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

Hot Off the Press:Doubtful DNA

An anonymous poster (thank you) just linked us to an article titled DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys, from the Boulder Daily Camera of Oct. 27. The lead author is Charlie Brennan, the reporter who sued to get the GJ indictment made public, and a long term student of the case -- he assisted Lawrence Schiller in the writing of PMPT. At first glance this looks like nothing new. The presence of multiple DNA samples at the crime scene was reported some time ago in James Kolar's book. (Interesting that Kolar is not mentioned.) What makes it important is its thoroughness. Brennan digs deeply into many details of this evidence, consulting with and quoting several DNA experts (though fans of Dr. Henry Lee may be disappointed).


For a newspaper article this is unusually long and detailed, but it doesn't take much reading to make the point abundantly clear: the Ramsey case is NOT a DNA case -- the DNA evidence is highly questionable and it was most certainly a mistake for DA Mary Lacey to exonerate the Ramseys on that basis. Since those tiny morsels of microscopic "touch DNA" have been the cornerstone of the intruder theory for years, and indeed the basis for all those many media reports, solemnly reminding us that "the Ramseys have been exonerated and are no longer considered suspects," this one article could make a huge difference. Evidence buried in Kolar's book has now taken center stage in a newspaper article that will (hopefully) be widely quoted in the mainstream media.

What is not mentioned is the reason why Lacey decided to exonerate the Ramseys, despite being warned by her own investigators that the then new DNA evidence was not definitive. I long suspected that Ramsey lawyer and chief bulldog, Lin Wood, must have had something to do with this decision -- and sure enough, if you were paying attention during the Dr. Phil show, you'd have seen Wood proudly admitting that he had threatened her with a lawsuit at the time, unless she took the Ramseys off the suspect list. In other words, Wood essentially blackmailed a sitting District Attorney into exonerating his clients out of fear that she could be sued, and her reputation destroyed in the process. A more sensible attorney would have refrained from trumpeting such an outrageous threat, but Wood's pride got the better of him. It was more important to take credit for getting his clients off than run the risk of admitting to highly unethical behavior. Of course, I seem to have been the only one who noticed, so maybe it doesn't matter.

278 comments:

  1. Actually, I think it;s more about Liberal politics.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. In fact, maybe Lin Wood wrote the ransom note as it would seem that if anyone "so much as looks at a stray dog", they will get sued.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Lin Wood is right.. They have been harassing the Ramseys for years with NO EVIDENCE against them..Its not right.. What if it were your family.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just a thought that maybe the Hispanic DNA connection , possibly of the third person.. is the maid, Isn't Pugh Hispanic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes.. She has a Southern accent.. Thanks.

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

      Delete
  6. A good article no doubt, but its only telling us what we already know. Hopefully it kicks starts something though.

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, when DNA is all you have, you go with it.. Maybe in 5 or 10 years they will be able to resolve the issues with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "you" who do you mean? And how would you have "them" go with it?

      Delete
    2. The article is heavily one sided so it's hard to say what they have and what they dont.. But, just keep teasing out as much as you can.. keep working on it..

      Delete
    3. You.. I mean investigators..

      Delete
    4. Leigh, what intruder/kidnapper is going to hang out in someones house with the whole family home and go through the time and trouble of finding and covering their murdered victim in her favorite blanket ? As if they would know what her favorite blanket was to begin with and even if they did how would they know where to find it or know that it was in the dryer ? Did they search all over the house looking for it ? There is all kinds of evidence against the Ramseys, it is not a matter of is it a Ramsey or is it an intruder, it is only a matter of which Ramsey to arrest. If you cant see all the evidence and things that that make this only a case against "a Ramsey" then you must be completely blind or a Ramsey yourself.

      Delete
    5. JB would have known where her blanket was.. and I have read that Patsy may have gotten it.. either way.. not puzzling.. and he didnt stay in the house for long with the family home. that i know of..He was there for a while waiting for them to come home tho.. Tho, as far as we know, he may have come in after they went to bed as the alarm was not on..

      What evidence against the Ramseys?

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

      Delete
    7. Really Inquisitive ? While you may not be agree with which Ramsey commited this crime, I would have thought you had learned something here. I am really hoping you are playing devil's advocate as I so often do. There is no need for an IDI devils advocate however. I am not going to sit and write all of it out. I normally do not even bother wasting my time on IDIs, I feel sorry them.

      Delete
    8. Leigh, feel free to tell me how this intruder knew which blanket was JBR's favorite. Especially sonce they could not just pull it off of her bed. They instead searched the house and found it in the dryer. Now feel free to tell me who could have known that and how they found that blanket. Any reasonable, logical answer you can give me and then I will keep going.

      Delete
    9. I just answered that.. Either JB got it or Patsy did..

      Delete
    10. "JB would have known where her blanket was.. and I have read that Patsy may have gotten it.. either way.. not puzzling.." PR may have gotten it Leigh ? Feel free to elaborate when she did that then ?

      Delete
    11. I suppose when she tucked her in for the night.

      Delete
    12. That is actually a good answer because there is no one else. There is no IDI but if there was there is 1 and only 1 suspect who would fit the bill and that is the LHP. So you think LHP dod this and that is your theory ?

      Delete
    13. When did PR het that blanket Leigh ?

      Delete
    14. No..I dont know who did it.. Maybe a Pugh connection..Maybe Helgoth.. most likely the Ninja Guy,,

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

      Delete
    16. The guy who reported Helgoth (Kenady) was trying to cash in on the reward money. Period. There is no basis for this whatsoever. You fall for more red herrings than anyone i have ever heard soeak. Thank gawd you are not a detective.

      Delete
    17. He would know the house if he got there at 6 PM.. The nightgown was stuck with static r he grabbed it as he may have the suitcase..book and comforter.. Burke may have put the knife there.. or a Pugh..

      Delete
    18. So JBR went and got the blanket and knife and her favorite nightgown for this complete stranger. Is that your theory ? Pick 1 ...geezus

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

      Delete
    20. How would BR put the knife where the body would be ? Was he in on it too ? If "He" grabbed it, then he would not know that JBR had a favorite blanket or nightgown and would surely not have known where to find it or to look for it in the first place.

      Delete
    21. Ok...Helgoth could not know the details of that house, where the knife was, where the blanket was or where JBRs favorite nightgown was. Your theory of they did not hang around long has to be false because it took a few hours, at the least and much roaming around the house to commit this crime. As far as your PR got the blanket etc that theory is ridiculous. Sure PR might have got it, but then that begs the question of why would she leave her daughter's body down in the basement rotting with police roaming the house if she knew it was there. If she got it while putting JBR to bed, then surely she would have let LE know that little tidbit of info, as she is not trying to incriminate herself with any possible DNA or fibers pr hair hair that was found. Unless you are now claiming that PR wanted to incriminate herself ?

      Delete
    22. Where did you go Leigh ?! I was actually humored for a minute by your jumping around and bipolar type commentary.

      Delete
    23. "He didnt stay in the house for long with the family home. that i know of..He was there for a while waiting for them to come home tho.."

      You lie. And you know you're lying, which is what makes it so disturbing. You know very well your alleged intruder stuck around for up to two hours after hitting her on the head before he garroted JonBenet, then spent a considerable amount of time staging the scene.

      At first, your comments were full of misinformation and truly bizarre theories.....now they're just flat out b.s, peppered with pure fantasy that not even any hard core IDI would swallow. I can't believe Doc let's you so brazenly take the piss out of his blog like this. I'm all for arguing with BDIs, PDIs and even IDIs......but you've gone beyond that, you're comments are something straight out of The Twilight Zone.

      Delete
    24. With less than 2 teaspoons of blood in her brain, she wasnt alive for 2 hours.. or even 45 minutes. So, who is lying here, eh?

      Delete
    25. You're just wrong. The doctors said 45 minutes to an hour. What is your problem that permits you to ignore facts.



      Delete
    26. And some doc's disagree with that..

      Delete
    27. Who? Name names. Plural.

      Delete
    28. Cite your sources, Leigh. "Some docs" doesn't cut it.
      And why are you still posting one line comments over and over again after receiving two, separate, warnings from the author of this blog asking you kindly not to do so?
      What is your game, Leigh? You ignore the evidence, you ignore the rules, you don't like the author, you can't agree with one single person here, you dish out blatant personal attacks when challenged, yet here you remain......

      Delete
    29. I posted a link a couple of days ago on this.. There were multiple doc's, with multiple opinions.. Medicine is an Art and you will always get that...
      You know,, you think you are clever with your snarky remarks but, really, all you are is rude.. .borderline obnoxious... borderline stalker. Get off my back..

      Delete
    30. The three doctors you're referring to did not dissent. One said he needed more information, one was confused as to what defines sexual abuse of a child, and the third you misquoted.

      Ms D's assessment of you is correct in every respect, and not at all snide. As long as you persist in ignoring some facts and misinterpreting others, you can expect to be corrected, and deservedly so.
      CC

      Delete
    31. And Dr John Meyer, the ME who performed the autopsy, found brain swelling. He SAW it, and estimated it took 45-120 minutes. I've already demonstrated the problem with your sexual abuse sources. Please give the names of your "multiple docs" for this latest bit of misinformation.
      CC

      Delete
    32. I can only give you the information, as I have... do with it as you wish... And the facts are that there is no evidence against ANYONE.. not even your suspects.. And if I say I know something, I say it.. If I am not sure I say that too..

      Delete
    33. Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 6(C) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A (stating the "presence of hemorrhage does indicated that the victim was alive when she sustained the head injury, however the relative small amount of subdural hemorrhage indicates that the injury occurred in the perimortem (close to death) period.").)" (Carnes 2003:21).

      http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682478/Head%20Injuries

      Delete
  9. I'm a newbie...

    ...doesn't the article (Boulder Daily Camera) show promise that the case could now become a DNA case with new testing? For the past 13 yrs no DNA match (the new underwear out of the pack test on CBS was highly interesting to me).
    If new DNA testing is done (Y-STR?) could it possibly isolate
    data that may now match someone who was tested years ago with old testing? Let's say the Santa guy matches. If JBR met with him a couple of days prior, would it be possible for his DNA to be transferred to new underwear? What if the match is to some guy in prison who the family has never met? How would that be explained?

    And the RN most incriminating evidence against JR in my opinion is the $118,000 figure specifically mentioned. Normally employers aren't cavalier in letting staff/employees know the specifics of their finances. Did JR leave financials lying around his home office for a person with a key to see?(e.g., maid) No paper shredder? It seems that by mentioning this very specific amount the RN was really DIRECTING the reader toward a disgruntled former employee, business associate, supplier, etc. that had a financial grudge against JR. There are lots of things in the note but to me the $118 is a biggie red flag of JR at the helm.

    And, I googled BR bday is Jan 27--so the 9yr old was a month shy of turning 10 the night of the crime, which is much different than being a 9yr old who was recently 8yrs if that makes any sense. BR admitted to sneaking downstairs and assembling/playing with a toy--I couldn't believe I was hearing this. Dr. Phil asked if he had a flashlite and he
    couldn't remember. I want to know how long he was up that night. No school the next day-when would BR have decided to put himself to sleep that night?? Couldn't JB have gone downstairs, pinched pineapple w/no witness and continued to
    basement looking for her brother? "You're not supposed to be awake--I'm telling" or maybe they didn't have that type of relationship and they just started playing. Was there pineapple in JB intestine? I've read it looked like pineapple but was it tested as pineapple?

    What if BR did the garrotte and hit and JR tried to
    protect both PR and BR. Falls apart when I think about how he
    was taken to a friends house that day instead of at home in his parents' pocket. Unless BR was told "accidents happen, we'll deal with this as a family, we don't want you to have to live in a mental hospital." I'm realizing how ridiculous this sounds as I type. Plus, I can't imagine letting BR leave the house without a police escort or bodyguard based on their other child being kidnapped. Did JR or PR check on their son while he was away that day to see if he was okay? Call?
    Did JR really disappear for an hour?

    I have a question for DocG--what evidence that was presented to the grand jury would you be most interested in knowing? Is there anything that would completely seal the deal on your JDI analysis if you were to learn this info?
    Thanks,
    Kat


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to speak for Doc, but IMO, if the shards of glass remaining in the window had virtually no dust on their edges, indicating the break was fresh that morning, that would seal the deal for me.

      Any evidence more damning than that can be realistically expected to have never existed. For example:

      1) Were skin cells inside JBR's vagina scraped and saved for future DNA analysis? If so, we'd know by now, don't you think?

      2) When discovering JB's lifeless body, Fleet White claims JR screamed out before turning on the lights. The lighting conditions and time of day could be exactly reproduced scientifically to test the hypothesis that without the lights turned on, not even a human with perfect eyesight and night vision could have seen what was on the floor. In fact, it bogles my mind that not even one investigator thought to stipulate Fleet's claim as fact, and then work backwards to see how all the evidence might point to John as the sole murderer.

      I think a more interesting question for Doc would be this:

      Doc: Before you had your epiphany upon seeing John's handwriting, and given you had investigative authority, what one or two pieces of evidence would you have first persued or tested, to combine with what you aleady knew just before your epihany, to solve the case? A related question would be, without the exemplar you did happen upon, do you believe there is still enough remaining circumstantial evidence that could convince a jury JDI beyond a reasonable doubt?

      Delete
    2. Well, first of all: welcome, Kat. To answer your question, for me the deal is already sealed, based on the facts and logic. As I see it, this is all we really need to know to identify the killer. Though of course there's a lot more that needs to be explained before one could hope to convince a jury (or a bunch of people commenting on a blog).

      All I'd expect to get from the Grand Jury would be evidence - and as we know, ALL the evidence in this case is inconclusive. Also extremely confusing as there is no definitive interpretation of any of it. The facts are NOT confusing. Nor is the basic logic to be drawn from those facts.

      I do agree, however, about the broken glass. If the edges were found to be clean, as I feel sure they must have been, that might be enough to lock things in as far as a jury is concerned. Though there will always be someone who insists that this too is "inconclusive."

      I think the lighting conditions were in fact tested, and -- you guessed it -- found to be: inconclusive.

      As for that last question, it's a good one. I guess the one piece of evidence that would have been crucial for me from the start is the one piece of evidence that's never been revealed: the exemplars John provided to the "experts" who ruled him out.

      And if it had been up to me, I'd make sure those experts were made to testify to the Grand Jury and forced to explain their outrageous decision.

      As for your very last question, the one exemplar of JOhn's writing that was released to the public is definitely useful as it demonstrates the folly of ruling John out. But in itself, no, it's not enough to convince a jury. Nor is any of the other evidence I could present. I think it's enough to establish probable cause. But to convince beyond reasonable doubt, I'd need a bit more. I don't think it would be that difficult to get that information, but it would require the services of an aggressive law enforcement officer or investigative reporter.

      Delete
    3. The lighting conditions were recreated.

      "We conducted tedious re-creations in the small room where the body was found, duplicating lighting conditions with the help of a photographic expert with sensitive meters and placing a white cotton blanket where JonBenét had lain.
      John Ramsey had said he spotted the blanket instantly when he opened the door. It was as dark as a coal mine at midnight in there, and to open the door, he would have had to step back to a point where a blind corner would have blocked his view. I stood where Ramsey had been and saw only a wall of impenetrable blackness."
      Lou Smit: “I can see in there.”
      Even with the light on, Detective Gosage said, “I had to step completely into the cellar and look around the corner to my left to see the blanket on the floor.”
      JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 220


      Delete
    4. Thanks Doc for responding to my questions. I appologize for forgetting to identify myself and for any offense you and/or Kat may have taken by my "butting in" on questions Kat meant for you.

      And Kat, I should have started first by welcoming you aboard, as Doc did. As a relatively new "newbie" myself, it's pleasure to have another fresh perspective on the case, especially one who's not afraid to ask questions they think might sound rediculous. Take advantage of your "newbie" status while it lasts and continue to ask all the questions you want!

      Mike G.

      Delete
    5. HKH Interesting.

      "...to open the door, he would have had to step back to a point where a blind corner would have blocked his view."

      He (John Ramsey) DID open the door, so "having to step back to a point where a blind corner blocks (ones) view" is either true or false. Nothing about this exchange between Lou Smit, Detective Gossage, and...anyone else(?) is "inconclusive" because none of it makes sense. The only one "clear", in any sense of the defintion, about what he saw is Detective Gossage. If I were a judge, and it was within my purview (I am not a lawyer so I honestly don't know if it would be), prior to the trial, I'd hold a meeting in my chambers between all the parties present during the "re-creation" and ask a LOT of questions. If they weren't answered to my satisfaction I'd either a) allow only Detective Gossage's testimony or b) order another re-creation where I could be present.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    6. I agree, Mike. I don't know if something like this didn't go any further because the Ramseys weren't indicted?

      Some pictures can be found here, about 1/3 of the way down the page, if you want to check them out...
      http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?129344-The-Wine-Cellar

      Delete
    7. The garrote is an interesting piece of evidence by itself and combined with the ransom note. If the ransom note was staged, the garrote seems like it's part of the staging or vice versa. The ransom note indicated a foreign faction who was well-versed in LE tactics, so garrote staging may add to the "story" of some brutal terrorist/military group. Or potentially the garrote was being used as some auto-erotic/asphyxiation device on JonBenet prior to her death, so the ransom note was written to fit into how JonBenet died. Both are efforts to deflect away from the murderer, but the garrote and the ransom note taken together indicate that murderer wrote the note and constructed the garrote. Note also the person who constructed garrote would likely know where to find such materials in the basement to make such a device. If a foreign faction, why didn't they just bring their own torture devices. It doesn't seem likely that a child would be capable of both, and I just can't see a person constructing such a detailed story/ransom note to fit the crime scene if the writer didn't also commit the crime. The ransom note/garrote looks more like someone tried to make it look like foreign faction committed crimes, but not sure which came first garrote/or/ransom note.

      Delete
    8. er, anon - not AUTO-erotic, surely? That would mean JonBenet was using it on herself for sexual pleasure. Let's rule that one out - the waters are already murky enough...

      Delete
    9. That was typo, I meant erotic asphyxiation or whatever the term is used for such a fetish done to another person, not auto (a child would not do that to themselves, and I don't think a child would garrote another child either). I meant whoever (adult) murdered JBR may have done it because the murderer was a pedophile with such a fetish or it was used as a way to subdue JBR by causing her to lose consciousness.

      Delete
  10. If posts on this blog site in their composite are a microcosm of the forces at play where it really counts--inside the DA's office and Boulder Police Department, the greatest impediment to arresting John Ramsey and bringing him to trial would seem to be a general lack of concensus regarding what ANY one piece of evidence, be it direct or circumstantial, means. Even if John confesseses to the crime tomorrow, I would expect the JDNDI(John-Did-Not-Do-It)ers to reject it (the confession) as falsely coerced, just as I would expect an e-mail released by the FBI tomorrow, sent by Hillary Clinton to the Syrian government thanking it for its "campaign contribution", to have no effect on the upcoming election! Sorry everyone, I'm just in a glass-half-empty bad mood.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree. But for me the big problem is the necessity of weaning the authorities away from depending on evidence and encouraging them to pay more attention to the logic. People have gone off in all directions based on inconclusive evidence and assumptions and always the flaw in their thinking can easily be revealed by considering the logic of the case as a whole. Unfortunately most LE officials tend to gravitate toward evidence and get careless with logic. That's what I love about a detective like Columbo, he thinks logically. Before he can decide who did it, all the pieces have to fit.

      Delete
    2. Or Detective Inspector Alec Hardy from "Broadchurch." Played by David Tennant. I'm a big BBC network fan.

      Delete
    3. Love broadchurch and the missing

      Delete
  11. Hey, Doc. Were your ears burning last Friday? ;)

    You're mentioned on a few pages of this thread, but this is the lengthiest post I've read so far. (It's a little before the halfway point on this page.)

    http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T3CJJ9OU97MIO0NJN/p12

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just received the following via email, from someone having difficulty posting here:

    I've been following the case and this blog from Aus. Do you know that JR did an interview with a journo here not long ago, after he said no more. Search podcast: Meshel Laurie Nitty Gritty. The thing i took from this is PR and her cancer. She knew she'd never live to see her kids grow up. Thinking about it this way, i just don't think she had anything to do with this. But do believe she was brainwashed into believing it was an intruder. Agree with some of the comments here, she probably did suspect JR over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One major problem with the IDI (among countless) is the staged scene at the train room window. Even if you believe someone entered with a key, that doesn't explain the staging in that room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Zack, precisely. Thanks for reminding us.

      Delete
  15. Replies
    1. The freshly broken glass. The ransom note. The duct tape on her lips which was applied after she died. (If she were alive there would be smearing as she would move her mouth trying to remove the tape from her mouth) The rope that was so loose around her wrists that you could fit your hand through it. I expect you to ignore all of this, and continue with your Ninja guy nonsense.

      Delete
    2. Does this look loose to you?

      http://www.acandyrose.com/AnatomyColdCase031.jpg

      The tape was applied while she was unconscious

      How do you know the RN was a staging.. there is no evidence that it was

      Delete
    3. The other arm had the loose string. You're right there isn't any evidence of it, but you have to use logic to see the silliness of the note. Even I will agree that handwriting analysis is pseudo-science EVEN if it supports my own theory.

      Delete
    4. Well the culprit is a psychopath whether you believe RDI, BDI, JDI, PDI, or IDI.

      Delete
    5. Thats another thing you all do here... assume that the intruder and RN writer is a normal, fine upstanding citizen..

      Delete
    6. Why couldn't that be the case? Let's pretend you entertain Ramsey guilt. Wouldn't it make sense to create a sadistic intruder to cast suspicion off yourself?

      Delete
    7. It would make more sense to write a 2 line note why elaborate.. Because he is a psychopath.. The RN is ALL about HIM...

      Delete
    8. Your point actually works in my favor. If it were an intruder they would write a few lines and get to the point. Not write a near 3 page note giving the perpetrator a flexible timeline to improvise if need be.

      Delete
    9. Im bad.. Im clever.. I know about you. I control you..See what I can do..I can do what I want..I know your secrets.. and so on..

      Delete
    10. I see you take the note at face value Melinda.

      Delete
    11. Not necessarily..its just revealing about the writer.. Patsy didnt write this.. a pageant princess didnt write it..

      Delete
    12. Its LEIGH.... John has no history of this sort of behavior.. NO books or movies like this.. Theres nothing there.. He is a computer geek and an engineer.

      Delete
    13. Re read the note as if the person was talking about your daughter .. Then you will get it..

      Delete
    14. I disagree with your assessment Melinda. There have been plenty of murderers in the history of crime who have hidden in plain sight and had a believable, "normal" facade.

      Delete
    15. Yeah bit they all had some dark history when examined.. Like killing animals as kids.. kind of weird.. beating his wife... a hermit type Something!

      Delete
    16. Melinda, I've watched enough true crime to confidently tell you that there are cases where a perpetrator with no concerning prior history commits a crime.

      Delete
    17. Yes but they dont write 3 page RN's like that

      Delete
    18. Nobody has Melinda! This is the only case in criminal history where a 2.5 page ransom note was left with a body still in the house.

      Delete
    19. Only because she screamed.. his plan came to a quick end. He is not as smart as he thinks he is..

      Delete
    20. He wasn't a computer geek he just sold computers. He had Mind hunter by John Douglas that is a blueprint on how to stage a crime.

      Delete
    21. That would imply premeditation..

      Delete
    22. omg... Whats the motive.. And they dont know who was reading the book.. Was it fingerprinted? Maybe the intruder left it for them.. I could be wrong but didnt they say they didnt own that book?

      Delete
    23. Melinda may be on to something. Maybe if jbr didn't scream the note would have been 10 pages longer with MLA format.

      Delete
    24. CC presented a good case of premeditation. Book was on Jr's side of bed. There,was no intruder. You are just talking to yourself here.

      Delete
    25. Linda Wilcox "John's side of the bed was usually some kind of suspense-thriller. He tended to buy books by, what I call, by the numbers, I mean whatever's number 1 on the bestseller lists. Occasionally it would be something like the 7 habits of successful people, or financial things or even a (didn't hear) occasionally. But, generally it was some kind of suspense novel."
      Men read those type books..

      Delete
    26. Another of your generalizations that mean nothing and have no value. PR read historical romance. Mind hunter was Jrs.

      Delete
    27. Its number 2 on Amazon best seller list..20 years later

      Delete
    28. Ahem. What Zack was referring to was the staging at the basement window. Broken glass, suitcase, smudge on wall, packing peanuts from window well strewn on floor. If the perp entered with a key then how do explain these items? Not to mention John's fabrication about breaking in the previous summer.

      Delete
    29. But only you say it was "staging." Broken glass, suitcase, smudge on the wall, packing peanuts - doth not a crime make. According to Burke his dad did break in - a few times, and let him in the door on one occasion.

      Delete
    30. OK, if you prefer, don't call it staging. Whatever it was it was NOT something someone entering with a key would do. And even John said the suitcase didn't belong there. So how did it get there? Who put it there? And why?

      Delete
    31. The intruder put it there to take out JB.. he couldnt exactly walk around with a dead body over his shoulder..

      Delete
    32. The smudge and glass was from Johns prior entry.. the peanuts were due to the open window and they blew in..

      Delete
    33. "And they dont know who was reading the book.. Was it fingerprinted? Maybe the intruder left it for them.. I could be wrong but didnt they say they didnt own that book?"

      So, let's get this straight. The Intruder-Ninja-Kidnapper-Sexual Predator-JR Framer doesn't come already prepared with his own ransom note.......but he makes sure to remember to bring a copy of Mind Hunter with him?
      Is that seriously what you're asking us to swallow, Leigh? (Or Melinda......you'd have to be a Ramsey if you believe an intruder tries to frame a guy by putting a crime book near his bed.....I imagine some child pornography would have been a wiser choice, wouldn't you agree?)

      Delete
  16. It amazes me that John was so successful at stage managing the media into believing his creations in the note. He was lucky at absolutely every turn of this case. I guarantee he can't even believe his luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Zachary.
      I'm sure JR still pinches himself every day!

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inquisitive: are you seriously IDI and take the note at face value as a disgruntled former employee or someone with a grudge? This is disappointing, as you are a very logical and intelligent person.

      Delete
    2. You mean he memorized it, INQ?

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

      Delete
    4. Hmmm thats a thought.. Maybe he did plan on leaving her behind , hoping the JR would pay out without calling police or finding the body...I mean, seriously, he couldnt exactly walk down the street with a screaming 6 year old...or carrying a dead body, now could he.. :) I will have to mull that one over..

      Delete
    5. We've been over this before, but . . . what the Hell, one more time:

      1. The Pughs were not highly educated and lacked the vocabulary and linguistic skills to write that particular note.

      2. An intruder with a key can't explain the scene at the basement window.

      3. Nor can it explain John's clearly fabricated story about breaking in via that window the previous summer.

      4. If the reason for the kidnapping was to collect money, then why the odd ransom demand of $118,000?

      5. Also, if they were after money, then why play games by returning the notepad to the kitchen to make it look like she was murdered by someone in her family? And if that were part of the scheme there would have been an attempt to forge John or Patsy's hand, which was not the case. John was ruled out and Patsy was a 4.5 out of 5: "unlikely." Also, it looks very much like the note was written in imitation of a computer font, as a means of disguising the writer's hand. That's NOT how you forge someone else's writing. So what was the point of returning the notepad?

      6. If the plan is to hide the body in the house to make it look like she was kidnapped, then why wait a full day before calling with your ransom instructions? Why not make that call as soon as possible, before your victims have a chance to find notice an unsavory odor emanating from the basement?

      7. What good would all that money have done the Pughs anyhow? As soon as they attempted to spend it they'd be asked where they got it. They would have know from the start that they'd be suspects.

      Delete
    6. The Pughs would have had an accomplice.. and had to split the money... spending what they had slowly..Maybe move away ...

      Delete
    7. Thats where Helgoth may have come in

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

      Delete
    9. First off, if I found a ransom note laying at the bottom of the steps, as the mom, I probably would only get through the first couple of lines and then make a B-line to my daughters room and then to my sons all the while yelling out her name. My husband or me, at some point would need to read the rest of the note to figure out what is happening. Both of us would search the house top to bottom and then make a decision as to whether or not call the police (per the instructions in the note). So, it makes no sense the kidnapper, with full intent of receiving the money, would leave the body in the house, unless they knew 100% the Ramsey's would not check that room and would not call police. Secondly, if I was the kidnapper and knew where the knife was kept, I sure wouldn't be telling the police that would I?

      Who wouldn't search their house (and outside) if their child is missing? I wouldn't accept that ransom note as real until I knew for sure my child was no where to be found.

      Delete
    10. Knife - she wanted to cast suspicion onto Patsy, by saying only she and Patsy knew where the Swiss Army knife put away. And we all thought poor little Burke did all of this, and retrieved his knife from the closet. Anyway, I did. I for one want to see Linda Hoffman Pugh's handwriting sample, or her husband's. Or whoever she brought with her. Or gave her key to or all of the above.

      Delete
    11. They had removed Christmas trees from the wine cellar area a few days before..didnt they.. They could have used the knife then..

      Delete
    12. Well, it's not like the Pughs would go out the next day and buy a new house, two new cars and a motor home! Obviously, they'd wait a while before spending the ransom money, and do it slowly, over time. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    13. "Oh my God, I would never do anything like that"

      Interesting. According to the geniuses on the CBS Special THAT sort of statement would be a dead giveaway. Just like they were able to identify something similar said by Burke as a dead giveaway. So maybe Burke and Linda were in it together. OR: maybe it's not always that easy to tell whether or not someone is lying based only on "statement analysis."

      Also:

      1. I never said Linda and her husband were of low intelligence. I said they lacked the sort of education consistent with the language of the note. So yes, they would have to have had an accomplice to write it for them. Gee I think I know who it must have been: how about Darnay Hoffman? Hoffman could have made the call also, since the Ramseys would not have recognized his voice.

      2. The timing of the call would have been crucial. If you want to collect a ransom while the body of your victim is lying in her own home, you want to collect your money as soon as possible before that body is discovered. Why wait a whole day before calling the Ramseys with your instructions? Yet the note is very explicit. Their call will come "tomorrow" between 8 and 10 AM. And "tomorrow" meant tomorrow for sure, as banks don't open before 8AM and the ransom was supposed to have been collected by then.

      3. Now once again: yes, Linda had a key. But someone entering with a key would have had no reason to make it look like a breakin at the basement window, especially since it would have been obvious that no breakin had actually taken place.

      4. And I'm sorry, but it's just not possible to get past John's story about breaking in earlier. Yes, Burke did mention ONE incident where John broke in via that window, but that was obviously on a different occasion. Maybe that incident is what gave him the idea of coming up with that story for the police. But that story is clearly false, as should be obvious to anyone reading the police transcripts and asking himself how the Ramseys could possibly not recall whether that window had been repaired, or how they could leave a broken window as is, without even placing some cardboard over it, for a period of six months.

      5. While some so-called "experts" have been able to find certain "matches" with letters allegedly penned by Patsy (but very possibly penned by Burke), the overall look of the ransom note is totally different from the look of ANY document penned by Patsy. Her style tends to be very clear and consistent, while the ransom note is messy and inconsistent. There was clearly no attempt to forge her hand. And as we know, John was ruled out. So how can we conclude the note was intended to frame either Patsy or John? In fact the writing is so cleverly disguised the note could almost be seen as an alibi. And if forgery was not the intent, then why would the Pughs bother to return the notepad to its original location?

      Delete
    14. Anon 2.32pm - "Who wouldn't search their house (and outside) if their child is missing?"

      I think that's an extremely important point, and I'm sure other parents here of a child of roughly that age would agree that pure parental instinct would not let you sit still for one moment, you'd be searching high and low, anywhere and everywhere your child might be. Everywhere.

      Is there anything on record indicating that either John or Patsy searched outside? The garden? Me, I'd be sprinting up and down the street, heart pounding.

      You'd do that if your little child was missing, wouldn't you?

      Delete
  18. New Hot off the Press Information Regarding Mary Lacy

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-opens-cleared-ramsey-family-jonbenets-murder/story?id=43106426

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I feel for Lacy -- just as I felt for Lou Smit. Both were sensible enough to realize the absurdity of any scenario pointing to either Patsy or Burke. And since John was off the radar, thanks to his being "ruled out," then the only alternative they could see was an intruder. Any other conclusion would have been a "horrible travesty of justice," to quote Lacy. And given the choices her limited view of this case afforded her, she would have been right.

      The key element lacking in literally every scenario ever posed by law enforcement is the possibility that John could have done this on his own. Meaning that the clear evidence of prior molestation would just be swept under the rug. Or, as in Steve Thomas's case, absurdly attributed to Patsy, despite the fact that in the vast majority of cases adult males are responsible for such attacks.

      The decision to rule John out was his Get Out of Jail Free Card. Even Thomas was happy to give him a "pass." My oh my oh my, what a huge joke on all of us.

      Delete
    2. Doc:

      I have yet to encounter while searching the internet or in the library, or while watching any televsion show or documentary, another expert on this case who believes JDI even half as adamantly as you do. This leaves me nonplussed, given how convincingly you've argued the case for it. From statements you've made, apparently you are, or have been, in touch with behind-the-scenes investigators, at least one of whom, believes John is probably guilty. When you have been face to face with these investigators, or with amateur sleuths familiar with the case for that matter, as intelligent as you, yet who are still uncertain WDI, what is the greatest doubt you have had to help them eliminate, to convince them that your theory, at the least, makes the most sense? My guess is, it's John as the author of the Ransom note (since obviously that explains "Ruled In" as the title of your book), or, what you've admitted may be the one weak link in your theory, that Patsy was gaslighted by John.

      The D.A. in the article I posted said, and I paraphrase, "there isn't enough admissible evidence to bring the case to trial." Do you have ideas about what evidence he deems inadmissible? And is it logical, albeit not necessarily correct, to infer that, were all the evidence he has in his possession admissible, he'd make arrest immediately?

      Mike G.

      Delete
    3. Oh smh, Mary Lacy still going on about that "butt print". At a house that so many had trampled through. And just like those that spout you can't say when the bowl of pineapple was put out, no one can say when the "butt print " was left.

      Delete
    4. Yes, diamond lil, thank you. Lol. The butt print and the Burke print. If you're already convinced of an intruder, then that butt print is proof positive. How else could it possibly have gotten there? Same with Burke's fingerprints on the pineapple bowl. If you really need proof positive, then confirmation bias is your ticket, no question.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Mike, for your very thoughtful and intelligent question. I'd say the greatest impediment is the conviction of so many that Patsy must have written the ransom note. Even Cyril Wecht, who feels sure she was killed by John ("accidentally"), told me he was convinced Patsy wrote the note, based largely on the verdict of a forensic doc specialist he held in great esteem. (However, after reading my book, Wecht altered his position just a bit, saying he couldn't be sure who wrote the note.)

      Given the very dramatic differences between Patsy's writing style and that of the note, the certainty on the part of so many that she MUST have written it could only have had its source in the decision to rule John out. Given the extreme unlikelihood of an intruder, that decision imo colored the perceptions of just about everyone following this case, and confirmation bias then took over. Once such a mindset becomes established, it's almost impossible to overcome it, no matter how much logic and evidence people are confronted with.

      It's true also that many of the objections we've seen presented on this blog are in fact not all that easy to overcome. There is no direct evidence of John's involvement (aside from the comparisons with his writing compiled by Brugnatelli and myself), no history of child abuse or anything close, no clear motive if child abuse is discounted, and of course the decision to rule him out is still accepted as gospel by just about everyone following the case.

      It's an uphill battle for sure.

      Delete
  19. And btw, each of these investigators had little pieces of the puzzle figured out but not the whole picture. How often does that happen - many many times. Cases go cold for that very reason.

    Not an intruder in this case like some slobbering sex fiend bent on killing a little pageant princess (think about it, there was nothing sexual about this particular assault) but someone known. Someone familiar with the house and when it's occupants would be out, someone who planned it, someone who wanted money, someone who disliked PR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a lot there on the Pughs.. I think they blew off her husband too quickly

      Delete
    2. I'm genuinely confused now, Inquisitive!
      You said you were a proponent of PDI in the early days (if I'm mistaken, I do apologize), then started to think along the lines of JDI after reading Doc's blog.....then after the CBS special last month, you became a very vocal supporter of BDI. You now, in the space of a couple of days seemingly, have migrated over to the IDI team.

      I don't know what to make of your comments at this point. How can anyone take you seriously, when in the space of months, you have vacillated between every theory?!

      Delete
  20. You might ask, why not ask for more money? What if they had asked for 5 million. Wouldn't that have been more difficult for John to get together quickly? You bet. And it would have attracted the attention of law enforcement. And $118,000 a great deal of money to these individuals. To her and her family. Being in the house three days a week right on up until Dec. 23, she would have seen the check laying around or known what was in his account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one suggested the "kidnappers" ask for the ripe, old, sum of 5 million though.....just an "even" amount, such as $120,000, $150,000 or maybe $200,000, which genuine kidnappers usually do. Then again, genuine kidnappers tend to keep ransom notes brief, and they usually abduct the person they're demanding the ransom for, don't they?

      Delete
    2. That was deliberate... to taunt John.. This is a psychopath.

      Delete
  21. So far here Leigh has been the only one to be brave enough to suggest an intruder did this, it goes against popular opinion but doesn't make it any the less plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think he went there to kill.. Arent most kidnapping victims killed.. I think he garroted her once and thought she was dead.. BUt she awoke and screamed.. so he yanked hard and fast on the garrote, which tore her skin.. to shut her up.. Then hit her in the head .

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, I don't agree with you on the sequence, but that's okay!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, thats ok... no one really knows anyway.

      Delete
  24. Okay, Inquisitive I get what you are doing. You've cleverly joined another camp so we can start debunking the IDI theory again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can TRY.. but you wont succeed.. :)

      Delete
    2. Well, so much for the pineapple. I'm glad we've gotten past that one.

      Delete
  25. Inquisitive, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to find out who killed JB. However, you change theories more often than most people change their underwear. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats good ... be open minded...

      Delete
    2. Having an open mind, and allowing oneself to be easily influenced/persuaded are two different things.

      Delete
    3. Well I do have a good argument :) There is NO evidence against a Ramsey.

      Delete
    4. HKH that would mean I change my theories once a day then, if I'm like most people :)Seriously think how many of us changed out theories in the last 20 years - probably more so in the early stages.

      Delete
  26. In fact, everything points away from them.. The fact it was their own child.. the brutal nature... the sex abuse.. a RN... You really have to spin that to make them look guilty

    ReplyDelete
  27. Inquisitive: why the sudden change of heart to IDI? You were adamant about BDI, and definitely thought it was an inside job. I find it difficult to understand the leap in judgment. Did the Little Miss Blu book have that much of an impression on you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't completely adamant on the BDI, but anyway I do feel like I have had my Aha moment as J said and whether it was LHP and her husband or some other accomplice this fits for me in a way that thinking any of the family members could have done it did. I don't know when JB would have ingested the (here we go again) pineapple, however, but then not everything is going to fit neatly into a little box. Some here have suggested it was fruit cocktail anyway (Woodward). In 20 years they have tried to find something, anything, that the Ramseys did this and could not. Patsy said right off her housekeeper should be looked into, but once LE turned their focus on her, she had other things to do. Like defend herself. Where is the handwriting sample of LHP? She was told they would come back for it, did they? It WAS an inside job. From someone who had a key, who knew the house intimately and the habits and comings and goings of the family. Knew they would be out Christmas day/evening, knew they were leaving the next morning, knew how much money they had and probably had lying around in the form of a bonus check, knew the layout of the house, knew where she had put Burke's knife, pulled the blanket from the drier, brought the cord and tape with her ,ever wonder why the rest of it wasn't found?, because they took it with them when they left, ever wonder why they couldn't find a match for it in the house - because they brought it with them when they came and took it away with them when they left. Read chapter 1 of the book LHP tried to peddle. It's nasty against Patsy with a capital N. It just all fits to me now. Don't worry, I won't veer off onto another theory unless I get royally debunked here. Good luck to you trying and I mean that in an encouraging way.

      Delete
    2. One thing Little Girl Blu does is establish a motive for Linda to wreak vengeance on Patsy. Judging from what she's written, she'd been seething with resentment of her boss for a very long time. The assaults in Linda's book are truly vicious. Yet she has nothing but good things to say about JonBenet.

      As with so many theories of this case, Little Girl Blu can be convincing -- but only up to a point. Beyond that point, no.

      Delete
    3. she called JB a spoiled little brat many times, was resentful that they didn't have a hamper to put their clothes in, recommended they get one, none was gotten, and hid Burke's knife from him in a closet as he was whittling and she felt put upon having to clean up the shavings. She lied that she told Patsy where she put the knife. Only she knew where it was, and she took it out that night as part of her staging to lie near the body or the room as if to say she told Patsy where it was and Patsy must have come down here and torn this tape and cord with it.

      Delete
    4. Yes, what you are saying is that there are reasons for suspicion and I agree. However, if you look into the evidence pertaining to any of the other mentioned at various times as possible suspects, you'll also find reasons for suspicion. What this tells us is that suspicions are not enough.

      The Ramseys remain the leading suspects in most people's eyes because, unlike any of the others, it is known that they were present at the time and thus, unlike the others, obviously had an opportunity to commit the crime. And if we take the evidence of prior abuse seriously, then we certainly do see at least the possibility of a motive for John to have killed her, to prevent his abuse from being revealed.

      The fact that the note was written on a notepad from the house also very strongly suggests an inside job -- along with the pineapple (or fruit cocktail) residue in her digestive tract, as she would not have accepted that from a stranger.

      When we add to that the many lies, evasions and suspicious actions on John's part, then the evidence of an inside job becomes very difficult to ignore. On the other hand, there is absolutely NO evidence of Linda's involvement, nor is there any conclusive evidence pointing to ANY intruder.

      Delete
  28. Doc,

    How does Burke's story that John broke into that window numerous times affect your theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke refers to ONE time, NOT numerous times. Where did you get that? And no it doesn't affect my theory in the least. Burke's account is convincing. John's is clearly a fabrication. Read the transcripts and you'll see why.

      Delete
    2. It's also possible that Burke was prompted to tell that story. Just as he was most likely prompted to stretch the truth about what happened prior to the 911 call.

      Delete
  29. Nice entry DocG on the Daily Camera news article.

    Wanted to say something to my blog buddy J on your post under the "granddaughter". I agree with you up until the JFK lone shooter. When I read that it came to mind about the "pristine bullet". Earlier today I was at the gun range and picked up a lot of brass and made me think of that info from back in the day. My parents talked a lot about the assassination while I was growing up. The injuries don't add up to one rifle. However today the French WWII rifle did slide fire three different times. Here's an article that's pretty interesting http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/was-jfks-assassination-a-conspiracy/multiple-shots-prove-jfk-assassination-was-a-conspiracy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the CIA or Mafia or Mossad, or any other such group wanted to assassinate a high profile figure such as JFK, the last thing they'd want would be to generate a conspiracy. The more people involved, the more likely the word will get out. You find a sharpshooter, you position him where he can't easily be spotted. He waits. He shoots. No need for a whole mishpucha to get involved.

      I've never followed the JFK case, I must admit, and I'm sure there are some things I'm not aware of, but I just don't see the point of a conspiracy if all you need is to shoot someone.

      Delete
    2. Oswald was set up to take the fall as some kook.. There were more then one guy in the building shooting. In case he missed or chickened out.

      Delete
    3. It was the Cuban Mafia.. and some US insiders..CIA possible.

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

      Delete
    5. For those not prone to absurd conspiracy theories, reading the entire contents of this site should leave you in no doubt that Oswald was a nut and killed JFK with no assistance:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/

      Like the Ramsey case, it's actually far more simple than some people want to believe.

      Delete
  30. Mike G you posted upthread about trying to get an arrest and an agreement on evidence and such. I know Boulder isn't anything like Birmingham but I was a juror on a capital murder trial where the FBI also testified (RICO act was involved as well). This was many years after JonBenet, but there was no DNA introduced, no fingerprints, and no murder weapon. It was mainly witness testimonies. However, the defendant took the stand, and that did help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did you get the idea I'm from Birmingham?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. I served on a jury in Birmingham, Alabama . Which is not like Boulder, I'm assuming. To show that orher cities do bring cases to trial with less forensic evidence.

      Delete
  31. A footnote to the Daily Camera piece. Now that it's become clear that the DNA is not necessarily that of JonBenet's attacker, a whole huge can of worms has opened up. Because lots of suspects, including John Mark Karr, were excluded based mainly on the lack of a DNA match. I urge all law enforcement people in the Boulder area to read the first three posts on my blog and learn who really did this crime -- because going back to page one and re-assessing ALL those many perfectly innocent suspects is going to be a HUGE pain in the butt. I've made it easy for you, folks. Take advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I heard the police say that they went to S. Carolina? and found the JMK was there at the time..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JMK was photographed in Georgia at the time JB was murdered in Boulder.

      Delete
  33. Leigh Too

    I have learned a lot from Doc since joining this blog site. I'm still learning from him. May I suggest you go back and read the following that was, and continues to be, very helpful to me.

    Saturday, September 24, 2016
    Assumptions, Speculations, Logical Inferences, etc.

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

      Delete
  34. Mike G posted an ABC link earlier which I commented on about Mary Lacy and her "butt print" she saw in the house that also helped her rule out the parents. Here's a Daily Camera article on it as well, from Friday.
    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30517990/ex-da-mary-lacy-cites-butt-print-defense

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Okay, Inquisitive I get what you are doing. You've cleverly joined another camp so we can start debunking the IDI theory again."

    Clever? It's called trolling. In the span of a week he has went from BDI to PDI to IDI and in a couple days will be JDI, then it will be back to BDI. Last week it was BDI saying "all questions have been answered" and "it's the only thing that makes sense". Each time I have checked this blog this week he pretends to believe in something else.

    It's a game to him and anyone who will treat the case of a murdered six year old girl as a game shouldn't be indulged. He doesn't believe anything he is saying.

    Leigh Too is trolling as well but that is a much more basic form of trolling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, dont you think highly of yourself..almost like someone here should give a damn about what you think..

      Delete
    2. We give way less of a damn about what you think and you talk in the same self sure high handed way.

      Delete
    3. Melinda thinks she has more authority on this because she's family. Remarkable how she flails around just throwing names into the mix, names against whom there is certainly no actual evidence - but then demands absolutely cast-iron solid 100% evidence that any of the Ramseys were involved.

      Melinda, your double-standards are so obvious it's embarrassing.

      Delete
    4. lol Oh, now thats funny! Me, convicting people without evidence? lol I have given possibilities.. As I have said before; I dont know who did it.

      Delete
    5. No one has suggested that anything you say is convincing.

      Delete
    6. Oh right, just possibilities. Melinda, do you concede even the possibility of this murder being an 'inside job'? Because if all you're doing is discussing possibilities, you seem 100% determined to deflect from even the slightest possibility that anyone in the/your family caused her death. So you think it's not even possible? you think it is literally impossible?

      Delete
    7. I never said that anyone was innocent. I just said that there is no evidence against a Ramsey... The facts of the case.. The RN , brutality and the garrote lead me to believe it was an intruder..

      Delete
  36. "Burke refers to ONE time, NOT numerous times. Where did you get that? And no it doesn't affect my theory in the least. Burke's account is convincing. John's is clearly a fabrication. Read the transcripts and you'll see why."

    Yeah I'm unsure why some here think the latest BDI hoopla would shake the foundations of your JDI theory. If anything, it bolsters it. For starters, Burke has John up walking around with a flashlight in the dark. I guess that Melatonin didn't quite do its job.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Geez, 98% of posts on this blog are based on pure fantasy and theories based on zero evidence. I mean, all of your theories have merit and COULD possibly be true, but with zero evidence its really impossible to tell. I think IDI is ludicrous. And JDI isn't that far behind. All I know is that based on the timeline and the circumstancial evidence we do have, BDI is the best theory without a shadow of a doubt. And not that I really care what CBS portrayed, but it is nice to know that a panel of experts (with so much more experience than any of us by a country mile) agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If BDI did it, what is the explanation for Patsy calling the police WITH the body in the house? Or supposedly writing a note on her very own pad?

      I wonder if the police have ever sat down and questioned why she would use her own pad if she wrote it.

      Delete
  38. If anything I just want the truth, and ultimately, justice. But I want that for alot of missing, murdered, kidnapped, and exploited children. I'm trying to look at the whole picture. Doc's point is why was John ruled out - what was it about his exemplars that did not fit the writing of the ransom note. And although I do not believe John did this why so quickly come to the conclusion that he would not, and could not,have written the note.

    I also don't understand why Steve Thomas, a lead investigator in the case from the get go would have a conversation with LHP that red flags would not have gone up all over the place decides Patsy must have done this based on false information delivered by LHP, very biased information for reasons in that dark mind of hers I can't fathom. Then the investigators get together and decide to make a case for an inside family affair and the blinders were put on and left there. Yet, they could find nothing that would indicate the family had anything to do with it. Nada. Nothing. JB didn't even wet the bed that night (and I "heard" from the Media early on that she possibly did, what a distortion) and you watch - the Lifetime Movie coming out in a week or so is going to start with a wet bed, so wrong). Well, they will start with the 911 call, then the camera takes us on a tour with John and an officer, close up of a wet bed. I can hear Lin Wood now.

    John was "cordial" according to Linda Arnt, just "cordial" over and over again she states. She looked in his eyes when he brought up his daughter and they had a "moment" and she knew (but wouldn't say - leaving it to our imagination as there is the always ever-present Lin Wood at the ready).

    And Lin Wood is correct in wanting testimony from those that presented the case for not indicting the Ramsey's. But sadly the only one who "leaked" her testimony was, you guess it, Linda Hoffman Pugh. She tried to peddle a nasty little book for publication that got nowhere, then she claimed Patsy and John (with the emphasis on Patsy) indicated she had something to do with in their book "Death of Innocence" and attempted a lawsuit with the assist of Darnay Hoffman, that was later dismissed as Patsy and John didn't really say she did it, but read Hoffman Pugh v. Ramsey and you can see how preposterous the lawsuit was. But then LHP not only didn't collect the $118,000 but she was also out of a job.

    And when the media gets involved as they so often do when a crime involves a pretty little white child and in this case from a prominent family, then a lynch mob mentality starts to taint the case and everyone piles on.

    In Steve Thomas's book he states they went to the Pugh's house and collected all kinds of evidence, black tape, white lined notepads, one from the Ramsey house, two keys, three felt tip pens, a twofoot piece of narrow nylon rope, another length wrapped around a stick and what does Steve Thomas say about this possible (more like probable) evidence? "AS a detective, that was what I would have expected when investigating the murder of a child" (Thomas & Davis 2011).

    So where is it? Why did they not think it relevant? Was it tested against the black tape found over JB's mouth for cutting marks the same as the piece that was cut that night? What about the cord? Was the cord found in Merv's garage consistent with the cord found wrapped around JB's neck and wrist? Did they match the knot tie to the one found in the Paugh home? This is startling to me. What having blinders on can do. And this is the department that wanted to give John and Patsy a lie detector test.

    But I do want to address a few of the points Doc asked above, yesterday afternoon or evening. And whether John wrote the note or not, he's right, no one should have been ruled out in the search for truth. And if they were, on what basis. A hunch isn't good enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda and her husband were thoroughly investigated, I can assure you. They were named very early on as suspects, and you can be sure team Ramsey would have investigated them as well as the BPD. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd taken a polygraph. Samples of their writing must have been examined as a matter of course, and their DNA would have been tested (not that that would mean much). These are not terribly sophisticated people and it's hard to believe they could have pulled the wool over the many experienced eyes focused on them from the start.

      If they were after the ransom cash they'd have been sure to phone in with their instructions as soon as possible, not wait till "tomorrow," and if the intention was to frame Patsy they'd have been sure to make the note look as neat and clean as her writing style, not messy and irregular.

      Linda turned on Patsy because she was outraged at being named as a prime suspect and her anger was fueled by NY lawyer Darnay Hoffman, who was eager to anything in his power to nail Patsy to the wall. Her book was prompted by his promises of big money and he also very likely encouraged her to testify against Patsy at the Grand Jury hearings.

      There is not a shred of evidence that either Linda or Mervin were involved. Patsy had agreed to advance Linda the money she had requested, so there was no urgent need in that department either.

      Delete
  39. Leigh Too is most certainly Melinda Ramsey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zach...just curious why you think Leigh Too is Melinda Ramsey?

      Delete
    2. Seriously, if I were Melinda Ramsey, would I be posting here?

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

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think the odds of Patsy NOT knowing what happened that night when making the 911 call are a million to one.

    And if that is the case it blows Doc's theory out of the water. Not to mention how absurd it would be for John to actually do ALL of that by himself...just doesn't make any sense.

    Given the above PLUS the circumstantial evidence PLUS the most likely timeline of events...I just don't see how it's even possible to consider anyone else other than Burke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you have said...over and ovrr.

      Delete
    2. Just like everyone here keeps saying John had to do it...over and over

      Delete
  42. Please elaborate why you think PR knew what happened to JBR that night, because PR seems to me like a mom who was completely in the dark about what happened to her daughter and hysterical when called to 911. The pineapple and glass with prints from BR and PR indicate that they were in the kitchen at some point, PR fibers on duct tape could be from transfer or maybe the murderer even brushed up coat to tape to deflect; PR would not have been emotionally together enough/or had knowledge/or been sadistic enough to garrote her daughter or go along with it and write ransom note. It would be much easier for one person to commit crime, keep a secret and keep everyone guessing including family/friends. I think people mistake PR's emotionally fragile state/quirks and physical too as indicating knowledge of some kind. Easier to pick on the mom who was a basketcase that her daughter was murdered in brutal fashion instead of looking at the vicious and brutal nature of crime and levels of deception involved, that does not point to a mom/child, but to some adult that had rage issues/conflicting behavior towards JonBenet, sexually assaulted her, sexual undertones of strangulation/garrote, but covered JBR in a blanket and changed her panties. For the ransom note to have such a personal hate/grudge against JR, why was JBR's murder so personal/intimate to JBR?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've said it all before, but one more time...

      1. The lies. Oh so many lies. How many times have we found discrepancies in things Patsy said? Over and over. And no, it wasn't to cover for John. She never would have covered for him in a million years over the death of her daughter. If you were innocent, your story would never change. Not once. But hers did as she crumbled under the pressure and that is why John preferred to do most of the talking and watched her like an eagle whenever she spoke. Even to the point of mimicking her rehearsed words under his mouth.

      2. The 911 call was staged. Yes she did a good job and yes it was always going to be Patsy who made that (not John) as she simply could do a better job at that task than John. But, there was serious red flags in that phone call. I mean she didn't even mention JB's name!! And she also said "What!?" during the phone call because the question (which was spoken very clearly by the operator) wasn't expected...this meant she had to leave her script and she uttered that word to give herself time to think. Plus she just hung up!!? I mean, that is not normal. You would be hanging onto every single word they said until help arrived at your door. She wanted to get off the phone as soon as the scripting was finished as to not implicate herself. Oh, and she remembered the exact acronym SBTC (and the word Victory) even though she had only "scanned" through the RN. Yet she said SBTC in perfect order and the note was not in her hands. How did she remember that? Because she wrote the letter.

      3. She was wearing the same clothes. Yes, that may be normal sometimes but it's awfully suspicious as well.

      4. If it was John, she didn't notice he was gone all night and John took that gamble? I don't think so. I know there are heavy sleepers and light sleepers but I think people are really grasping at straws if they think that happened.

      5. The RN was most likely written by Patsy. I certainly see it and most experts agreed that it was most likely her. Plus for me, there are some very feminine words in the RN that John just would not have wrote. And if there was a possibility John did write it, Patsy was certainly dictating to him. The odds of someone else other than Patsy writing that RN are very slim.

      6. Her refusal to cooperate with police. If it was your daughter you would do EVERYTHING in your power to find her. You would co-operate with EVERYONE. I don't believe for a second that John controlled this entire situation and that Patsy was so drugged up that no co-operation occurred.

      Plus to the above poster, I never said Patsy garroted her daughter. In fact, I strongly deny that fact.

      I would love to agree with Doc's theory and join the bandwagon but the evidence just does not add up. Patsy had to have known and then that points at Burke. Of course, the odds that Burke just so happened to be up that night (what a coincidence) and it just happened to be Christmas (kids high on energy, couldn't sleep - what a coincidence), the fact he didn't finish the pineapple that he made for himself (what a coincidence) and the fact that JB was with him with her pillow (what a coincidence) and a flashlight was potentially used which kids use in a house, not parents (what a coincidence)...I mean I could go on and on, but it all ties back to Patsy knowing.

      Delete
  43. An ah ha moment --- For the BDI theorists (or not), I just came across an interesting blog where a young lady describes the molestation between herself and her brother at around the same age as JB and Burke. It got me to thinking…. suppose Burke and JB had played “doctor” on previous occasions, and on this night, they both snuck down (Burke admits he did) to play with their new toys, and Burke approached JB to play doctor. He got too rough with her and she wanted him to stop. He got mad and hit her, or shoved her, or jabbed her hard with the train track causing her to fall, thus causing the head injury. We could assume he hit her with the flashlight, but it could have been wiped down solely because it was used in the staging that came after. If we believe there was a loud scream as heard by the neighbor, it most likely woke PR and/or JR up (you don’t sleep through your child’s scream), or they heard her scream regardless. Burke didn’t have time to cover up the fact they were playing doctor, and PR/JR soon realize what they were doing (they both knew it happened previously). JR takes Burke to his room and PR tends to JB realizing she won’t wake up…. she sees the blood, etc. JR tells BR not to come out of his room and goes back to PR/JB. Here’s where the ah, ha moment comes in --- Burke is unaware that JB is dead or dying. PR and JR come up with the plan to cover up the death/molestation. She may have had a seizure; her heartbeat is very faint and they think she has died. JR goes back and tells Burke JB is fine, and to go to sleep (maybe they even sedate him). When Burke awakes in the morning he is told that someone kidnapped JB and that’s what he believes...he doesn’t think he killed her. He may be confused, but he knows he got caught playing doctor again and that’s why he doesn’t come out of his room…he knows dad is mad at him, and that’s why he keeps his mouth shut. Dad lets him take his Nintendo when he leaves the house to keep him occupied, and is confident he won’t discuss the molestation. I don’t think Burke did the garrote as part of the molestation because he would have left his DNA on the rope, etc. Yes, at some point (one would think) Burke would have to put 2 and 2 together, but Dad convinced him an intruder killed JB because of the garrote/strangulation …he wouldn’t believe his mom or dad could do that. This is not BDI, or PDI, or JDI, it’s a P+B+J-DI. PR and JR didn’t have time to think through every detail (i.e. the conflict between the RN and calling 911, and leaving he body in the house). They fully intended to call 911 and had to do it before their 7:00 a.m. flight. They fully intended for the body to be found by the police (right away). Instead of the RN, they should have just written a few lines that said “I killed your baby because …such and such …and she’s in the basement,” but for some reason felt a kidnapping/ransom was more believable – someone watched too many movies. The RN was overkill so-to-speak (no pun intended). There is not one killer, there are two (BR head blow, and JR strangulation), and a third that helped cover it up.

    Danni

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly a good theory and definitely possible!
      I do think the odds of Burke and JB "playing doctor" or "experimenting" make much more sense than John sexually abusing his daughter (in this particular case).

      Delete
    2. If JBR were an adult victim of murder under the exact same circumstances, what would profile of murderer look like? What would you think of adult victim, what would adult JBR be a victim of? This is an adult crime and I think JBR was victim of abuse. It's too complicated/sophisticated than just children playing doctor that got out of hand. Jmo/

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. The most interesting thing about the flashlight is that John has gone from not being able to recognize it when interviewed by LE to, twenty years later, spinning a tale about using it the night of the murder.
    CC

    ReplyDelete