(NB: Due to copyright considerations I've been warned not to directly reproduce any of Cina Wong's comparisons on this blog -- so I've done the next best thing by posting the appropriate link above.)
I took another look and decided to respond with some comments of my own regarding this particular document. And now, thinking about it some more, I realize that my observations are relevant enough to warrant a blog post of their own. Here's what I wrote in response to the image linked to by Zed (with some additions and edits):
While the two "d"s at the top might look similar at first glance, if you look closely you'll see that the one on the left was formed using two strokes, while the one on the right was formed using three. The method of forming a letter is far more important than the way it looks, but Wong either didn't notice the difference or didn't care.
Here's a clearer image of the first two comparisons, which makes it easier to see the very obvious difference between the two letter "d"s: https://www.google.com/search?q=cina+wong+comparisons+Patsy+ramsey&safe=active&rlz=1C1AVST_enUS355&espv=2&biw=823&bih=448&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89-uOiOfPAhXFcj4KHXHCAJAQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Xh94OcPAdeyRCM%3A
When reproduced with less clarity they can look almost identical, yes. But as the more detailed reproduction makes clear, this is an illusion.
The following "S" is from the photo caption, "Rainbow Fish Players."
So are two other exemplars from this same page of comparisons, the "o" and the "b". Now if you look carefully at the caption as a whole it looks very different from all the other examples provided by Darnay Hoffman to his "experts." And it shouldn't require an expert to see that "Rainbow Fish Players" was written in a different, more uncertain and irregular, hand from the other captions. Looks rather juvenile I'd say, and was possibly written by Burke or maybe one of his pals. A competent document professional would have caught that, but NONE of Darnay's "experts" did.
The third example on the list is from a badge containing the caption "I'm Marilyn Monroe." It was written in large block letters in a manner totally different from the manner in which the ransom note was written. The similarity is therefore completely fortuitous and means little.
As for the exclamation point and the "g," they look totally generic to me -- something very similar could be found in the writing of literally millions of people.
So no, this is NOT evidence pointing to Patsy, nor is it reasonable to assume that the person or persons who penned these letters wrote the ransom note. All it tells us is that Cina Wong was, and probably still is, a totally incompetent amateur, blithely cherry picking for whatever she could find to "prove" what Darnay wanted her to "prove."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you're referring to regarding the deposition of Gideon Epstein. What right would a defense lawyer have to refuse the display of evidence? Can you provide some context?
DeleteI never heard about any exemplars by Patsy wearing gloves, or any request of that sort -- where does that come from?
And she did in fact provide the police with left hand exemplars -- which look nothing like anything in the note, as I've demonstrated with word to word comparisons.
Where are you getting your information from?
The deposition of Gideon Epstein was taken by Wood, on his nickel. It's scope and subject matter were entirely his choice. According to the deposition transcript on acandyrose, he did not "refuse to allow" comparison charts or exemplars wearing gloves, or those taken using the left hand - he simply wasn't interested in them and did not ask that they be produced. To suggest that Wood suppressed them somehow is untrue and perjorative.
DeleteCC
Further, the transcript of Patsy Ramsey's 12/01 deposition does not identify exhibits by description, merely by number. There is no mention of Epstein's comparison charts, gloved or left-handed exemplars. Pages 50-62 involve a discussion of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10.
DeleteCC
Lin Wood correctly resists Darnay's effort to entrap Patsy by tricking her into agreeing that there is a resemblance between certain letters written by her and letters from the note. First of all, the comparisons are obviously cherry picked by someone eager to find any two exemplars that bear some resemblance to one another. Second of all, as Wood states, Patsy is not a questioned document professional so her opinion on this matter would be meaningless.
DeleteObviously there are some similarities. But as any professional in this field will tell you, a proper assessment would balance similarities and differences, which none of Darnay's experts did. When we back away to compare actual words and sentences, the differences in writing style are dramatic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe copy of that deposition that I've seen is not page numbered. But I did a search on both "left hand" and "Epstein" and didn't see any place where Lin Wood refused to allow a chart by Epstein to be submitted. He did insist that some of Darnay's remarks be expunged from the record, but didn't mention anything of Epstein's, nor did he refer to Patsy's left hand sample as far as I could tell.
DeleteDoc - you make some good points and obviously you have studied each letter comparison much closer than I have. But they still look the same to me. And I know for a fact that I often write different all the time. Handwriting, block letters, extremely neat and tidy, fast scribble so even though the RN is the best piece of evidence, there is just so much conjecture over handwriting and proving who it matches. Just as a test I picked a few random letters in the RN and then compared them to the same letters in the RN. Guess what? All of the random letters I chose were written in multiple styles within the note. So which one do you compare??
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that it could very well have been John and he should NOT have been ruled out as easily as he was. 100%. But I also strongly believe it was Patsy who wrote it for other reasons which I've mentioned before. If I am wrong and it was John, then I think Patsy was right by his side whilst he wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor a detailed critique of the reports provided by Darnay Hoffman, I refer you to the series of blog posts titled "The Experts See Patsy." There are serious flaws in all these reports, strongly suggesting that their results were due to confirmation bias, encouraged no doubt by their eagerness to comply with Darnay's wishes. But you can read what I've written and judge for yourself. Lin Wood's deposition of Gideon Epstein is particularly revealing. Note especially his evaluation of Cina Wong and his response to Wood's question of why he considers his opinion superior to that of the analysts hired by LE.
DeleteParticularly words beginning "th" in Patsy's exemplars where the h is higher than the t, what other exemplars are there of Johns other than the slip claiming damages
ReplyDeleteThat court document was the only example of John's writing available to the public until very recently. A brief note very likely written by John has emerged recently, but it's written in cursive script, so can't easily be compared to the note which was written in manuscript style (like the court document).
Deleteevej, check out David Liebman's findings on the Darnay Hoffman files as well - comparing RN letters and Patsy's. Startling! Tom Miller says Patsy wrote note as well. Their resumes are also on file - impressive.
ReplyDeleteThe pitfalls in comparing isolated letters on the basis of visual similarity alone should be evident from what I've written in the above blog post. And if the "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar was not written by Patsy, as seems evident, then the whole enterprise falls apart, because many of the comparisons are based on that one phrase.
DeleteI did compare all Patsy's exemplars that are available and do see a high volume when comparing, it's very strange that with John's work etc, there are no other examples of his handwriting available
DeleteWho Killed JonBenet Ramsey? Bosworth, Charles; Wecht, Cyril H.Graymalkin Media. Kindle Edition. (OCT 2016)
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading this book. Dr. Wecht dissects the Autopsy Report and provides his detailed expert analysis in layman's terms. He believes (and explains why) JB was additionally molested within 48-72 hours of her death.
He states the molestation(s) were likely a "controlled" digital penetration (not like an aggressive rapist). He also says she was shaken (bruises to her brain right behind her temples on both sides), and suggests this may be a result of the perp trying to awaken her after the autoerotic asphyxiation accidently pinched the vagus nerve in her neck which caused her lungs and heart to shut down. He said that due to LACK of injuries that are common in a strangulation (i.e., damage to hyoid, thyroid, trachea, tongue, etc.), in his opinion the intent was NOT to strangle JB to death.
Regarding the head fracture, he said it could be the flashlight, a golf club or something similar (smooth surface without sharp edges). He said due to lack of "organization" of the blood cells in the areas of the blow (scalp hemorrhage), and the small amount of blood under the skull, the heart was not pumping blood or she was near death (agonal)when stuck. He believes the blow to the head was to cover up the molestation.
He does not state who exactly he thinks killed JBR, but doesn't believe it was an intruder (for all the same reasons as have been discussed in this blog). He mentions both Patsy and John as the possible culprits.
(Reposting this as I posted on the wrong page)...
VSO
I've already gone over Wecht's take on the strangulation and explained why I respectfully disagree. I won't go into all that again. You can do a search if you like.
DeleteI've discussed the case with Wecht and he agrees that John is by far the most likely to have killed her -- though in his opinion it was an "accident." (If strangling your six year old daughter while sexually molesting her can be regarded as an "accident.")
Anyone could have written Rainbow Fish Players on that photo, it was a polaroid afterall.
ReplyDeleteI watched the documentary Killer Revealed yesterday, the scenario Det. Steve Thomas puts forward about Patsy seems convincing. I'm not saying I believe it, but he makes a good case. What part of his theory doesn't fit to you DocG?
See the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-deux.html
DeleteThe deposition of Gideon Epstein was taken by Wood, on his nickel. Its scope and subject matter were entirely his choice. According to the deposition transcript on acandyrose, he did not "refuse to allow" comparison charts or exemplars wearing gloves, or those taken using the left hand - he simply wasn't interested in them and did not ask that they be produced. To suggest that Wood suppressed them somehow is untrue and perjorative.
ReplyDeleteCC
Where can I find a link to the autopsy report ?
ReplyDeleteacandyrose/ramsey
DeleteFurther, the transcript of Patsy Ramsey's 12/01 deposition does not identify exhibits by description, merely by number. There is no mention of Epstein's comparison charts, gloved or left-handed exemplars. Pages 50-62 involve a discussion of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10.
DeleteCC
Where can I find a link to the autopsy report ?
ReplyDeleteYou can do a Google search.
Deletetall1: autopsy -
Deletejonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf
In repyly to VSO above, who said:
ReplyDelete"He believes the blow to the head was to cover up the molestation."
(This was referring to Dr. Wecht autopsy report).
I don't buy this. So he thinks the headblow came after?? And he thinks it was to cover up the molestation?? This is a headblow that left no blood or visible signs from the outside. They didn't even know her skull had been cracked until the autopsy.
All signs point to headblow coming first and then and hour gap where the parents try and figure out what to do.
The bruising behind the brain makes sense. I imagine John or Patsy finding what Burke did and then vividly shaking their daughter to try and wake her up.
Zed, can you imagine Burke doing both though? There is a big difference if she's found dead than if she is found injured but still breathing - as to what you would do next. There's the time lag though - 45 min. to 2 hours.
DeleteTall1cooks - the Daily Camera has a Ramsey archive (Colorado newspaper) that has the autopsy, as well as the Ramsey 2001 depositions, as well as many other articles on the early coverage.
ReplyDeletehttp://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/
I also did a search on DocG's blog and did not find the Bonita Papers mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIt's a long read, but mentions many connected in the beginning -to the police department, neighbors and friends to the Ramsey attorneys and investigators. Lots of typos and misspellings but interesting to read back what was being written about in 1999.
http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm
Fyi the "Rainbow Fish Players" caption is Burke's writing. Make of that what you will. -FF
ReplyDeleteSorry - you already noted that! - FF
DeletePlease post the source ypu got that from saying that is BR's handwriting .
DeleteYes, please cite your source, Anonymous, as I cannot find any such information - no one knows who wrote the captions as far as I can tell.
DeleteIf the writing in the caption does indeed match the hand writing in the RN, and Burke wrote the captions, clearly you're implying Burke wrote the ransom note.
Along with being a diabolical murderer and sexual deviant, he was also quite a clever, articulate, nine year old boy, wasn't he?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI find it odd and probably quite a bit of effort involved to NOT have anyone you know or any of your handwriting get out to the public with a case of this magnitude. I could be wrong here but it sure seems to me that over 20 years something other than that slip would have leaked out .
ReplyDeleteAs well as an original copy of the note was not provided to many of these handwriting experts, and they had to compare letters from scraps of writing from both parents written some time in the past. Cina Wong said (as well as Liebman and Tom Miller) just by looking at the comparisons and the note they could not analyze "speed", "pressure", or "actual size." All three produced extensive resumes and asked to be allowed to testify in front of the grand jury and Alex Hunter turned them all down (his assistant D.A. sent them a rejection letter). Darnay Hoffman of course found this to be prejudicial in the extreme and unfair in the least. I'm wondering who was allowed to testify? The Ramsey handwriting expert? Does anyone know the list of those who testified before the grand jury?
ReplyDeleteInqui - it was reported Chet U.the handwriting expert did testify. Here is a news article copied about that on acandyrose
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm
Also, look under the daily camera as there are numerous articles written about the grand jury
Deletehttp://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/topics/index.html#grandjury
Thanks for the link. That page contains a (partial?) list of those who testified:
Delete"Some of the people known to have testified before the Ramsey grand jury:
Mike Archuleta -- Private pilot who was scheduled to fly the Ramseys to their Michigan vacation home the day after Christmas 1996.
Linda Arndt -- Now-retired Boulder Police detective, the first investigator on the scene.
Dr. Francesco Beuf -- JonBenet's pediatrician.
Debbie Chavez -- Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensics expert.
John Douglas -- Former FBI criminal profiler hired by the Ramseys.
Michael Everett -- Among the first Boulder Police detectives assigned to the case.
John and Barbara Fernie -- Friends of the Ramseys who were summoned to the home after JonBenet was discovered missing.
Richard French -- One of the first Boulder patrol officers on the scene. He searched the house shortly after arriving, without locating JonBenet's body.
Ron Gosage -- Boulder Police detective working the case from its first days.
Pam Griffin -- Ramsey family friend and seamstress who assisted with JonBenet's beauty pageant costumes.
Jane Harmer -- Boulder Police detective involved in the case from the beginning.
George Herrera -- CBI fingerprints expert.
Linda Hoffmann-Pugh -- Ramseys' housekeeper at the time of JonBenet's death.
The Rev. Rol Hoverstock -- Minister from the Ramseys' church, summoned to the home in the first hours of JonBenet's disappearance.
Larry Mason -- Boulder Police sergeant removed from the case in its second week when he was wrongly accused of leaking information to the press.
Dr. John Meyer -- Boulder County coroner; he performed the autopsy on JonBenet.
Fred Patterson -- Boulder Police detective, among the first on the scene.
Carol Piirto -- Burke Ramsey's third-grade teacher.
Merv Pugh -- The husband of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh; he had done some work at the home a month before the murder.
Burke Ramsey -- JonBenet's brother, now 12, the only person other than her parents known to be in the house at the time she disappeared.
Lou Smit -- Retired Colorado Springs homicide detective who worked on the case for the district attorney's office.
Tom Trujillo -- A Boulder Police detective on the case since its earliest days.
Chet Ubowski -- Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting analyst who concluded that Patsy Ramsey may have written the ransom note linked to JonBenet's murder.
Barry Weiss -- Among the first Boulder patrol officers at the Ramsey home.
Fleet and Priscilla White -- Ramsey friends called to the house the morning of JonBenet's disappearance. Fleet was in the basement with John Ramsey when the child's body was found.
Tom Wickman -- The Boulder police detective sergeant who has supervised the investigation since the early days."
Huh. Y'know who leaps off that list, Doc, as noticeably incongruous with the rest? Burke's third grade teacher.
DeleteCC
this is gold, thank you.
DeleteI noticed that too. Wonder what she was asked and what she had to say, and why bring her in?
DeleteWhat do you make of that, CC?
DeleteDo we know that this list is complete?
DeleteDAS don't present frivolous witnesses to grand juries, so Hunter and Kane must have felt she had something to say that pertained to the murder, and it must have been about Burke. At first blush it looks ominous for those of us in the JDI camp.
CC
So does this information change things as far as JDI? Or do you suggest that JDI, but Burke was maybe privy to more information than we know?
DeleteCombined with the two indictments the GJ returned against John and Patsy it seems suggestive - to me - that they found BDI.
DeleteCC
Wow.
DeleteIndeed. But read those carefully worded indictments again, and give me an alternative explanation for the teacher's appearance on that list of witnesses - keeping in mind that Dr Beuf was also Burke's pediatrician and may have given testimony regarding him as well as his sister.
DeleteCC
Also notice George Herrera from CBI, a fingerprint expert. No other CSI witnesses - just a fingerprint expert.
DeleteCC
OMG. CC, I'm astonished. You should know better. A nine year old could not be accused of murder one, yet that's the crime noted in the indictments.
DeleteAlso, as we know, Hunter made clear from the start that Burke was not a suspect. Thus the presence of his teacher cannot mean what you're implying it means. As I recall, there was a rumor that Patsy's communications with one of Burke's teachers went from hand-written to typed after the murder, and according to Steve Thomas and probably some others that was a sign of guilt -- for some reason that eludes me. It's possible the teacher was included for that reason. Or she might have been a witness to the security provided for Burke (or lack of same) after the murder.
The notion that the authorities somehow knew that BDI, and kept it secret for 20 years, meanwhile expending millions of dollars on a meaningless investigation, is beyond bizarre.
Thanks, Doc. Only excuse I can offer is that I'm two days post-surgical and literally dopey.
DeleteCC
i have a very solid theory as to what happened in this case
ReplyDeleteEverybody does.
DeleteListen carefully! We are interested in hearing your theory. :)
DeleteOh I swear some of the comments here are funny.
ReplyDeleteThanks diamondlil I"ll look. I'm interested in who all of the players were when the Grand Jury was convened. Is Chet U. of some renown? Does U stand for Ubowski?
Ubowski ruled out John and also Burke. Duh. A Chimp could rule out Burke. Makes you wonder though Doc, what his criterion was for ruling out John. And I guess, to sum up, once again the Ramsey's skate because no one can agree on anything.
ReplyDeleteI have a question.John Ramsey offered a 1000 dollar reward if the perpetrator is caught.If JR gets convicted,does that mean he will still have to pay it?
ReplyDelete100,000
ReplyDeleteLOL. That will be the least of his worries. What can we do to him if he doesn't pay? He'll already be in for life.
DeleteI wanted to know and want to make sure I am getting paid before I turn him in.
DeleteY'all have probably already heard this - Lifetime Movie will air "Who Killed JonBenet?" Nov. 5. "JB" will be doing a voice over talking about the night she was killed. You can watch a preview clip on the lifetimemovie network channel on the internet.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I cant stand shows/movies like CSI and Law and Order or dramatic movies on lifetime. I find them cheesey. Yet my TV stays on channel 83 (ID Channel) for weeks without being changed. Give me a real life documentary and I am in.I feel like with this case, a movie like this will just equal more disinformation. I have never watched that first movie either and I cant imagine we will learn anything we do not already know by watching it.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way, Keiser. Were you ever able to catch the documentary "Southwest of Salem?" Minnesota Linda
DeleteYes thank you Linda. I did fall asleep through part of it though :) They definitely got railroaded bc they were lesbians, I think it was total BS what they did to those girls.
DeleteYes thank you Linda. I did fall asleep through part of it though :) They definitely got railroaded bc they were lesbians, I think it was total BS what they did to those girls.
DeleteYep, but I will watch it regardless. They have already said nothing new will be presented, so I'll just go into it with no expectations. If I can get it without subscribing - we'll see. I just have a feeling it will be a PDI, since they will be having an actor play Steve Thomas. (Or so I read.)
ReplyDeleteThanks DocG for getting the names posted. I use my phone most of the time to access your blog so not easy to copy and paste much.
ReplyDeleteBtw, from one of those two links it was written that the grand jury also toured the Ramsey house. Irrc, the housekeeper was said to have given a total of 8 hours of testimony to the grand jury. After 13 months of being seated and hearing statements I think it would seem a very thorough presentation.
It seems the jury was swayed by evidence and testimonials and not by the family's connections, money, status, religious faith, and local political allies.
Here is something very interesting about DNA and people that have undergone special treatments for cancer. A post on topix earlier tonight was wondering about Patsy's treatment, and that a female can leave male DNA if the have had stem cell treatment.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TVKGBFA5695846SOB
This is the article that is referenced https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578715/
ReplyDeleteScroll down to the conclusion part about how biological "stains at crime scenes should not be based"
I can't sleep. I've come up with a scenario in my head that most of you would consideration bunk. However, so I don't suffer from insomnia again tomorrow night, will you kind people remind me of the most obvious reasons that Merv and/or Linda Pugh can't be considered legitimate suspects? Thank you! Minnesota Linda
ReplyDeleteThis has been my theory for years, doc will say they didn't have the vocabulary/college degrees to use such words as in the RN, there is now so much evidence of contradiction and lies by both the parents I'm on that it must be a cover up by one or both.
DeleteThey aren't suspects because there is NO evidence of their involvement. And they've been thoroughly investigated.
DeleteThe more interesting question is whether the possibility of their involvement could be used to support reasonable doubt if John is ever indicted. After all, they had a key, they had a motive (need for money), they were familiar with the house -- and the long list provided by Linda of things that only Patsy and her knew about could cut both ways. The new book Little Girl Blu (https://www.amazon.com/Little-JonBenet-Inside-Circle-Theory-ebook/dp/B0149IE9M8/) attempts to make a case based on that sort of evidence. And, up to a point, it does seem convincing.
However, as with so many "intruder" possibilities, the principal barrier is the "ransom note." In this case, it's hard to believe that Linda and Mervin would have the verbal skills to write in the manner of a highly educated person. It's also hard to believe they'd want to leave a hand-written note that could be traced to them, especially since they would have known they'd be prime suspects from the start. Something much simpler written in block letters or printed would have been far less risky.
And if their intention was to make it look like an inside job by returning the pad to the kitchen, then they'd have attempted a forgery. Yet none of the handwriting professionals who examined the note ever suggested anything like that. Since forgery cases are their bread and butter you'd think they'd have spotted one in this case.
Also, if they entered using a key, then how do we explain the scene at the basement window, with that suitcase sitting flush against the wall and those packing peanuts from the window well strewn on the floor?
Finally, what were the Pughs planning to do with the ransom assuming they'd been able to collect it? Any sign of new wealth on their part would be seen as highly suspicious and they'd be asked to explain where it came from.
What clinches it for me, however, is John's fantastic story about breaking in earlier, which simply doesn't add up, and, as I see it, is unquestionably a contrivance, in effect an alibi, intended to point away from the fact that he broke that window on the night of the crime to stage an intruder break-in. Once that lie is exposed, then any hope of arguing for an intruder, or even the possibility of an intruder, falls to dust.
I'm trying to see a good visual of that window on the net and cannot. I see plenty of pictures of the window well, and Lou Smit climbing down, etc. But one picture shows the broken glass above one of the latches. It appears there are three windows going into (or out of) the basement and the broken glass is above one of the latches. IT looks to me like anyone who would have broken it there (John says he was locked out a while back and had to break in) would cut themselves pretty badly reaching in in unlatch the window. I think we can safely eliminate his story of breaking in prior, and it's very unrealistic to think that he would have chosen to go in that way when most of us carry spare keys to our home or could just call a locksmith to avoid breaking a window. Why did he feel the need to break the window the morning of the crime in the first place? He states all of the windows and doors were locked (except later says the butler door may have been open, harrumph) but wouldn't it have been simpler and less spurious to have simply unlocked one of the latches? Now he's not only got broken glass he has to make up a story about, but has second thoughts and has to clean it up and dispose of it somewhere where an investigator may find it.
DeleteNot sure what your point is. You make it clear you aren't buying his story about breaking in the previous summer. And if that's a lie then it follows that he must have broken it on the night of the crime. Obviously he felt the need to break the window to stage an intruder break-in at that point. Sure, he could have opened a door, or at least unlocked one. So he must have felt a broken window would be more convincing. There've been many cases where windows have been broken to stage an intruder, so I don't see why John's actions would be so hard to understand.
DeleteThe need to make up a story and clean up the glass was NOT part of his plan, obviously. He was forced to do that because his plan was foiled by Patsy when she called 911.
Right, I don't think anyone buys he broke in the previous summer, but he wouldn't have had glass to clean up had he simply unlatched that latch as a point of entry - of course that may have been less obvious to police, so he would have had to have pointed it out. I would love to know just what the police found when they finally did a thorough search of the house.
DeleteGreat site! I would like to post my theory here. I think JBR was the victim of child abuse from one of the parents. They then staged her body and wrote the RN to throw off the police. Jr and Pr then purposely left clues like the practice ransom note in the garbage and one in the pad purposely to make the police think that the intruder had been there for a long time. Let me know what you think! Janet
ReplyDeleteWhy would they need to leave practice ransom notes in the garbage to imply the intruder had been there a long time? The 3 page ransom note itself took a considerable amount of time to write, and there was a 45 min - 2 hour gap between the head blow and the garroting. So it is patently obvious - practice ransom notes or not - that the "intruder" was there for many hours. At any rate, the notion an intruder would hang around the crime scene for hours was unbelievable from the start and only further pointed towards John and Patsy's involvement, so I'm not sure why you feel they would intentionally stage it this way: what could they possibly have had to gain?
DeleteRandom thought, but it was always very suspicious tat Patsy said during an interview that "two people know who did this, the person that did it and the person they confided in"
DeleteThat seemed like a confession to me.
It was part of their staging. Ibcant figure out why anyone woukd write a ransom note in their own handwriting and hand it over to police to try and point to an intruder outside of the house either but they did it.
DeleteI understand you believe it was part of their staging, but I'm asking you how that could have possibly pointed towards an intruder? What you suggest actually points towards The Ramsey's as the guilty party, so the question I'm asking you is why on Earth would they have done that?
DeleteAs far as the note goes, you already know the answer, assuming you've read Doc's post regarding the matter.......if you haven't, it begs the question why you chose this blog to comment on :)
This entire blog revolves around the note, who had to have written it, and why.......
"two people know who did this, the person that did it and the person they confided in"
ReplyDeletePatsy believed the IDI. The note implied at least 2 intruders were involved. So, her saying that is not suspicious.
Doc did you spend any time in any of your posts on what was found in the Samsonite suitcase - a blanket that contained John Andrew's semen? John Andrew's bedroom was right next to JonBenet's, the floor under the top floor where the Ramsey's slept. Why would that blanket end up in the very suitcase that John moved around in the basement, odd place for a blanket with semen on it to end up don't you agree? I'm searching for what else was in the suitcase, a Dr. Seuss book, but correct me if I'm wrong. Why was absolutely no significance placed on "the other blanket."
ReplyDeleteI too can't see the significance. Which is why I haven't spent any time on it.
DeleteDo you think it is worth looking into?
DeleteJohn Andrew was thoroughly investigated, as far as I know. He also has an iron clad alibi. What's more, I don't believe for one second that Patsy would cover for her step son if he murdered her daughter. And, again, if it were an intruder (JAR), the ransom note doesn't make sense.
DeleteThis case is not making sense for several obvious reasons. If one is to look at the history of the Ramsey family, and analyze each family member individually, you can start putting together a theory that fits the events of that night. From what we understand, John was a workaholic who was married to his business more then he was to Patsy. You can almost say that it was a marriage of convenience by doing the necessary family functions but really not fathering to a degree. Patsy loved the life style and the role she played. I believe she was a devout mother and involved herself greatly with her kids but the majority of the time was towards JBR. BR was really left alone to play his games and in my opinion would be classified as a loner. There is obviously a great ore detail that needs to be added to the family history, but im sure everyone here has done their homework.Now to the events of that night and why this case is so confusing. I am a strong believer that logic and common sense always rule and in this case there is only one logical explanation that makes sense. I believe that the Ramsey story is 90% accurate and at the same time the theories formed and causing confusion is caused by their accuracy. Theory #1 PR accidentally killed JB due to a bed wetting. This theory doesn't make sense because there is no evidence of history from PR to indicate such violence not to JBR or to BR who had a history as well and in fact if any rage was to be shown it would be ore towards BR with the feces incidents. I am not implying that JBR didn't wt her bed that night, i believe evidence shows that she did. But i don't believe this was the cause of the incident.Theory #2 JR is a ped and killed her during abusing her. There is no evidence that indicates this man fits a pedi profile. throw this theory out the window, i believe that if that was the case he would have gotten rid of the body to hide any evidence. Theory #3 BR hits her in the head with a flash light because she may have taken a piece of pineapple. A logical theory, however lets think about this for a few minutes. If my son hits my daughter in the head why would i go through all that garbage to cover it up especially if she was still alive, i don't believe for 1 second that PR would have allowed anyone to choke and stage with any chance she could save her daughter. This theory does not make sense. So what makes sense? No the intruder theory doesn't either. I have a theory that makes sense using the evidence a the sequence of events and truly believe that it is the only logical one. I will lay out my theory step by step and post it tomorrow. MH
ReplyDeleteWe wait with bated breath.
DeleteYes because nobody ever posted their very,own theory that they thought was the only logical one.....much.
DeleteSo you write a lengthy essay detailing why all accepted theories are bunk, tell us you have one of your own that does make sense, but stop short of telling us what said theory is.....
DeleteReminiscent of Hercule, is it not?
DeleteI too am curious to hear what this theory is. I'm going to guess, based on the first part of Anonymous' statement, that his/her theory is also full of conjecture and speculation.
DeleteIndeed, "tomorrow" has come and gone. As has the day after. And still no theory, even though it is "the only logical one". We're all ears......where is it?
DeleteAfter reading your comments, AMD, I went back and reread the interviews John gave about the window. John claims that he broke that window the previous summer. He also says that finding the window partially open that morning wasn't unusual for him, because sometimes it was opened to let cool air in, because the basement could get hot in the winter.
DeleteI never thought about it before, but why would they have to open a window to let in some air, if the window was already broken? Wouldn't plenty of air flow through the broken pane? Why didn't police address this same point with John?
All rhetorical questions, of course.
1) You can commit incest and not be classified a pedophile. 2) It's possible since Patsy doesn't say JB wet the bed that night or that she changed her panties that JB got up and changed into the panties herself that Patsy said she wanted her to buy (the oversize panties).
ReplyDeleteShe may have also used a cloth that was handy to wipe her self off, one that contained a fiber from John's sweater. She was age six. Not a little baby incapable of washing herself off and changing her panties.
Patsy did not say JB wanted her to buy the oversized panties,she said she bought them for her niece, as Doc and CC already corrected you on before.
DeleteThere is something really bothering me though, about the bed wetting. Patsy said she changed her out of her jeans and into the white "longjohns for sleep. Steve Thomas said the bed had been wet (urine residue on the sheets, which were dry). Yet her bladder gives out in front of the wine cellar in the basement at or before death, and she's wearing the long johns. And Keiser, you too wondered if she wet the bed earlier (Lou Smit said she did not) would she have enough urine in her to soak her longjohns where urine was found outside the cellar door. These dots do not connect.
ReplyDelete@Inq, perhaps she wet the bed on a previous night. If it wasn't a ton of urine, it could have dried and gone unnoticed. Therefore, the sheets not being changed.
DeleteI guess. But her blanket was in the drier, you would have thought Patsy would strip that bed and put on clean sheets since the housekeeper said that was the one thing she constantly did - the laundry.
DeleteThis is the type of "speculation" people get hung up on when they fail to stick to Doc's methodology of drawing logical inferences from established facts. There are many reasons why JBR may or may not have urinated at the time of death. Her bladder would not have needed to be full. From the time she was awakened to the time of her death has been estimated to be anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes. She may have a glass of water along with her fruit cocktail or pineapple for all we know.
DeleteI DO know this from having a medical background. The body does amazing things to ensure its survival. Blood pressure depends on a confluence of factors including cardiac output, systemic vascular resistence, heart rate, and how much "fluid" is circulating in the bloodstream. The body will shunt blood to the brain and heart at the expense of other organs to survive; what blood pressure wants, it works hard to get, even if that means forcing other organs to squeeze out every drop of excecss fluid through any available orifice. Voluntary systems shut down.
A capable doctor could testify either way as to whether "urine soaked" longjohns or NOT points to one person or another as the killer. Best to turn your attention elsewhere, IMO.
Mike G
Great blog Doc. I have skimmed through other website forums, but when they start getting nasty and being what I call trashy, I sign off. This one, however, is very professionally run, well-written, and organized to be easily read. You provide links to your material and others, which is very helpful. Yes, sometimes you have gotten frustrated and been sarcastic, but mostly you are very polite and patient with people who are not as well-versed as you. I may not agree with everything you say, but I agree your solution is the one that makes the most sense so far. I may post more on the issues I need help with if I’m allowed.
ReplyDeleteI have always believed it was a very lucky, very weird intruder. (Don’t beat me up please) Mainly because I just couldn’t fathom anyone other than a psychotic, mentally unbalanced person who lives on the fringes of society doing the extreme things that were done to Jonbenet, alive or dead. So I have read this blog (75% and I plan to keep reading until I have read every post, comment and reply) from the angle of, I believe intruder, but am really interested in why people don’t believe it. I began to be convinced Doc is right, but still held on to the possibility, however slight, that it’s still an intruder and that the Ramsey’s are all just poor communicators, don’t remember because they had so much going on all the time, rich people think and do things differently than the rest of us, lack of intruder evidence because scene was contaminated, etc.
My biggest nagging problem with the Ramseys (all three) is how they express their sorrow (or lack of). RIP Patsy. The strongest feelings I would have, and I believe most people would have, are for the suffering Jonbenet went through. They never talk(ed) about that. They always say “we lost our child”. John alluded to it recently when he said that he doesn’t think about the bad that happened to her anymore, just the good memories, kinda half-hearted. No one can say what they would think or do if they haven’t been in that situation, but I would never, ever be able to get out of my mind her suffering. Any mention of her name, or sight of a toy she would have liked, or memory of leaves that she would have loved to jump in – anything that jogged my memory would immediately make me wail thinking of what my child had gone through. Patsy, I understand, was medicated and did show sorrow, but still never said (that I’ve seen or read yet) anything about the suffering.
I just watched a show on ID called Suspicion, Murder in the Family. The mother of the murdered child is telling the story, and she acts exactly how you would expect someone to act. 31 years later, she still cries when she tells the story. Her biggest concern is for the suffering her son went through. She camped out at the police department for 20 years until the case was solved. She talks about “worrying the hell out of the police” and “I was gonna be their worst nightmare.” She went from going there once a week, to every other day, then every day to find out what they were doing to solve the crime. This was 19 years later! And this is what you would expect. Yet John Ramsey recently said “The story isn’t that a little girl was murdered, the story is what was done to us”. I saw him say this on TV, didn’t read it, saw it, still believing he was innocent, and I said What???? I know you didn’t just say that. I know that he says they didn’t cooperate with police because they were targeted early on and it went downhill from there, but all those people are gone now. I wonder if he’s in contact with the BPD detectives now on a regular basis, like the woman in the ID show?
I apologize if this has already been discussed, I tried to wait until I was completely finished reading, but the current comments are coming so fast I felt compelled to jump in now.
MS
Theory #2 JR is a ped and killed her during abusing her. There is no evidence that indicates this man fits a pedi profile. throw this theory out the window, i believe that if that was the case he would have gotten rid of the body to hide any evidence.
ReplyDeletePeople keep saying this but its ridiculous. No one has a "history" of pedophilia that isn't in jail or a mental institution. They keep it a secret until they are caught. That's why people are so shocked when peds are found out. So the theory that John doesn't have a "history" of pedophilia therefore he couldn't have done the murder, is not a fact. Secondly, the theory of the blog owner is that JR DID want to dump the body to hide evidence but PR called 911.
Was listening to the Peter Boyles interview with Fleet and Pricilla White, and heard them mention the Aarone Thompson case -- a 6 year old girl that was killed by her father and/or live-in girlfriend.
ReplyDeleteInteresting similarities to JBR case:
1. She was named after her father Aaron. Her name is pronounced Air-un-ay
2. Father and girlfriend did not appear distressed over her disappearance [she had been missing for over a year before being reported, so that could explain why they weren't upset].
3. They agreed to go to police station for interview, but didn't show up.
4. They stopped cooperating with police the next day.
5. Siblings stated that Aarone was punished for bedwetting -- beaten and put in closet.
6. Brother heard father beating Aarone in the basement and heard her scream. It then grew quiet and he heard his father swear.
7. Siblings were told to lie, but told the truth after they were removed from the home and put in foster care.
8. Both father and girlfriend refused to take lie detector test.
9. Father/girlfriend said she died accidently, and they buried her body in a field to cover up sexual abuse (by a sibling) and physical abuse.
10. Police knew within 3 days that the child had not just disappeared and was likely dead.
Father was sentenced to 100 years in prison.
The broken basement window is intriguing. I agree with you, DocG, that, in his interview John seems to be lying about breaking the window. And rather obviously lying I would say. I have only recently started reading about this case and wading through the transcipts. This section of the interviews really stood out.
ReplyDeleteThe question, of course, is, why lie if the broken window could be useful to point the blame away from the family? I thought at first that maybe it was a staging that JR subsequently had doubts about, and therefore no longer wanted to draw attention to. But of course JR still DID draw attention to that window - just not the breakage - mentioning supposedly closing the fractionally open window and the suitcase...but only thinking to bring it up much later apparently. Very strange.
It occurred to me that there may another reason if JR was lying about that window. Maybe the broken window is actually somehow tied in with the events surrounding JBR's death, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps something occurred that night (or recently) that resulted in the window being smashed. Perhaps something being thrown or swung? I don't know what forensics were carried out on the window, but perhaps the window was smashed from the inside.So I'm thinking someone (for me, most likely BR) might have recently broken that window and THAT was what was being hidden. I get the feeling that initially JR wanted to very much downplay that broken window and only introduced the 'closing the window' story when he realised there seemed precious little else to support an intruder narrative. I wonder too if he might have recently cleaned up glass (possibly that night) and his 'closing the window' story might have been a cover for any forensics that would end up placing him near that window recently. I think for a lot of people forensic science is a huge black box - we just don't know what it can and can't tell us...and that's scary if you are trying to hide stuff. He and Patsy certainly seemed to want to have it both ways. Hey maybe this is a new break or maybe this is an old break! Who knows? I can't remember even trying to remember! JR and PR seemed to be turning themselves into pretzels about this window.
Continued...
AMD
Continued...
ReplyDeleteI watched a video of Lou Smit doing his demonstration of climbing in through that window, plus a Daily Beast video showing the basement footage and broken window. A couple of things really struck me. Firstly, it seemed that it was not the obvious pane to break if you were going to break in. Wouldn't you pick the LOWER pane? Not only from a mess point of view (from falling, shattered glass) but, if you look at Lou Smit standing in that well, it just looks like the lower pane is naturally where your foot would kick. It is hard to tell definitely from just a video, but it actually looks like it would be awkward to kick out the upper pane.Not that JR even committed to saying he kicked it out. He was incredibly vague on the whole thing. Especially seeing as he has broken into the house that way two or three times...apparently. He should remember his method better I would think.
Another thing that seemed odd was WHERE the pane was struck. It was stuck in the upper part of the pane.The latch is in the centre of the window. Why smash the pane high up, away from the latch? Unless you can't remember where the latch is. But JR says he has done this once or twice before, so you would think he would know by now. Okay, say he still forgot...again. He has to reach in and feel around to find the latch through that gap in the glass. Why leave all that glass in the pane? I know I would have knocked out more glass - at least the jagged stuff - to avoid the risk of cutting my arm. And if this happened a while ago, I sure wouldn't leave the window sitting like that for months afterwards. Knock the jagged glass out and stick something across it temporarily at the very least to protect the kiddies! Makes me think it was more likely a very recent break.
Oh well. I don't believe that JR broke that window to get into the house anyway. Patsy says at one point in her 1998 interview: 'back by the window that broke'. An interesting way to phrase it if she knew that JR deliberately knocked through it. Actually Patsy's responses and language in interviews I find are sometimes quite revealing. I think she (and Burke too) subconsciously give away a lot. Surprisingly so at times. Although I would probably be the same in an interview! I would definitely need a Lin Wood type lawyer to run interference for me lol!
AMD
You make an excellent point about the partially broken window pane. An intruder (or John if his story were true) would have kicked in the entire pane, not just one part of it. My guess is that John must have started to stage a break-in at that window but for some reason was unable to complete his staging. Maybe time was running short and he was afraid the alarm would wake Patsy before he'd had a chance to get into the shower. No need to worry, because his plan would have given him an extra 24 hours to do all that was necessary.
DeleteAs for the rest, I think it's important to focus on the evidence as it stands. A basement window found broken on the morning of the same day a dead body is found can all too easily be seen as evidence either of an intruder OR the staging of an intruder break-in at that point. John's attempt to misdirect by concocting an absurd story about an earlier, innocent, break-in, tells us all we need to know in that respect. While all sorts of alternative "explanations" might be possible, the only reasonable explanation is staging.
John's need to unstage his previous staging becomes clear when we realize that his previous staging was incomplete and unconvincing. As seems obvious when we read the note, if his original plan had not been foiled by Patsy, he'd have had plenty of time to complete his staging on the following day. And if they'd been in it together, then of course he'd have been sure to complete his staging prior to calling the police.
His report about seeing that window open came months later, at a time when Lou Smit was attempting to prove that this could have been an intruder's entry point after all. By then it seems as though John could have changed his mind, and decided to help Smit out. If his crude staging could fool him, maybe it could fool a jury as well. It could certainly be used in a reasonable doubt defense.
As I see it, this case is, in essence, very clear and straightforward. It's only because of the way the investigation played out over time that it became so incredibly convoluted. If we concentrate on the basics, and take all else with a healthy grain of salt, then the essential simplicity emerges.
(Shoot! Somehow, my comment posted in the wrong spot. I'm re-posting it here, where I had intended to post it. Sorry about that.)
DeleteAfter reading your comments, AMD, I went back and reread the interviews John gave about the window. John claims that he broke that window the previous summer. He also says that finding the window partially open that morning wasn't unusual for him, because sometimes it was opened to let cool air in, because the basement could get hot in the winter.
I never thought about it before, but why would they have to open a window to let in some air, if the window was already broken? Wouldn't plenty of air flow through the broken pane? Why didn't police address this same point with John?
All rhetorical questions, of course.
Yes, of course there would have been no need to open a broken window to let air in. This is only one of many statements made by John that make little sense. And in almost all cases those questioning him failed to challenge him on any of those points. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. Complete obtuseness comes to mind.
DeleteThe Rasmseys were intelligent people, if JR broke that window during that incident, he had to make the claim of breaking the window for whatever excuse or reason he gave. This would cover him if he was ever forced to take a lie detector test. At the same time, it gives an avenue for the intruder theory who would have a method of getting in. Lou Smit climbing through the window proved nothing as JR already claimed he had gone through.
ReplyDeleteA day late, but here it Is MH
ReplyDeletePart 1
The obvious question to answer in this case is why wouldn’t JR or PR call 911, either police or ambulance, on discovery of the body? or were they there when the hit occurred? It would be a logical assumption that if JBR was accidently hit on the head without any physical damage but was still breathing that 911 would be called right away. I believe why the theories went wacky, don’t make sense and why PR and JR stood their ground is in fact related to these theories. BP did not have a close enough theory that would dictate someone to break and tell the truth while being interrogated.
Let’s flip this case upside down. Let us assume that the family arrived home as stated 9-10pm. JBR is put in bed by JR, PR stays down stairs to put a snack for JBR. PR knowing a long day is ahead the following day goes to bed, and on the way she checks JBR and changes her since she wet the bed.
Now looking at our schedule, when we plan a travel with our kids, the following would be our normal routine: My wife wakes up, washes, puts on make-up etc and goes downstairs to make coffee as I go in the shower, we finish and pending breakfast wake the kids up.
Now let us follow PR: she wakes up shortly before 5am, goes washes and puts on make-up anticipating her husband will be in the bathroom after she’s done. She goes down to make coffee (possibly still in robe), stops on 2nd floor to check kids. During this check she recognizes JBR is missing. She goes downstairs looking and calling with no answer and she starts to panic. She goes back to BR room to ask him if he knew where his sister was (he stated during interrogation to police that: “my mom came in my room going psycho”) JR searches the house and discovers the tied lifeless body of JBR.
Knowing BR is involved, they devise a game plan keeping in mind that the police have to be called prior to or close to 6am due to their scheduled flight. They could not wait much longer as this would raise suspicion towards the family. PR writes a ransom note, as indicated by the ransom note and the practice note this was done without much thought, really a pile of rambling. JR breaks the window, gathers any evidence such as the tape, rope and the weapon that was used. The body was cleaned and placed in the wine cellar as to ensure it is not in sight.
PR calls 911.After assuming she had hung up, the conversation as interpreted is BR asking “what did you find?” JR stating “we’re not talking to you”, apparently talking to BR (that statement indicates that they know their son had done something) and PR stating “help me Jesus”.
Those statements show that the body was recently discovered and not statements of something that occurred hours prior.
Part 2 MH
ReplyDeleteSo what may have happened? I am not a believer of coincidences… what recently transpired at that house that would have initiated this tragedy? How do you relate statements made to a theory that gives you a logical conclusion?
How do you relate life experiences to give you an indication of what may have happened?
I have 3 kids, 2 boys and 1 girl and they are 2 and 3 years apart. When I look back as they were growing up and analyze circumstances that caused me to yell at them, I can think of a few. Kids have a tendency to role play and fantasize the games they play. I can remember my kids tying themselves and hiding and sword playing etc. I believe BR gave it away during his conversation with the Boulder Police. He says “I think someone took her to the basement quietly” (like a kidnapping). He first states a knife was involved, (which was found in the wine cellar, probably used to cut the rope) and then he says “a hammer was used to hit her over the head”. So again, what recently changed at that house, BR received a Christmas gift, a Nintendo 64, one of the games that came along with the Nintendo 64 in 1996 was Super Mario, I can remember when my kids used to play it; and role play the game. The game was based on Bowser who kidnaps Peach, ties her up, and Mario, with all the characters try to save her. I’m sure everyone can check the game and analyze it. Peach and JBR (God Bless Her soul) resembled each other quite a bit: fair skin, blonde hair etc. So I see a scenario where BR quietly sneaks JBR downstairs as kidnapping like the game, ties her up as a role play, hits her over the head with a hammer as illustrated in the game with characters with hammers. Can’t wake her up, pokes her with the railway track to get her to wake (not seeing the significant head damage – and this is also backed up by the bruising found on her arm and face), he then tries to wake her up by dragging her by the rope which caused the rope marks to be deep in the neck and this is also shown in the two different marks on her neck caused by the force of him dragging her by the rope, also explains the red marks on her back. He may have hid her in the wine cellar as his knife was discovered in there. He then gives up and decides to go to his sanctuary before he’s discovered: his bed. Statements he makes going forward logically indicate he knew something was wrong, when asked why he didn’t get out of bed in the morning when hearing police etc., he replied he was scared, yes of course he was scared; he knew what was going on. He knew what he did and he did not want to get in trouble, so he stayed in his room while all the commotion was going on keeping himself out of sight.
This theory is the most logical, it explains why the parents decided to not call 911 at the discovery of the body and why they needed to make it appear that someone came into the house. I don’t believe that the parents would have went the distance of strangling and tying their daughter for staging purposes. They had to have found the body that way and didn’t know how else they would explain it. It also gives the parents validation to a lot of statements and how they defended the other theories. MH
Your theory still doesn't account for why a kidnapper would leave a two and a half page ransome note, AND the hostage it references, behind in the house.
Delete"Knowing BR is involved, they devise a game plan keeping in mind that the police have to be called prior to or close to 6am due to their scheduled flight. They could not wait much longer as this would raise suspicion towards the family."
It would only "raise suspicion" if the body was still in the house. The letter, regardless of why it was "staged", was CRAFTED to accomplish both. It provided enough time for the "family" (if that's how you want to play it)to make sure John was "well rested", get to the bank and back, and consider carefully the ramifications of ignoring its authors' warnings NOT to call the police under ANY circumstances.
But why would the "Ramsey's" as a team, undermine the plan they crafted by having Patsy call the police at 6:00 A.M.? The letter, at that point, becomes a "smoking gun" better disposed of. And once the plan was undermined, why would John underplay the possibility of the broken window as being the entry point for an intruder?
Mike G.
Skip what I said about "both". No "theory", IMO, necessitates
Deletethe Ramsey's needing to call the police before their "scheduled flight". Perhaps you can explain again why you think it's relevent.
Mike G.
@MH, as interesting as your theory is, it hinges on BR acting out the premise of Super Mario 64. However, in the game, Bowser doesn't tie Peach up. He traps her in a stained-glass window that sits above the castle's entrance. I'm pretty sure this isn't even known, until the entire game is beat, and she emerges from the window. I can't remember (nor find) any image which shows her tied up at any point in the game. Furthermore, Peach is never hit on the head with a hammer at any point in the game either.
DeleteWhile I understand that it's only natural to draw from your own experience as a parent, what's true for you and your children, is not necessarily true for others. I have two kids who are approximately the same ages that BR and JBR were at her time of death. Not once, have either of my children ever tied the other one up.
I'm sorry, this scenario is not logical at all.
ReplyDeleteThe theory presented by Doc is infinitely more rational. Your scenario presents more questions than it does answers, and is based purely on speculation.
Ms D, I have to disagree, this scenario actually answers a lot of questions. This whole case is based on speculations, the question is which speculation answers in the most logical way,
ReplyDeleteAnd did Super Mario teach him to violate his sister's vagina with a paintbrush, too?
ReplyDeleteThis is your version of logic?
I would actually like to say thanks to MH for his BDI theory.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Doc's theory is no just as much speculation as MH's...probably more so in my opinion as I so strongly believe that Burke was involved.
It is certainly possible that Burke role played and the body wasn't found until closer to 4 or 5am.
Yes, it is speculation (just like every theory) as there is no concrete evidence pointing at one person. But for me, as you all know, Burke had to be involved whilst I always assumed John was the one who did the garrote I am coming around to the idea that it may well have been Burke.
We don't know or understand the history of BR and JBR. We do know that JBR slept in BR bed and often. BR was at an age where he could question and explore sexuality. There is more logic in a 10 year old exploring with a stick then a grown man regardless if he was a pedi or not. The role play theory has a lot of sense to it. This was not planned and the timelines don't add up.
ReplyDeleteI keep hearing that JB slept in BROS bed often but have never read that. Where does this info come from?
ReplyDeleteHow come doctors cant get an accurate time of death?
ReplyDeleteMainly because the ME decided not to show up at the Ramsey house until around 8 pm on the 26th.
DeleteIt was stated that she slept in her brothers bed usually after episodes of bed wetting to get to a dry bed. I will see if i can find info for you.
ReplyDeletePlease. Not sure this is true just seen it posted here over anf over without attribution.
DeleteDoesn't make sense to me as,there were two beds in her room and two in her brother s.
DeleteThis site says John Ramsey said that JonBenet would sometimes sleep in Burke's room. It also has the true bills from the grand jury. The spare bed in JonBenet's room was covered with stuff the night of her murder. It may be that the spare bed was often used like a horizontal closet and easier for JonBenet to go to a dry bed that wasn't so cluttered.
Deletehttp://www.crimemagazine.com/murder-jonben%C3%A9t-ramsey
The time of death is a good question. We do know that the body had a decaying odor, this doesn't happen in a few hours, especially in some what of a cool area like a wine cellar, in the basement, in the winter, with a broken window.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone watch the second episode of the CBS special towards the end, irrc. They had a Colorado attorney read over the true bills by the grand jury. She said something to the effect that the bills were written that way because a Third Person was the one responsible for the death. - Since that person was 9.11 years old and unable to be charged the parents were found to have put JonBenet in that situation...I don't have the true bills handy. The jury heard testimony and saw evidence for 13 months. Imo, they came to the correct decision. Alex Hunter was never going to charge anyone responsible or who colluded in that family. He did not want to sign warrants, he did not want to work with the police department. The family didn't want to work with the police and their experts. Patsy wouldn't even work with John Walsh to have the story covered by America's Most Wanted. Such a travesty for little JonBenet. Twenty years later Lin Wood, et al are still making $ off her murder for the numerous law suits filed.
ReplyDeleteI found this, from the October 25, 2013 Denver Post...
ReplyDeleteA Boulder grand jury indictment in 1999 accused John and Patsy Ramsey of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death in connection to the first-degree murder of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét, according to documents released Friday morning.
The charges didn’t directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl.
Minnesota Linda
MN Linda, yes, helping the true perp. They got what they wanted after the fact, their family did not have to appear in front of judge and jury. JR was no stranger to divorce, if Patsy thought her husband was responsible, she could've divorced him and still lived well off financially.
DeleteMy reading is that the GJ could not decide which parent may have done it, hence the identical wording and separate indictment for the cover up.
ReplyDeleteAnd this was (part of) the reason the DA refused to prosecute - no evidence of which parent.
-Sisu
The D.A. made a huge mistake. By arresting the Ramsey individually he could have driven a huge wedge between them such that Wood could have represented one but not the other. Then, with the assistance of Patsy's attorney, the detectives and DA could have undone the gaslighting John did to Patsy.
DeleteMike G. I am not claiming a kidnapper left the ransom note, The majority of people who analyzed the note claim that the closest handwriting samples belong to PR. I agree. MH
ReplyDeleteI never said you made any claim about the ransom note. Was it not logical for me to infer that "it" was a pronoun you used as a substitute for "the murder"?
DeleteI was just making the point that the D.A. made a mistake.
He could have interviewed John and his attorney first, to expose inconsistencies in his and Patsy's versions of what happened, that he could later use to pressure Patsy into confessing.
It wouldn't have been easy. How long could he have kept the two apart before bail was set? But it would have been worth a try, don't you think?
As for the majority of experts believing Patsy the most likely author of the letter, it's been twenty years now and harboring that theory has brought no indictment of anyone in the family, and no justice for JonBenet.
Making John the author gets a smart DA an indictment tomorrow. Too much time, in my opinion, has gone into handwriting analysis. I even skipped the chapters in Docs book devoted it. "Reasonable doubt" could easily be established that, based on handwriting analysis alone, John, in fact, wrote the letter or Patsy, in fact, wrote the letter.
HKH, yes you are correct. Every child in every family is different. We have to draw the conclusion of BR and his own mental state. Im sure your son didn't plaster feces in the other childs room or anywhere in the house as my kids didn't. So have to look at the physci of the individual. And yes Peach is shown tied up at the intro of the game and a hammer is used to fend off Mario. My theory is that BR would play role the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you agree that every child and every family is different. Actually, my son did smear feces on my couch once. Granted, he was only three years old at the time. He has had stool withholding issues ever since we started potty training him. We don't know BR's medical history. Smearing feces could have stemmed from an issue, such as stool withholding, or it could have stemmed from jealousy of his little sister, or something else entirely. Not that is was proven to be BR who smeared the feces anyway (although, I will say that in my opinion, I find him the most likely to have done so.)
DeleteI watched the intro to Super Mario 64 last night to refresh my memory. At no point, was Peach shown tied up. Nor was Bowser even shown kidnapping her. I have no problem recanting my statement if I am wrong. Do you have a source you can direct me to where I can see that she was, in fact, tied up in the intro? Thanks.
Ms D, I really need to know if you are Doc's bodyguard? The only post's I ever see from you are critiques of everyone's post's and never your own. Just think it's unfair to operate that way when I have never seen a post from you putting yourself out there.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that I have observed is this idea that anybody opposing the JDI theory needs to bring something "new" to the table as Doc and others have challenged. First off, that is crap. The JDI theory is just that, a theory! Nothing about it is proven nor is it based solely on facts.
Regarding time of death as it has been discussed, this is what I think. The Ramsey's get home between 9-9:30. Burke tells Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs to play with toys (why lie about this). So assuming Burke is playing for an hour or so, he probably makes himself the bowl of pineapple with a drink. JBR comes down with her pillow around 10:30 and sometime around 11pm I believe she is struck over the head. Pure speculation, but he probably doesn't notify his parents right away because kids who do something wrong will a lot of the times try to cover the mistake themselves before telling somebody. To save this post from being too long, the staging starts to take place around 11:45-midnight range.
Somebody above commented that the broken window could have been by accident made by Burke or JBR. REALLY INTERESTING! Actually, I think its definitely plausible as if it was going to be a stage job by John, it was an odd place to break that window.
-J
I just happen to agree with the theory Doc presents here in this blog, J, so naturally I'm going to agree with most of his points. Not sure what you're getting at. You say the only posts you ever see from me are critiques of everyone's posts and never my own and that you think it's unfair to operate that way. It's a BLOG! How in the heck else should I be "operating" here, lol? And why in the heck would I critique my own posts? I re-read them and edit them BEFORE posting, so that by the time I click "publish", the post says exactly what I want it to say - there is no need to critique it. I wrote it, therefore I agree with it! As far as it being "unfair", what do you suggest I do instead - make sure to only publish comments that placate you and the others here? As far as not "putting myself out there" goes, I'm here offering my damn opinion all the time, and that seems to bother you to no end! Can't win! So, again, I have no idea what you're waffling on about.....so I say to you, with all due respect and no malice: if you don't like what I have to say, by all means, scroll down, because I am not going to change my opinions any time soon.
DeleteMs D, I honestly wasn't trying to start a fight. My simple point was that I always see you reacting to somebody else's comment. I never see conversation started by you. That was all I was getting at. You are obviously entitled to do whatever you want and I always read what you write because I'm interested
Delete-J
I have offered my theories and opinions many, many times on this blog. In detail. It is quite time consuming, and often times met only with the sound of chirping crickets, so I have ceased repeating myself. Repetition bores me, and it bores everyone else here. Often, I may offer my theories in response to other people's queries, rather than start a new dialogue - but they're there, you just have to look for them! :)
Deletediamondlil: I checked your crimemagazine.com website, and found the only reference to JBR'S sleeping in her brother's room to be this statement made by John Ramsey in the 1997 CNN interview: ". . .checked our son, sometimes she sleeps in there". As there were twin beds in Burke's room, this is hardly proof that she and Burke often shared a bed, as so many of you have stated so often.
ReplyDeleteAny other sources? Anyone?
CC
Jim Clemente on the Real Crime Profile Podcast also referenced it multiple times that it was well known that JBR would sleep in Burke's room and vice versa.
DeleteAlso, there are rumors circulating that after his appearance on Dr. Phil, he has been offered the role as the Joker in future Batman films :-)
-J
I know you esteem Mr Clemente and his podcasts highly, J, but did he place JBR in her brother's bed or just in his room? And what was Mr C's source?
DeleteCC
CC - Mr. Clemente is a former NY City Prosecutor, worked for the FBI as a profiler. They were privy to all of the evidence possible on this case, so if he said it was known that Burke slept in her room and vice versa, then I take it to be fact. I don't know what he could gain by making erroneous claims. I don't believe BR sleeping in her room makes him guilty of anything, but it just adds another layer to the story.
Delete-J
My point is that the only statement from a primary source seems to be JR'S to CNN that "sometimes she sleeps in there". All other speculation has flowed from that rather innocuous statement.
DeleteCC
I honestly don't know where he heard it. I believe he referenced a family friend and the housekeeper. I honestly don't know
Delete-J
You said Clemente and CBS were "privy to all the evidence possible". Are you suggesting that the BPD cooperated in the recent CBS broadcast?
ReplyDeleteCC
CC- it would be much easier if you listened to the podcast. Since you are on a blog commenting on this case on a Monday morning, I know you care about it It’s extremely informative and should help answer some lingering questions for you. I don’t know the answer to your question, but I do know they have interviewed witnesses and looked at this case, so I’m assuming they got some cooperation.
ReplyDelete-J
Interviewing witnesses and looking at the case are a far cry from BPD cooperation. Far likelier they only have access to no more than we, the general public, have, which makes theirs just another opinion based on speculation.
ReplyDeleteCC
It's getting REALLY old having to read people's opinions on things that they haven't watched or listened to.
DeleteForget about 8 investigators who have looked at thousands of cases, let's listen more to a random blogger who started this site with zero credentials as an investigator. Shockingly, that wasn't meant as a dig to Doc. It just amazes me that people take everything he says as the Gospel, but won't listen to ACTUAL investigators.
-J
There have been any number of "actual" investigators during the last twenty years. Lee and Spitz apparently did not have access to the slides and tissue samples from the autopsy and could not render an informed opinion. Kolar, clearly, had preconceived notions - and I'm sure his book received a nice bump in sales. Clemente and his Scotland Yard cohort were presumably paid by CBS for their time and felt compelled to come to some sort of conclusion - hardly disinterested parties.
ReplyDeleteThey presented nothing new, based on nothing not known by the general public, and utterly ignored the evidence of prior abuse. What they presented was very much only their opinion, no better or worse for their much vaunted credentials than anyone else's.
CC
This is such a lazy and blindly ignorant comment. The voices on the 911 call to me can be heard and if nothing else, we heard from the 911 Operator for the 1st time. Also, I have never seen the BR interrogation tapes with the detective and his session with the Therapist. I have also never seen somebody recreate the house and re-do the window entry since Lou Smit did it. I have also never seen anybody recreate the head blow PROVING that it would be possible for a kid of Burke's age to have done it.
DeleteI at one point believed in Doc's theory, but I ALWAYS kept an open mind because all I wanted was to KNOW who did it. Sure, justice would be nice, but I just needed to know. Sticking with the JDI theory still means you are ignoring highly questionable things. When I see Zed post on here he is met with the same things I am "see Docs post" or "bring something new" which gets tiring. I 100% feel that Burke could confess and a lot of people on here would say that he is covering for John. So, that's where we are at which is both sad and disgusting
-J
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't have a need for John Ramsey to be the perpetrator at all, and I have said this before. In fact, I hope he isn't. I would be very happy if I was proven wrong. But, the evidence, as far as I'm concerned - and you don't have to share this viewpoint, contrary to popular opinion here shared by many in the BDI camp - overwhelmingly points to John. I have gone through these reasons countless times, so no need to rehash them. This is why I so often simply refer to a chapter of Doc's blog where it is all outlined - you may not realize it, but you agree with Zed, or Inquisitive, just as often as I agree with Doc or C.C. You honestly do seem to hold the JDI theorists to some kind of double standard, and you do it frequently. I am not sure why you seem to misconstrue the difference of opinion as a personal attack, but there is really no need to. We're all just here for a friendly debate, as far as I can tell :)
DeleteI do have an open mind - I pondered the reason as to why Burke's third grade teacher was called to testify at the grand jury, and began to try and work out in my mind a scenario where BDI. I pondered it for two, solid days (and sleepless nights!) But the subsequent staging just doesn't fit. I cannot wrap my head around why such an elaborate cover up would ensue - one that is sure to involve FBI - when the staging of an accident would have sufficed, and not drawn nearly as much attention to the Ramsey family.
So, it is certainly not from lack of trying to imagine another possible scenario - believe me, I lay awake at night imagining every other possibility other than JDI, because a part of me desperately wants to believe a parent cannot murder their child in such a violent manner.....but there's always three questions I'm left with when I go with any other theory, and those questions are *only* answered with when I subscribe to JDI......not to mention, I'm a huge proponent of Occam's Razor which tells me that when a six year old girl is murdered in her house and there are likely signs of prior sexual abuse, Daddy is the first one to look at.
So, I really do wish you would let go of this idea that we're all here just to bully you guys into submission. I don't care that you don't agree with me, I am just here for the debate, and in the hopes of giving some insight to those who come here with no ready ideas of who is guilty. Or those people might lean towards your theory, and that's fine too. My comments are geared only towards those who are open to my idea - if you're not, there's no need to read them.
If Burke confessed, I don't believe for one second that anyone here is psychotic enough to suggest he was covering for his father. Maybe just give us an ounce of credit.....
Hey Ms D......fair enough, thanks for your thoughts!
Delete-J
The voice enhancement is highly subjective; not everyone hears what you claim to have heard. The 911 dispatcher's statement that Patsy said "now what?" or words to that effect, were contradicted by that same enhancement. The recreations were good TV but failed to prove anything substantive other than that a child could have struck the blow, and as I never agreed with Doc that Burke could not, that does nothing for me.
ReplyDeleteThey ignored the evidence of prior abuse. They shamelessly promoted an interview with Fleet White that did not materialize. It was television, J, entertainment, not some hard-charging, fact-finding expedition.
CC
Listen CC, people go into things wanting to believe it or not. Some people on here (not saying you) watched that with the most closed mind possible. One of my friends hates Star Wars (I need a new friend) and when he watched the new one, he hated it. He never wanted to like it
DeleteI think ID, Dateline, 48 Hours, A&E SHAMELESSLY promoted JBR. They even brought the creepiest man alive, JMK to talk. I went into the CBS special with an open mind and obviously agreed with the outcome after going thru the case like they did.
The JDI theory is literally all over the place now. Here is where this blog is at with this theory A) On one hand I have seen that Crazy John was molesting JBR, even though he traveled, he took this constant risk. He then got scared that she was going to rat him our OR that the Pediatrician was going to find out so he planned to murder her. He goes thru. B) But then, I see another theory where Crazy John molested her and wanted to have a sex game with her at 11pm on Christmas night, fed her pineapple before sex game goes awry so he clubs her over the head. Then 45 minutes later, strangles her. C) In this scenario, it may have been premeditated or spontaneous, but either way, Burke was eating pineapple and saw something which is WHY Burke acted beyond strange on those interrogation tapes.
All these scenarios of course do not include Patsy Ramsey in any way shape or form because she can't. So, IF the John broken window story was made up, then Patsy is for whatever reason going with the lie as she certainly would have known about a broken window in her basement. Patsy is also OK with John calling the pilot asking to book a flight 45 minutes after finding the body of their daughter. If all of the molestation accusations hold any water, then Patsy who took her to the doctor would have had to turn another blind eye to that as well.
If you want to keep going with all of the above, go for it, but I'm going to take the gigantic leap that a brother was mad and hit her over the head. The staging HAPPENED...so whether it was just done by John or by both parents, it did in fact happen. It's horrific either way, but it was done to cover for Burke.
-J
There are indeed as many variations on the JDI theme as you and your fellow travelers have espoused for BDI. What's your point?
DeleteLet's agree to disagree, and eschew comments like "lazy and blindly ignorant", shall we?
CC
Your first comment is completely false. The only disagreement is whether it was pineapple or a toy that caused Burke to be upset which caused the head blow. That's my point CC.....there really aren't the number of variations as the devoted JDI's go with.
DeleteI honestly don't know how else to say it. Burke looking at a bowl of pineapple and saying he doesn't know what it is and then getting super awkward is BEYOND suspicious. But, when I read that he was like that because he saw John do something or some other excuse, what else do you want me to call it? You haven't even listened to the Real Crime Profile podcast, yet you have opinions on it. That to me is just laziness. Can't give a book review if you haven't read the book right?
-J
Not too long ago I posted a link to a site containing 5 or 6 different photos of the bowl with pineapple. And I must say if I didn't already know what it was, I couldn't recognize it. The pineapple chunks look to me like breakfast cereal. No one responding to my post claimed they could recognize it either. But hey, maybe you could. If in fact Burke had anything to do with that bowl of pineapple on the night of the murder, then yes, there would be good reason for him to recognize it -- and hesitate when asked to identify it. But if he had nothing to do with that bowl or that pineapple then I see no reason to assume he's guilty simply because he has trouble recognizing what it is.
DeleteAnd this is precisely the problem with the CBS investigators. They base their analysis of Burke's behavior on their prior conviction that he was involved, so naturally, to them, his responses appear suspicious. This is the very definition of confirmation bias.
And by the way, I've tried to access the podcast(s), but with no success. I have a feeling they've been removed from the Internet. Do you have a link by any chance?
I expressed no opinion about the podcasts; my opinions were confined to the CBS production.
ReplyDeleteCC
Hey Doc, are you taking a break from all of this? It's amazing how strongly we argue for our beliefs, isn't it. I have a question for you. And if you have already addressed this in some other way, I apologize in advance for having you reiterate.
ReplyDeleteI have someone I periodically go over this case with in great detail. We have worked it from every angle, I've argued as has she, for each family member committing the murder, the staging, the coverup, etc. What we discussed a few days ago was the question of the broken window yet again. At any point did you consider that that actually was an old break in the window? And that neither John or Patsy could remember when it happened? That it did not happen on the night/morning in question. You said that what sealed it for you that John broke it was his lie about having to break into his home previously. But you also have said here that John's game is misdirection and confusing the issue. You have to wonder if that window was broken from the INSIDE there would be glass on the outside. And if it was broken from the OUTSIDE then the leaves would have been disturbed (I'm talking about the night/morning of the murder)and possibly footprints around the window well. No possibly about it, there would have been. As is there was only one shard of glass, which Fleet picked up and put on the suitcase, right? I think John saw an opportunity to capitalize on a broken window pane to suggest point of entry. He also made up a story about it, but then cleaned up the glass as well? The only reason if he broke the window to clean up the glass would be because it was broken from the inside, which would mean an intruder didn't break it to get in. But it's my belief that whenever it was broken it was simply used as an opportunity by both John and Patsy to misdirect and/or suggest that window could be point of entry. Then when he saw Lou Smit crawl through the window he seized on another opportunity to say the window was open. if this is a simpler explanation for the broken window then you don't have to add the oddball explanation for going back and cleaning up the glass. And obviously John is better at coming up with theories than Patsy. Sorry for the long post. question still stands - did you consider at all that neither of them broke it, or if one or the other did they don't remember when or how.
The basement windows opened in. No need to go outside to break a pane.
ReplyDeleteCC
But if it was broken from the inside then wouldn't there have been glass on the other side of it?
ReplyDeleteNo. The windows opened IN. The broken glass would fall on the floor of the train room. Have a look at the crime scene photos, maybe that will help.
DeleteCC
J - an explanation as to why BR didn't /wouldn't identify the pineapple. He had been coached by JR not to say anything about pineapple to conform with the narrative that JBR went straight to bed. I find this very likely given his adult-like comment about, "...getting on with my life." as evidence of adult coaching.
Delete-Sisu
Sisu, there is no evidence that Burke and his father had a conversation about the pineapple or that he was coached.
DeleteIn a case where no evidence is evidence depending on the expert, I find the irony delicious.
Delete-Sisu
as delicious as pineapple?
Delete:)-S
DeleteAs delicious as a bowl of.... something....
Delete-Sisu
See my post just above. Most likely Burke didn't recognize the pineapple because it wasn't clear from the photo he was shown what was in that bowl. In the pictures I've seen it looks more like breakfast cereal than pineapple.
DeleteOkay, I'm still going to suggest that that break was an old break, and that it was seized on as an opportunity to give credence to an intruder did it scenario. And didn't the police officer say that John didn't even mention the broken window to him? John was asked didn't he mention it to the first officer on the scene and he said he did not.
ReplyDeleteWrong again. He told Lou Smith in his second police interview that he didn't remember whether or not he had told a police officer.
DeleteYou are both confused. John mentioned the broken window to an officer on the morning of the 26th, explaining that he himself had broken it the previous summer. What he never reported was finding that window open -- and then closing it.
DeleteJust a thought......is it possible that John had been out in the middle of night, clandestinely removing evidence, perhaps placing it into neighbor's garbage bins etc. and had locked himself out, thus needing to break the basement window as his only alternative in order to get back in the house before Patsy woke up? His keys would not have been on his person if he was already wearing pajamas on the night of the crime. Highly unlikely, but it certainly would be something he'd have to lie to the cops about.....
DeleteI think if I were Doc, I'd be taking a break too.
ReplyDeleteI can see where he would be hesitent to share with us HIS speculations on those aspects of the case which ARE highly speculative. While it might shed light on new ways JDI believers--CC, myself, and Ms.D to name three--might make discussions more helpful for him, it would probably only serve to increase the necessity for him to defend his theory, where most BDI and PDI believers are concerned, in ways he's already done a thousand times over.
We all hope you're okay Doc!
Mike G
Sometimes I like to take a break and see how the conversation goes without my interference. I'm fine -- thanks for asking.
DeleteAs far as speculation is concerned:
I don't consider the basics of the case I've made as speculative at all. I'm convinced John killed his daughter, wrote the note, broke the window and orchestrated all other aspects of the coverup, including the refusal to be questioned separately by the police as well as promoting the outrageous lie that the authorities never bothered to investigate anyone aside from Patsy and himself. And by the same token I find Patsy to be innocent of any crime, though as seems clear she must have felt it necessary to support her husband's efforts to stonewall, as she would have naturally believed they were "in it together."
If you read what I've written about the case on this blog you'll see that there is nothing speculative about any of the above. Which does NOT mean I couldn't be wrong.
However, there are many aspects of the case that CAN be accounted for only by speculation. That goes for any theory, not just my own. I think we can logically infer that John wrote the note, that it was intended as part of a kidnap staging and that the intention was to buy time by frightening Patsy into not calling the police. Imo that aspect of my theory is solid. As for my interpretation of various details in the note and certain details of the plan behind the note, that part is speculative, yes. My explanations of many other details are speculative as well, but in all cases my speculations are, in my view, consistent with the evidence.
Could there be a flaw in my logic? Yes. Are there places where some of my speculations could be understood as contrary to the evidence? I don't think so, but there is certainly room for disagreement.
The way the robes marks on her neck are not in one place i think that device was made so this person could pull the string without seeing her ... like maybe outside the door.. which is why she might have 2 marks
ReplyDeleteNever heard of any case were an intruder took the time to make some device... almost every child case ive read upon they strangled them with their own hands or something that was readily available. Seems like this device could of been made because this person didnt want to see this so he did it outside the door she could of been allready unconscious and feel forward which could maybe explain the 2 robe marks
ReplyDeleteHe's already shared his speculations on this blog site, but once in a while something occurs to me that makes no sense as it has been shared here, so I ask. There are things about each possible perpetrator that don't completely add up. It would be wrong to marry yourself to one particular theory and not be open to others. It's been 20 years and no one has been brought to justice. Lou Smit was just as convinced he knew what happened as Steve Thomas was.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Burke recognising the pineapple (which was discussed above), I wholeheartedly agree with J.
ReplyDeleteThe odds of Burke NOT knowing that was pineapple was extremely low in my opinion.
Firstly, it looked like pineapple. If I didn’t already know what it was and I had to guess, pineapple would probably be my first guess. Secondly, his fingerprints were on the bowl. Yes, I know fingerprints don’t come with a timestamp but it was probably a bowl he had used for pineapple before. And it was made with milk, the way Burke liked it. Plus the fact that it contained an oversized spoon really highlights to me that it was made by a child. And JBR’s fingerprints weren’t on it. And his reaction was there to see…it wasn’t just a “I don’t know what that is”….he was being very cocky up until to that point (which I must admit surprised me) and when he saw that bowl his change in demeanour was so obvious to see.
1. Burke made that pineapple and was eating it when the parents were in bed.
2. JBR came down with her pillow and stole (or was given) some pineapple.
3. Probably around 10-11pm an argument started (or maybe they were role playing or just being silly and Burke hit her in the head without realising consequences.
4. Burke prodded her with train track and waited at least 30min before waking parents.
I don’t know if the garrotte was done by Burke (and if so whether it was made in advance). If so, it was probably used to role play or just as a simple joke (like a kid putting a plastic bag on another kids head because they think it’s funny). Or maybe John thought she was dead and it was part of staging to make intruder more believable.
We will never know the full story but I agree with J and the experts who have analysed this case. With the evidence we do have and more importantly the timeline that it gives us, Burke is definitely the most likely person who started this whole thing. And both John and Patsy knew about it before the 911 call was made.
By the way, what is happening with Burke/John and the lawsuit against CBS??? Whatever happens with that will paint a picture in my opinion.
Yep Zed. For those that saw/heard the video with young master Burke, the investigator had previously been asking him what favorite snacks did he like, and what did JonBenet like, and fruit was mentioned, and then pineapple was mentioned, and then the adult shows a picture to Burke where he recognizes his own family table.
DeleteIn what universe does a parent, upon thinking their child is dead after an unfortunate accident, decide to garrote them to make sure?
DeleteI ask this question over and over again to the BDI, and no one so much as touches it. I can't say I blame them!
Ms D, pretty sure Ive answered this question a zillion times...
DeleteFirstly, as per my above post, it may have been Burke.
Secondly, if it was one of the parents (most likely John), it wasn't to finish her off. It was pure staging to throw suspicion off Burke and on to an intruder. They thought JB was dead. The wrist ties had to be staging...that has been proven. And therefore I have no trouble believing the garotte could be staging too. Or Burke. Either way, Burke started it.
You do realize that breathing is still readily apparent on someone who has suffered a massive head trauma, Zed? So why would John believe JB was dead? He didn't think to check for a pulse before tightening a garrote around his daughter's neck and twisting it in order to protect his son? What happened to protecting his daughter? He HAD to know she wasn't dead.
DeleteAs far as your suggestion that, as the wrist ligatures are mere staging, it must logically follow that the garrote is staging also, is flawed, because unlike the wrist ties, which were loose and didn't appear to serve any particular function - the garrote was the murder weapon, and tied so tightly, it cut into JB's neck.
DeleteInquisitive - you posed a question on the basement window that I have to disagree with CC on. Only if the window was already opened inward, and then the pane broken, would the glass fall solely onto the floor below.
ReplyDeleteBut if the window was closed, and the pane broken with enough force that pieces fall out, then some should fall outside on the outer window ledge. I would think an LE expert at the time would notice if a fresh break. Due to moisture, rain, snow from summer on would leave mildew, mold, water damage, etc. on the interior frame or possibly further down on the sheetrock or wallboard. As well as a nice entrance for a mouse, rat, chipmunk, squirrel...to come in from the cold.
Actually, you're agreeing with me: the window was opened inward and the pane broken.
DeleteCC
CC - that wasn't clear to me with what Iniq was posting and the responses back. Opened, closed, latched, unlatched, there has been quite the varying account from the homeowner to the friend on the scene to LE on the scene. Someone removed a good portion of the glass pieces at some piint and I doubt an intruder would take those with him, unless he left pieces of himself behind, blood, skin, fabric then yeah. I can't imagine a homeowner not covering up the break tho, even with some cardboard, plastic and duct tape. Kids or no kids, a prudent person tries to minimize easy avenues for critters and insects to get in. Just last week I had to rescue a full grown squirrel that was in the toilet. The lid was shut. He had to have fallen down the vent stack from the roof.
DeleteForgot to clarify that is with the scenario that the window is broken accidentally or deliberately from inside the room. (and yes, I have seen pics/vids of the windows in the basement)
ReplyDeleteFor those of you that have seen the Burke age 11 video Q&A and wondered what more was discussed, scroll down to entries made by "DrollForeignfaction". It is a transcript of what the National Enquirer recently ran. You will recognize some of the questions that were aired on tv.
ReplyDeleteOf note is Burke claims he was present with his father when the window was broken before, as well as HE would sometimes sleep in JonBenet's room if his room was too cold, and she would sleep in his room at times. He also said he had two pocket knives.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?317630-Was-Burke-Involved-4/page81
Sleeping in the same *room* and sleeping in the same *bed* are two very different matters, and one the BDI's here can't seem to distinguish.
DeleteMy brother owned an assortment of pocket knives, but never showed any signs of violence. I wouldn't read anything into that at all. A lot of little boys seem to love pocket knives.
(One thing I've always found puzzling: If Burke had the penchant for knives that has oft been presented, and bought his down to the basement to cut the rope used, why didn't he use said knife to murder JonBenet? A lot quicker than fiddling around in the middle of the night fashioning a garrote and using it to strangle your sister to death)
As far as being with his father when the window was broken......that is the first I'd heard of it, and it's very interesting.
In the link you provided, diamondlil, I did find this comment by Burke interesting, pertaining to one of his knives:
Delete"It's got this little hook thing that you tie knots better with."
That's really all that stood out regarding Burke's comments.
As far as the breaking of the window, this is what was said:
" DS: Did you ever have any keys that maybe, if you got locked out, you could get somewhere? Some people keep keys kind of hidden under something or out in the yard, or the secret hiding place they can put a key if they get locked out.
BR: I don't remember. One time we did get locked out and there are - this is the basement but there are two windows to the basement, and my dad had to break the window and go around and unlock the door. 'Cause when the doors are locked, you can open them from the inside, but not the outside.
DS: Are you talking about the basement windows?
BR: Yeah, okay, both of the basement windows went through there and came up around - I think it was the front door.
DS: Were you with him when that happened? When he had to get in that way?
BR: Yeah I was with him but I didn't go in that way.
DS: You waited where?
BR: I don't know where, maybe this door or this door?
DS: Okay, so he let you in that way?
BR: Yeah."
A completely conflicting account from John's own story, where we were expected to believe he broke the window, took off his clothes (without removing his shoes, allegedly), and climbed through the small window, naked. He told police he had forgotten that he had given his neighbor a spare key. If Burke's story is true, then perhaps John's memory often fails him.
Except, didn't John claim to have maybe broken that window multiple times in the past? Or at least claim to have gotten in through that window multiple times? If so, that covers him for the two different stories.
DeleteI hadn't heard of Burke mentioning about the knife tieing knots better. Interesting. Very possible that he made the garotte days, weeks or months before the murder. He wasn't planning a murder but the garotte could have been made earlier. I don't believe Burke would have made it that night.
DeleteYes, HKH, but John didn't need to take his clothes off to fit through the window the afternoon Burke was there, yet claimed that the evening he forgot his keys, he needed to take his clothes off in order to fit through the window, if I recall correctly. Why lie about such a matter?
DeleteWow! The Enquirer transcript of Burke's interview, as quoted on that Websleuths page, is the first piece of really new evidence I've seen in a long time. And it provides us with a somewhat fresh perspective on the entire case.
DeleteRather than attempt to deal with it piecemeal in a series of comments, I'm planning to go over the whole thing soon, in a separate blog post.
@Ms. D, I don't remember John ever saying he took off his clothes so that he could fit through the window. I don't think he ever gave a reason why he removed his clothes. Doc theorized why John might have said he removed his suit, saying...[If you're wondering why John would have made up such a wacky story, you need to realize that his whole reason for breaking in via the basement window was that it was less expensive to replace than a first floor window, which would of course have been much simpler to break into. If he'd been returning from a business trip, as he claimed, then he'd have been wearing an expensive business suit, which would have been ruined if he'd kept it on while climbing into that filthy window well. And since the whole point of breaking in that way was to save money, he had no choice but to say he took his clothes off. Oh what a web we weave . . . ]
DeleteI'm curious to know exactly when John told investigators he may have broken/entered through the window MULTIPLE times. I wonder if he offered this version after Burke was interviewed.
On another note, (I know Doc plans to address the interview in a separate blog post) but I found it interesting that, based on what Burke said, Patsy seemed genuinely distressed that morning.
Maybe the time john broke in alone he did indeed have his suit on, and another time Burke was with him he was dressed casually, who knows, could be a completely plausible explanation or he did make it up. He did say he had goto in more than once that way. I think sometimes we are making assumptions based on what we think looks or sounds dodgey to suit each ones own theory.
ReplyDelete