitchen counter later in the evening shortly before her death, while Burke was probably sleeping soundly upstairs. I've never believed that the pineapple she ingested indicated that Burke was up with JonBenet xmas night, whether he prepared the bowl of pineapple or not.

      Anon, I'm not Doc, lol. I've updated my photo - which is now a picture of myself - and I'm sure the author of this blog has mentioned he is of the male gender. Not that you can trust anything you read on the internet. ;)

      Delete
    5. Per the question on Burke and the knots - my post got buried on the last thread - he def could have made the knots. The rolling hitch knot/taut line knot is one of seven knots taught to Cub Scouts and is one of the eight most common knots used in elementary sailing (which thanks to diamondlil16 we knew he took lessons for an entire summer in 1995) . Burke also described his knife as having the hook on it for tying knots which is called a pocket knife with a marlin spike (common in sailing). Citations in my previous post. Thanks E

      Delete
    6. The problem with BDI is that it's based entirely on what Burke "could have" done. Could have hit her with the flashlight, could have prepared that bowl of pineapple, could have made the knot, could have been sexually molesting her. But "could have" won't cut it. You need actual evidence of SOME sort and there is none.

      And by the way, the device used to strangle her was a lot more than just a knot. It was designed specifically to strangle someone as you tightened the cord by rotating the stick. NOT the sort of thing you'd learn in Cub Scouts.

      Delete
  5. Hot off the press:

    DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys

    Presence of 3rd person's genetic markers never before revealed

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30514220/jonbenet-ramsey-dna-evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read 'em and weep, Leigh Too.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Thanks anon for the news, will be adding that link to my unsolved/cold case thread. There have been experts from the beginning saying this is not a DNA case.

      Delete
    3. Also, there is a new evidence photo (at least I have not seen it before) of JB's panties. There appears to be a LARGE amount of urine stain, which leads me to believe that she had NOT wet the bed (if she had, her bladder should have been empty). Just my opinion, as I am surely not an expert in these matters.

      Delete
    4. I'll be responding soon to the Daily Camera article, which imo represents a MAJOR development. As for the urine stains, it looks to me as though the huge stain on the pullups is much more pronounced than the relatively faint stain on the panties. Suggesting that the panties could have been changed after the strangulation, and that the stain found on them could have been transferred from the urine in the pullups. Just a thought.

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

      Delete
  6. JonBenet’s Mother: Victim or Killer? Airing on November 5th - Lifetime

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what Lin Wood had to say about people that follow this case online? That they are "disturbed individuals". http://www.acandyrose.com/04162003FFJ-Wood-DisturbedIndividuals.htm
      But I think he's a POS, and has bragged about how much money he's made off the Ramsey case.

      Delete
  8. Also it appears that she was on her stomach when her bladder let go, as nearly the entire front of the panties is soiled.

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

      Delete
  9. Anonymous, interesting article. Bottom line, that DNA evidence doesn't rule in or out the Ramsey's, and Mary Lacy shouldn't have ruled them out - exonerated them. that's the gist of that article but reading it carefully is recommended.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Well, Ms. D is not DocG, I can assure you. And the assumption that Burke's connection with the bowl of pineapple is a given is not something I would have posted. While Ms. D and I are generally in agreement, I must say I was disappointed when she was so willing to concede that point."

    Looks like Ms D is using LOGIC whereas DocG finds it to be more important to stick to his theory than concede on anything. Ms D, Doc doesn't like it when his followers don't follow his rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as I suspected J...you cant stay away...now you just don't sign your snide remarks.

      Delete
    2. Doc's theory is built on logic, that's the precise reason he sticks to it. :)
      I don't think he cares who agrees with his theory or not. From what I can see, he just doesn't like repetitive questions.....

      Delete
    3. Ms D: "I don't think he cares who agrees with his theory or not. From what I can see, he just doesn't like repetitive questions....."

      Doc: "I must say I was disappointed when she was so willing to concede that point."

      Are we all in the same blog? Its very clear that Doc absolutely cares if people stick to his theory or not. The day after the CBS special aired was I the only one who read his whine fest? Yes Anonymous above this is J and I came back to see all of the negative comments directed at me....and wasn't as bad as I thought. Anyways, I read Doc's post about the pineapple and just couldn't help myself.
      Ms D I never attempted to single you out regarding the pineapple bowl. It was intended for the blog as a whole. Just like BR was awkward about answering what his bowl of pineapple was, Doc will refuse to concede that it was Burke's pineapple bowl because it creates a problem for his theory. I'm sick of hearing he uses logic, when he clearly is not using logic. If John Ramsey's fingerprints were on the glass and bowl I'm sure he would have a very different tune on this subject. As somebody has posted earlier, the pineapple bowl being Burke's along with the pineapple in the stomach put JB and Burke in the same place at the same time roughly that she was murdered. Obviously it's important and therefore it absolutely cannot be Burke's bowl because Doc would have you believe that John gave her that bowl of pineapple or that Burke only witnessed something happen.

      -J

      Delete
    4. I have to agree with J. I had been into it with Doc about the pineapple before you were here J. It could have, maybe and if are not the logical, most likely conclusions with the pineapple. I stated also that someone had to get the bowl and put pineapple in, thus leaving their prints on it. So if PR nor BR put the pineapple in the bowl than apparently either someone with gloves had to do it or someone removed only their fingerprints from the bowl. CC then claimed that maybe they didnt leave fingerprints...they do not always transfer. Well on glass, yes they do. Regardless the logical conclusion is whoevers prints were on it, filled it with pineapple. PR does the dishes, so hers may have that reason.

      Delete
    5. Forensic evidence - in this case fingerprints and fibers - found in a shared home is useless, as Doc was the first to concede about JR'S shirt fiber in JBR'S panties.

      Any criticism directed at that CBS production is justified. It was TV, entertainment, based on and scripted by Kolar's book, not a piece of hard-hitting investigative journalism.

      You've said a number of times that you're "sick" and you're "tired" of Doc's theory and his logic; more than a few of us are equally weary of your endless kvetching about Doc and your mean-spirited criticism of anyone who disagrees with you, couched in what you clearly (and mistakenly) think are witticisms.

      If you can enter into thoughtful discussion and debate, stay and welcome; otherwise, take your own advice of yesterday and stop "wasting your time", and ours.
      CC



      Delete
    6. Thanks KS. It's actually amazing we still have to be posting about the pineapple bowl. It was Burke's bowl, it is one of the few parts of this case that is simple and easy to understand. At times it feels very much like 12 Angry Men where somebody in spite of all things saying 1 thing, just can't give in. I hope to never have to comment about whose pineapple bowl it was ever again

      -J

      Delete
    7. It's sooooooo hard to have a thoughtful discussion when we have to waste time discussing whose bowl of pineapple it was. I am not sick and tired of Doc's theory, I am sick and tired of the constant ignoring of things simply because it doesn't support JDI.

      -J

      Delete
    8. Whoa CC.. who the hell are you talking to like that. He wasnt addressing YOU , personally..no need for personal attacks.. You are as guilty of doing what you say he is doing..like in that post..

      Delete
    9. We can argue till the cows come home on who's theory is right. Ibelieve that logic can be applied to both JR and br. I actually thought docs theory to be most likely except for one thing that bothered me for such a long time. I can't bring myself to accept so many discrepancies in Patsy's statements, nor the risk and likelihood of her wakening during the night.Then there are the other things we know about her that could be described as red herrings such as wearing same clothes, fibres found etc.It could be argued that this also can be applied to logic. It's puzzled me for so long to understand if both parents were covering, how it would plan out. If Burke did indeed do everything but the RN and staging, I don't see why Bdi doesn't Work.

      Delete
    10. J. For the 90th time. (I'm going to copy this post so I can just paste it next time you're sure to bring it up):
      That Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple and that pineapple was found in JB's stomach does *not* place Burke at the scene of the crime. What it tells us, at best, is that at *some time that day*, Burke filled that bowl with his favourite fruit, got distracted and left it sitting on the kitchen counter, as children do - especially on such an exciting day as Christmas. Then, later on that night shortly before her murder, JB took a piece of pineapple from that bowl. There is absolutely nothing to indicate Burke was up with her when she ingested that piece of pineapple. So.......was that Burke's bowl of pineapple? Probably so. Does that mean it had been freshly prepared shortly before his sister's murder? No! Therefore I don't feel it's particularly relevant, and even less so when one considers a phony ransom note is involved, that certainly was not written by a nine year old, along with a sexual assault and a violent strangulation, which all points to an adult. One piece of evidence doesn't mean much, it's only when you look at the totality of the evidence that it comes together, and besides that pineapple, I don't think you've got much, that is why you feel it necessary to keep bringing it up.
      You don't share my theory, and that's o.k, but acknowledge that you're drawing your conclusion based almost entirely on that bowl of pineapple alone.

      Delete
    11. Sigh. One more time: all Burke's prints on that bowl mean is that he handled it at one time. If his prints were on the pineapple that would be a different story. ;-)

      As for the absence of anyone else's prints, see

      https://books.google.com/books?id=p-FX7gw75ikC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=absence+of+fingerprints&source=bl&ots=jDBfg5CspA&sig=HaCwACjGl0vZWby1CV9sY8fnNIE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8tbin__3PAhUMyoMKHfNuBRg4ChDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=absence%20of%20fingerprints&f=false

      Delete
    12. LT thanks for the support above, but its fine. CC is snarky but I have been as well.

      Ms D - Yes, obviously I have no video or anything to factually say 100% what happened. The Pineapple is of course important to me. Up until it being Burke's pineapple bowl we had the Ramseys coming home from the White's and going straight to bed. Everything about how JBR getting downstairs was pure speculation.
      To address your post, Burke tells Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs to play with his toys. The word snuck implies to me he was sneaking from his parents. He goes downstairs and fixes himself a snack. This is most likely around 10pm. She's dead between 10-12 dont you agree? SO, we now have Burke downstairs with a snack and playing with his toys. JB comes downstairs with her pillow somewhere in this time frame. I will never argue that the pineapple was 100% the motive, but I believe without a doubt in my mind that Burke and JB are downstairs together and its within the time frame she had to have been murdered. The pineapple bowl clearly plays a role because of Burke's reaction to it when asked.
      Ms D - Im honestly asking you this question and its because I sincerely am curious of your thoughts. If you concede it was Burke's pineapple bowl, then how do you explain his beyond weird reaction when he was asked what it was?

      -J

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

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

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

      Delete
    16. Burke didn't recognize the bowl of pineapple since he had nothing to do with that bowl of pineapple. When I look at those photos I'm more likely to see a bowl of cereal than pineapple. And what about the tea? Do you really think Burke brewed himself a glass of tea in the middle of the night?

      And finally, if Burke had been downstairs spatting with his sister over some pineapple, why on earth would he have confessed to Dr. Phil that he'd snuck downstairs after having been put to bed? And if he'd used that flashlight to kill her why would he have mentioned it at all?

      Sorry but you can't spin a wild tale like that based on nothing more than some fingerprints on a bowl. If that's all you've got you've got nothing.

      Delete
    17. "Burke didn't recognize the bowl of pineapple since he had nothing to do with that bowl of pineapple"

      His reaction wasn't of a person that didn't know what they were looking at. It was of a kid who knew of its importance and didnt want to answer it

      "When I look at those photos I'm more likely to see a bowl of cereal than pineapple."

      Not your bowl of pineapple. Since it was his bowl of pineapple there is no innocent explanation for him not answering it

      "And what about the tea? Do you really think Burke brewed himself a glass of tea in the middle of the night?"

      Have we ever confirmed if it was hot or cold tea? Either way, irrelevant. My Mom used to brew tea for the family and put it in the fridge. My brother liked it hot and would microwave it and my Mom would drink it over ice.

      "Sorry but you can't spin a wild tale like that based on nothing more than some fingerprints on a bowl. If that's all you've got you've got nothing."

      Like claiming a Dad was molesting his daughter and was shutting her up?

      -J

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

      Delete
    19. IF it was his bowl of pineapple. We don't know that. We have no way of knowing that. It's just pure conjecture.

      And if you look at the photos you'll see a tea bag in that glass.

      And I'm not claiming John was molesting his daughter. We have no way of knowing that either. What I'm claiming is that he's the only one who could have written the note, meaning he has to be the one who killed her. Which is consistent with the very likely possibility that he had been sexually molesting her -- based on EVIDENCE that goes way beyond some fingerprints that could have gotten where they were in any number of perfectly innocent ways.

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

      Delete

    21. "To address your post, Burke tells Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs to play with his toys. The word snuck implies to me he was sneaking from his parents. He goes downstairs and fixes himself a snack. This is most likely around 10pm. She's dead between 10-12 dont you agree? SO, we now have Burke downstairs with a snack and playing with his toys."

      No. See, that's where you're not reading my comments properly. I do not believe he prepared the snack that evening. I believe he prepared it *before* they went to dinner at The Whites, and it was still there in the evening. Which means he very well could have been sound asleep when JB came down and popped a piece of pineapple from that bowl into her mouth.

      "I will never argue that the pineapple was 100% the motive".

      With all due respect, J, if you can't accept sexual abuse as the motive - which we KNOW is a common motive for murder - I can't even believe you'd entertain the notion of a piece of fruit being enough motive for murder.

      "The pineapple bowl clearly plays a role because of Burke's reaction to it when asked."

      Confirmation bias. *You* know that pineapple was found in JB's stomach, so to you, naturally Burke looks guilty when he's asked about it. To me, he appears to be a kid who doesn't quite know what he's looking at - it was days, or weeks before that he prepared the pineapple, and had no clue when doing so that it would become a key piece of evidence in a murder case, so he had not thought about it since. Then, after a few seconds, he remembered. And he remembered that he made that snack the day his sister died, so his demeanor changes.
      That is genuinely all I see, but each to their own.....

      "Ms D - Im honestly asking you this question and its because I sincerely am curious of your thoughts. If you concede it was Burke's pineapple bowl, then how do you explain his beyond weird reaction when he was asked what it was?"

      I concede I think it was probably Burke's pineapple. (Note: I said "probably")
      I don't believe it was prepared shortly before JB's death.
      I sincerely believe Burke had never thought of that pineapple as important, therefore would have no reason to become nervous when asked about it.
      I truly don't see his reaction to the photo as suspicious. These are my honest answers, and that is the best I can give you. :)

      Delete
    22. I think what's getting lost on the JDI crowd regarding the pineapple, is that I do not believe there was a motive at all. It was 100% an accidental death after the pineapple or a toy triggered BR to strike his sister over the head. Some people will never accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole shooter because there is this need to feel like it was something bigger than some loser that shot their President. In this case, I think there is this need to make about some crazy molestation conspiracy, when the reality for me is that it was simply an accident.
      We will 100% agree to disagree on Burke's reaction to that tape. I think there is clear bias depending on what theory you hold because I have talked to 10 people none of which are on this blog or knew anything before seeing it and ALL said that it looked like a kid who had been caught. OF those 10, 8 were mothers. I know it's just my opinion and you are open to have yours, but the pineapple bowl absolutely creates a problem for JDI theorists which is why so may posts have been about this. I'll say it again, its about putting 2 people in the same place at the same time.
      IF there is no pineapple bowl, then the Ramsey's got home, went upstairs and went to sleep. That's what you are left with and at 5:52am we have a 911 call. That time in between now tells a story and every theory on here and anywhere is going to be complete and utter speculation.

      -J

      Delete
    23. That would be pretty gross for JBR to ear a pice of pineapple in a bowl of MILK the was prepared at least 5-6 hours earlier. (If I was prepared before the party like Missome D suggests.)

      Delete
  11. I have mentioned this in a previous post and I cannot recall anyone considering or putting it in their scenario. JR could have been using JBR as sexual gratification without ever touching her or without her ever being the wiser. He could have had JBR dress-up and dance for him, something I am sure she would happy to do, while he touched himself under a robe or behind a desk. JBR would be none the wiser. He could have been doing this since early after the pageants started. After all, he did marry a beauty queen and JBR was a younger version.

    -GEH

    ReplyDelete
  12. Briefly again, my theory of JDI is:
    1) JR wanted sex with PR that night, PR wouldn’t or couldn’t perform (exhausted/medicated).
    2) JR goes to his study/den to satisfy his frustration.
    3) JBR wets the bed and goes to parents’ room, can’t wake PR and notices JR not there.
    4) JBR goes to JR’s study/den because that is the next logical place he would be (weak spot here for me as she could have went to BR for help, maybe she did and he wouldn’t wake up, maybe she didn’t want to).
    5) JBR surprises JR that has yet to satisfy his frustration.
    6) JR changes JBR (this is another weak spot as one or both would now have to go get new garments for JBR, maybe JR told her to wait in study/den and he would be right back).
    7) JR now wants JBR to dance for him.
    8) JBR refuses and JR gets angry/more frustrated.
    9) JBR gets scared and threatens or starts to run to get PR or BR.
    10) JR hits JBR in the head with flashlight or golf club (or how about a stapler or heavy object from study/den desk?) in a reflex to prevent her from running to tell. I think a stapler would leave a nice rectangular mark similar to the flashlight.
    11) JR now has to kill JBR to prevent her telling he struck her when she recovers (murder was on purpose, events that led up to murder was on purpose [sexual gratification], initial blow was accident-reflexive).
    12) JR now stages a kidnapping/sexual assault crime to cover his actions.
    13) JR leaves ransom note on stairs so he can shower/clean-up believing note will prevent PR from calling 911 if she wakes up and notices JBR not in her room (if I get up at any time in the morning or middle of the night I always check my child’s room out of protective instinct) as well as buy him time to finish staging and outline next steps (get stuck a little here as well, as I would think that if PR checked JBR’s room first, before getting to RN, and noticed her gone she would have went to BR’s room looking, perhaps check places in the in the home in the event JBR got up early and then to JR first to see if he knew where she was, ironically, I think the RN put PR into heightened panic and into calling 911).
    14) JR hears a hysterical PR when she comes to check JBR’s bedroom for her so he gets out of the shower and only puts on his underwear as he has to get to PR quickly.
    15) PR and JR debated about calling 911, as BR reports PR hysterical and hearing JR essentially giving in to call 911, as I think very insightful by a blogger (sorry unable to recall which blogger), that JR had to give in to allowing PR to call 911 as he couldn’t tell PR that it would endanger JBR’s life if they called as was written in the RN, the RN PR believed JR hadn’t read yet and couldn’t know that was in the letter – she noted he was reading for the first time as she made the call (this is a weak spot for me, as I would think JR would have easily been able to convince PR to at least let him read the note to see if there were any clues/instructions before calling 911 – maybe that is why the hang-ups [if that is even fact, not sure]).
    16) JR now must work impromptu as the time he thought he had bought is gone.

    -GEH

    ReplyDelete
  13. I will also say again that if BR hit JBR, the murder and sexual assault of JBR would not have been done to cover an accident, and a 911 call would have been made for medical assistance rather than to report a kidnapping. For BDI to work, in my mind, he had to commit the elements of the crime at least up to JBR’s death in order for the parents to stage a crime scene. I do not believe the parent’s would have killed JBR to cover an accident! This is hard for me to swallow as then both parents would have to be in on the cover-up, a cover-up that is destroyed by the 911 call. Did PR panic and make the call? Maybe IDI does make more sense, but why no evidence to support? Maybe PR did do it all and, as many criminals, staged a crime as she thought it would be and called 911 with JBR in the house not realizing that a real kidnapper would not leave a note behind if the kidnapping went bad (I just can’t believe she would sexually assault her daughter unless she had a jealousy towards JBR and might have had suspicion JR fantasized about JBR and sexually assaulted her to destroy her sexually so JR wouldn’t fantasize about her anymore)? I get sea-sick in this case trying to make it make sense. You really have to take the case step-by-step with what is known, and yes a little bit of logical speculation, to try and get to the most logical truth.

    -GEH

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have mentioned this in a previous post and I cannot recall anyone considering or putting it in their scenario. JR could have been using JBR as sexual gratification without ever touching her or without her ever being the wiser. He could have had JBR dress-up and dance for him, something I am sure she would happy to do, while he touched himself under a robe or behind a desk. JBR would be none the wiser. He could have been doing this since early after the pageants started. After all, he did marry a beauty queen and JBR was a younger version.

    -GE

    ReplyDelete
  15. Briefly again, my theory of JDI is:
    1) JR wanted sex with PR that night, PR wouldn’t or couldn’t perform (exhausted/medicated).
    2) JR goes to his study/den to satisfy his frustration.
    3) JBR wets the bed and goes to parents’ room, can’t wake PR and notices JR not there.
    4) JBR goes to JR’s study/den because that is the next logical place he would be (weak spot here for me as she could have went to BR for help, maybe she did and he wouldn’t wake up, maybe she didn’t want to).
    5) JBR surprises JR that has yet to satisfy his frustration.
    6) JR changes JBR (this is another weak spot as one or both would now have to go get new garments for JBR, maybe JR told her to wait in study/den and he would be right back).
    7) JR now wants JBR to dance for him.
    8) JBR refuses and JR gets angry/more frustrated.
    9) JBR gets scared and threatens or starts to run to get PR or BR.
    10) JR hits JBR in the head with flashlight or golf club (or how about a stapler or heavy object from study/den desk?) in a reflex to prevent her from running to tell. I think a stapler would leave a nice rectangular mark similar to the flashlight.
    11) JR now has to kill JBR to prevent her telling he struck her when she recovers (murder was on purpose, events that led up to murder was on purpose [sexual gratification], initial blow was accident-reflexive).
    12) JR now stages a kidnapping/sexual assault crime to cover his actions.
    13) JR leaves ransom note on stairs so he can shower/clean-up believing note will prevent PR from calling 911 if she wakes up and notices JBR not in her room (if I get up at any time in the morning or middle of the night I always check my child’s room out of protective instinct) as well as buy him time to finish staging and outline next steps (get stuck a little here as well, as I would think that if PR checked JBR’s room first, before getting to RN, and noticed her gone she would have went to BR’s room looking, perhaps check places in the in the home in the event JBR got up early and then to JR first to see if he knew where she was, ironically, I think the RN put PR into heightened panic and into calling 911).
    14) JR hears a hysterical PR when she comes to check JBR’s bedroom for her so he gets out of the shower and only puts on his underwear as he has to get to PR quickly.
    15) PR and JR debated about calling 911, as BR reports PR hysterical and hearing JR essentially giving in to call 911, as I think very insightful by a blogger (sorry unable to recall which blogger), that JR had to give in to allowing PR to call 911 as he couldn’t tell PR that it would endanger JBR’s life if they called as was written in the RN, the RN PR believed JR hadn’t read yet and couldn’t know that was in the letter – she noted he was reading for the first time as she made the call (this is a weak spot for me, as I would think JR would have easily been able to convince PR to at least let him read the note to see if there were any clues/instructions before calling 911 – maybe that is why the hang-ups [if that is even fact, not sure]).
    16) JR now must work impromptu as the time he thought he had bought is gone.

    -GEH

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure where from or if we ever get truth. I enjoy reading this blog hoping someone's theory or speculation gives me an 'AHA' moment that leads me in logical direction. Most theories have logical paths, some just shorter than other, in my opinion. I am still holding to JDI as I can personally get to finish line in my mind. Other theories dont get me there, yet.

      -GEH

      Delete
    2. GEH - I felt the exact same way you did until watching the CBS Special and going thru all logical explanations in my head. The case never made sense to me based on motive and an accidental moment where Burke struck her finally did it to me. But the cherry on top was that I never thought Patsy was involved until I dug a lot more and see no way possible that at some point she didn't play a part. Patsy being involved destroyed JDI for me as I don't believe she would have ever covered for John murdering her daughter. So, 2 parents covering for their only living child though sick and twisted just made it all add up for me. Good luck coming to your AHA moment....it was a great feeling when I got there!

      -J

      Delete
    3. J - hopefully I can get there! Obviously, you believe BDI, but do you believe BR only hit JBR or do you believe BR hit JBR and strangled her? That is where BDI forks for me. In my mind the only way the parents stage a crime is if BR killed JBR and in the parents' minds a sexual assault was the last thing a child would do. If BR only hit JBR and didn't kill her I can't make the leap that the parents would cover an accident with a murder. Again JDI is the only theory that I am able to speculate the unknown logicaly to make sense to me.

      -GEH

      Delete
    4. J-hopefully I can get there! Obviously, you believe BDI, but do you believe BR only hit JBR or do you believe BR hit JBR and strangled her? That is where BDI forks for me. In my mind the only way the parents stage a crime is if BR killed JBR and in the parents' minds a sexual assauhopefully I can get there! Obviously, you believe BDI, but do you believe BR only hit JBR or do you believe BR hit JBR and strangled her? That is where BDI forks for me. In my mind the only way the parents stage a crime is if BR killed JBR and in the parents' minds a sexual assault was the last thing a child would do. If BR only hit JBR and didn't kill her I can't make the leap that the parents would cover an accident with a murder. Again JDI is the only theory that I am able to speculate the unknown logicaly to make sense to me.lt was the last thing a child would do. If BR only hit JBR and didn't kill her I can't make the leap that the parents would cover an accident with a murder. Again JDI is the only theory that I am able to speculate the unknown logicaly to make sense to me.

      -GEH

      Delete
    5. Without any doubt in my mind I believe Burke struck her. Unless the garrote was already tied, I just can't imagine Burke did that all on his own. My guess is that a while went by before Burke went to get help from his Dad. JBR had to have been so far gone for JR to do what took place. In addition to prodding her with tracks, who knows what else Burke did to her lifeless body. Dont even want to speculate further on that.
      In addition to my feeling about Burke, I really turned the corner and fully believe Patsy was involved at some point. Patsy being involved for me meant that it was impossible for John to have acted alone because I don't see any logical scenario that Patsy would have supported John had he been the murderer. Maybe Patsy never knew that John helped strangle her. Honestly its pure speculation obviously
      I wish you luck getting to your AHA moment

      -J

      Delete
    6. Why would John and Patsy employ the sort of cover up that is sure to involve the F.B.I, J?
      Don't you think it's more logical they would throw her down the stairs instead and say she fell, hitting her head, ensuring the subsequent investigation would be low key?
      If you're trying to deflect attention away from yourself - or in this case, their son - why create a cover up that DRAWS attention from every LE in Boulder?!

      I answered your questions to the best of my ability, I'd be happy if you could now answer mine. Thanks.

      Delete
    7. Ms D - The cover up aspect of this case has always been puzzling regardless of who killed her. One of the many reasons I don't believe JDI is the way she was killed. THe blow to the head makes no sense on every level. He would have know way of knowing that there wouldn't be blood all over the place from the head blow. Furthermore, why risk the head blow at all if this was intentional? Fall down the stairs, just choking her or suffocation would have been so much cleaner.
      Regarding the cover up, I think John could have helped Burke and Patsy never truly knew the extent of it until later on. Thanks for answering

      -J

      Delete
    8. I think John would have chosen the maglite specifically because it was unlikely to draw blood. But even if there were blood, that could easily have been explained as due to a blow from her kidnapper. To say it makes "no sense" is to betray a serious lack of imagination, J. Though you do make up for it in other ways. :-)

      Delete
    9. Wait, so now John Ramsey was a forensic analyst that would have known if the flashlight would draw blood? Im not sure Wecht or Spitz would have known that.
      What I want from you Doc is to lock in on it being premeditated or not. Enough trying to cover all bases on this. IF it was premeditated to cover up a sex crime, then how in the world do you explain the blow to the head? As I stated above, there would have been no way he would have known if it would havw drawn blood. If the point was to shut her up, then the shove down the stairs or strangulation would have been easiest, most quiet and least messy.
      Now if you are going to argue this was spontaneous by John, then I would argue a man of his size hitting her over the head with force would have destroyed the top of her head and I would imagine there would be blood everywhere.
      As I said before, until we had the pineapple bowl, the Ramseys got home from a party and claimed to go straight to bed. Your imagination and everybody else's on here has speculated what happened next.

      -J

      Delete
    10. I think he chose to strike her over the head as that would have been the most "merciful" way to kill her, or at least knock her out. No fear, no pain. Assuming it was premeditated. It's also possible he struck her spontaneously, in a rage and without thinking.

      The maglite with its heavy rubber tip would be unlikely to break the scalp. A golf club or baseball bat would be more likely to draw blood. John had military training and the opportunity to learn certain tricks of the trade from sailors with serious combat training.

      Not that it would matter all that much since, as I've said, she could have been attacked by her abductor.

      Delete
    11. John Ramsey is JASON BOURNE!

      -J

      Delete
    12. Personally, I think the attack was unlikely to have been premeditated, therefore the haphazard cover up (though, if Patsy hadn't have called 911, it was a pretty damn, solid plan. John really covered all of his bases. Too many people overlook the minutiae detailed in the instructions of the RN, which is one of the investigation's fatal flaws as far as I'm concerned). BUT, if it was premeditated, I do believe the note would have been left for Patsy in a manner that couldn't have left any room for error - meaning that John would have made absolutely certain Patsy couldn't have called 911, thus foiling his, otherwise, almost perfect plan)

      Delete
  17. CC..............Im not sure what I should be weeping about. This article is about whether Lacy should have written the letter to the Ramseys, excluding them. I dont believe that I have commented about that here but, personally, I would not have written the letter. Not the way that she did.. She is a lawyer, not a scientist. That being said.. Since JB probably wasnt doing the household laundry, I would expect other DNA to be present.. And, as I said yesterday, I dont think that anyone should be convicted or acquitted based on DNA alone. The article is so one sided, or maybe just not technical enough for any conclusions to be drawn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boulder Daily Camera, 10/27/16:

      "The presence of DNA on JBR'S underwear and longjohns, be it from one or multiple people, may very well be innocent. . . the result of inconsequential contact with other people or transferred from another piece of clothing".
      CC

      Delete
    2. Thats true.. But that doesnt mean you ignore it ..You follow all evidence to the end..

      Delete
  18. What you alll dont seem to understand is that ALL of your opinions and fabricated theories are all equally absurd.. You criticize each other like everyone is an idiot all the while praising yourselves not seeing that you are equally said idiots...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am really with J on this one.

    Occams Razer. We dont know for sure but the most likely outcome is Burke was there with JB eating pineapple and then something happened.

    Anyone disagreeing with that could be correct, but if you follow the most likely outcome, J and I are most likely correct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Occam's Razor is often misunderstood. It's not the simplest explanation, it's the simplest explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Doc.
      I have actually wanted to point out several times to a few here that it appears Occam's Razor actually doesn't mean what they think it means.
      And if one can't spell it correctly, it's even less likely they're familiar with it. :)

      If you're going to apply Occam's Razor to this case, then IDI and BDI are eliminated.

      Delete
  20. I have to agree that facts that do not support JDI are twisted around or not acknowledged. Transference of fingerprints onto a glass bowl and transference of fingerprints onto a weapon are 2 different things. Normal grabbing of a glass bowl puts a finger and its prints into full finger surface contact of a bowl. Glass is the most transferable substance of a fingerprint that there is. Whoever handled that bowl, in almost all likeliness and logic, left their prints on it. Period. Could aliens have come down and planted prints in order to frame the Ramseys ? Sure they could have. Could the bowl have not transferred someones prints ? Sure it might not have. JBR had pineapple in her stomach ? Could someone have ground up the pineapple and pumped it into her postmortem ? Sure they could have. Could PR have broken that basement window and JR was just cleaning up her mess ? Sure he could have been just cleaning up after PR. Are these things likely ? No, they are not. Key word = Could. When the only way any theory can possibly be made in this case are by logical inferences, how can the logical inference be that whoevers pineapple this was did not leave their fingerprints, that BR left his prints on the bowl earlier and the pineapple that was in JBR's stomach, puneapple that got in her stomach late that night, not be from that bowl of pineapple ? What type of logical inferencing is this ??? Possibly someone snuck into the house and just happened to have a bowl of pineapple with and fed it to JBR ? I am not even BDI but cmon. If we are going to make a case out of logical inferencing then some logic must be involved in the inferencing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keiser, some years ago our house was broken into, some jewelry was stolen and many items, including glass and ceramic items, were displaced. The police dusted for prints and found none. The policeman explained that, contrary to popular belief, it's actually unusual to find fingerprints in such cases. If you can find them that's considered a lucky break.

      Delete
    2. I'll add that neither John's nor Patsy's prints were found on anywhere on the ransom note. And yet, according to their own testimony, they both handled it.

      Delete
    3. It is considered a lucky break because in the case of a robbery or a thief any halfway decent thief with any common sense wears gloves.

      Delete
    4. That's not what the officer told us. I have a feeling he knew more about fingerprints than you.

      Delete
  21. This puts BR up around the time the murder supposedly occured. Unless the timeline is off and much later, as I proposed before. A more logical scenario for JDI would be that JR got up and caught BR up sneaking a pineapple snack, made him go to bed with the flashlight, got JBR up out of bed to do his evil deeds, she grabbed a piece of pineapple while downstairs with JR after BR was put to bed. That sounds logical but trying to misrespresent the logical and most likely answer of that bowl being BR's or of that pineapple in JBR's stomach as coming up from that bowl is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maybe that pineapple and milk was old? Maybe that is why there was only a very small amount in her SI? Maybe the milk was sour? Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are her prints or even a partial print ? There are none ! Does anyome know why the police use glass when taking fingerprints ? I can give hints to anyone who needs them.

      Delete
    2. Doc, you are comparing apple and oranges. It would not be unusual for fingerprints to not show up on paper or on pourous wood or items of that nature. That being said, IMO it is a great possibility that PR or JR purposely did not leave prints on the RN, wiped it off or possibly this is a sign that they were both in on it together. If they were obscuring their prints then 1 could not where gloves in front of the other 1, obviously, so they both would have had to. If glass were electricity and we were testing conductiveness, it would be equivalent to silver, which is the best conductor in the world. The odds of someone picking up glass and having left no fingerprint at all, not even a partial print would be extremely rare. Glass is the best "conductor" of fingerprints that exists. (Yes, I looked this up). The only way that the person who made this bowl of pineapple left no fingerprints or oil from their fingers on it, is if they, in fact, wore gloves. If they were that worried about leaving prints, or considered that bowl some sort of evidence, they would have wiped it clean or just put it in the dishwasher. The culprit or culprits obviously did not think or know that bowl had any signifigance. Had that counter not been clean of all other bowls, glasses, food, etc then maybe they were just messy and left dirty dishes out for a long time. We know they had pancakes for breakfast and all those plates and glasses are cleaned up, so we know that bowl and glass were made after that. Now if we come to the conclusion that the person who made that pineapple wore gloves, then we have to say that it was clearly premeditated murder, with a clear, well thought out plan in place, much in advance of that night.

      Delete
    3. Nice to see some technical info from a real expert.
      ;-)

      Delete
  23. Maybe a foreign faction left it and planted it in JBR's stomach to frame the Ramseys ?! Maybe, anything is possible. I am sure if it was old that LE would have stated that it was old. I am sure pineapple goes bad pretty quickly as milk surely does. I do not know what happens with pineapple sitting in milk or how long that takes to go bad. Is it quicker than if they were seperate ? Had the pineapple came from any other time, anyone or anywhere else then we would have heard about it from someone or found evidence. We have denials of no knowledge for a good reason, obviously. Where did the pineapple in her stomach come from then ? So you are trying to say it is just a coincidence that there is pineapple in a bowl on the counter in the same house the victim was murdered and that said victim has pineapple in her stomach, eaten shortly before death ? Must have been that darned pineapple fairy, he strikes yet again ! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  24. In order for BDI to work, Patsy making that phone call with the body in the house, has to make sense and it just does not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed. Thanks for reminding us.

      Delete
  25. Doc, I was reading some excerpts from Burke's interview with Dr Phil, and I found this statement by Burke a little unsettling:

    "I remember my mom searching my room that night saying, 'Where's my baby? Where's my baby?'"

    See the problem here?
    He said "that night", not "that morning". An innocent mistake, or a Freudian Slip? Not suggesting this indicates he was involved in murdering his sister, but perhaps the search for JB actually began in the middle of the night? Which would certainly change things, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms D....I noticed that comment as well! I had mentioned it and was met with it being a simple mistake and he wouldn't have known because it was still dark. Obviously it helps my cause, but being objective, it is very odd.

      --I love where your head is at right now :-)

      -J

      Delete
    2. Or it might be that to a child dark=night.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I figured he said that because it was still dark outside. To kids, dark = night. But of course, 20 years later, after being so familiar with the details and knowing it was close to 6 a.m, it just struck me as odd. Certainly no smoking gun, though! Don't get too excited yet, J!

      Delete
    4. It perhaps just adds to my belief that Burke may know more than he is letting on. His statement doesn't lend any more credence to the BDI theory, as far as I'm concerned. I'd need a lot more than a (probably innocent) comment from Burke to even consider a scenario that, otherwise, makes no sense at all.

      Delete