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

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

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

Sunday, October 2, 2016

The Gospel According to Michael Tracey and David Mills

Warning: this post contains disturbing images some readers might prefer to avoid.

Well, finally I was able to view the recent A & E show, The Killing of JonBenet: The Truth Uncovered, produced by the same person who produced the first A & E "Documentary," David Mills, with his former co-producer, Michael Tracey, serving as consultant. It's now available, on a pay-per-view basis (not much), via youtube. (What would we do without youtube? I'm almost tempted to refer to it as Saint youtube.)


My overall response is similar to my response to the Woodward book -- not surprising since Woodward obviously played a key role in its development, and appears several times: some new information, but mostly old stuff; extremely biased in favor of the standard Ramsey gospel, with a heavy dose of Lou Smit; often wrong, and highly misleading. As with the Woodward book, the Boulder Police are portrayed as the villains of the case, stubbornly adhering to their original prejudices despite a "mountain of evidence" proclaiming Ramsey innocence to the heavens. What's new are some  questionable "expert" opinions on matters ranging from the markings on JonBenet's neck, to signs of prior abuse, to the meaning of the touch DNA evidence.

What interests me particularly is a brief shot of Patsy proclaiming for the world to hear that the 911 call was her idea. I'd seen a longer version of that same shot in the first A&E doc., but when that became unavailable I was afraid it had been lost forever. Thanks to a tip from someone commenting here I was on the lookout for it in this new production. And, finally, I found it:


video

"I said, 'I'm going to call the police,' and he said 'OK.'"

In the first documentary, she continues, adding the all important line:

"And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."

As I've already pointed out, this version of what happened, uttered with John sitting right next to her, totally contradicts the version we've heard so often from John, that he told Patsy to make that call. And it's completely different from the version in their book, where he's down on his hands and knees, reading the note, while Patsy is right next to him, lifting the receiver to call 911.

Much is made of the reddish marks on JonBenet's neck, which the A&E "experts" insist on seeing as scratch marks, defensive wounds proving she was alive when being strangled with the "garrote." But there is no mention of scratches or defensive wounds in the autopsy, where the marks are described as petechial hemorrhages, something completely different. Close examination of the marks shows that they are not, in fact, crescent shaped nail marks, but shapeless blotches:


Here's an example of real defensive wounds, produced by nail scratches:

Sorry to include such disturbing images, but this is an important point. In the opinion of the majority of forensic pathologists who reviewed the autopsy and accompanying photos, the head blow came first, followed by strangulation at least 45 minutes later, after the victim had been rendered unconscious. This is consistent with the strands of her hair found entwined in the cording of the "garrote," because it was clearly made while her attacker was right on top of her -- and if she'd been struggling, it would have been all but impossible to tie that knot as neatly as we see it in the photos. It's also consistent with the fact that no skin cells were found under the victim's nails. The DNA retrieved from her nails seems to have originated from  a contaminated nail clipper. These findings are extremely important because, first, they contradict Lou Smit's claim that she was tortured mercilessly and strangled while fully conscious, and secondly, they make it all but impossible to believe that an intruder would hang around for at least 45 minutes to strangle his victim after knocking her unconscious.

As far as signs of prior sexual abuse, they manage to find some "experts" who come up with innocent explanations for the signs of chronic vaginal abrasion found during the autopsy. But as we've learned from CC's guest post last week, a panel of pediatric specialists were convened by LE, and their opinion was unanimous: those injuries could ONLY have been produced by prior sexual abuse.

More experts are consulted regarding the DNA evidence, but no amount of "expert testimony" can eliminate the very real possibility of indirect transfer, a known issue with touch DNA especially, since it is so extremely sensitive to even old skin cell deposits. I deal with this issue in some blog posts here (do a search on "DNA") and in an appendix of my book devoted to the problems associated with this new technology. For me the bottom line is: an intruder without gloves would have left his DNA all over the place and someone wearing gloves would not have left any touch DNA at all.

As for Lou Smit's take on this case, I find it unfortunate that someone with his reputation would allow himself to become an advocate rather than an objective investigator. I can see how he might have felt some sympathy for John and Patsy, but there was no excuse for his bending the evidence in the manner he did, to produce so many misleading theories. My take on his efforts can be found in a blog post titled "The Lou Smit Show," which debunks just about every one of the claims parroted by Mills and Co.

282 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. For some of us out here who don't have cable tv you might be able to view this A&E special airing tonight via A&E.com on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is just mindboggling that JR can give so many completely contradictory answers and nobody calls him out. If anybody else would give totally different versions of what happened it would be seen as a sign of guilt, but not with JR. PR contradicted herself too but she can point to the fact she was hysterical and was heavily sedated within hours. But unfortunately for John he was unusual calm, cordial even, not surprising, a CEO has to be able to handle great stress, but that means he must remember what happened, but he basically tells a new version every time he is asked, and everybody is OK with that. Something is very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh God, such terrible sad pictures!
    But I agree, those spots don't look like defensive scratches

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it's possible to tell when the sexual assault took place, based on the evidence. It could have happened prior to or after the head blow or even during the strangulation, or all three.

      Delete
  7. Everyone claims that JR has so many contradictory statements. I am aware of the window story and PR's contradictory statements about the 911 call but what are all these other contradictory statements ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I must be missing something because I have read every transcript that have been made public that i know of. Here are almost all of PR and JR's LE interview transcripts.https://m.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/2uympt/reposting_all_police_interview_transcripts_with/

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One can use a flashlight and not know where it came from.

      Delete
    2. Also when he reported seeing an open window in the basement and closing it, he initially said he couldn't recall whether he reported it or not and then provided a lame excuse as to why he wouldn't have reported it, implying that he didn't. Some years later, when interviewed by Katie Couric, he insisted he did report it to Det. Arndt. But there is no mention of that in Arndt's long, detailed report.

      He initially told the police he had checked all the floor level doors and found them locked. Later he claimed the Butler door had been left open. It had been opened by a police technician, as he well knew.

      He also made a big deal about 7 open windows and doors being found in the house -- a seriously misleading statement as none of those windows or doors could have provided access to the house.

      In their book, he claimed the story about him calling his pilot to prepare for a flight out of Boulder the same afternoon he'd discovered his daughter's body, was an "urban myth." This is contradicted by a police report verifying that call.

      And yes, he claimed he told Patsy to call 911 while both were together in the kitchen, which is contradicted by what Patsy said on the A&E doc., as shown above.

      He claimed he was always willing to be questioned by the police, which is clearly untrue. He and his lawyers continually placed obstacles in the way of a meaningful police interview for months.

      He claimed the police never investigated other suspects but only concentrated on him and his family, which is blatantly false.

      Delete
    3. I agree completely that JR was deceptive. Patsy said it was JR's idea to call 911 in 1 of her first interviews as well. As far as saying doors and windows were open, we have PR doing pretty much the same thing with the bear and the boots and now we even have BR saying that he himself unlocked the front door that night without even giving a reason as to why he would unlock the door. Now we have all 3 Ramseys trying to "create" an intruder. There has been nothing but deception by PR, JR and yes even BR from Day 1 as far as I am concerned.

      Delete
    4. Yep, and Patsy apparently had fuzzy memories of the size of underwear panties she bought for JonBenet. So I guess Burke after unlocking the front door to let the intruder in,sat down for his tea and pineapple, while the intruder, who happens to bring in his own can of fruit cocktail that he offers to JonBenet as well as a brand new pair of Bloomies two sizes too big and then decides to re-enact the damsel tied up on Burke's O gauge train set...why JB as the target? as Burke should have been just as easy to grab, now that we know he said he was up AFTER everyone went to bed. This kid had zero fear apparently that the "kidnapper" would try to come back for him.

      Delete
  10. Just wanted to add my observations/questions for those who have followed this case much longer than I have:

    - It seemed Dr. Lee and Dr. Spitz on the CBS show didn't feel there was any sexual assault at all, prior to or on the day of her death. They were adamant about this. The opinion of a pathologist with 60,000 cases under his belt can't be understated on this. They said any evidence of any sexual abuse, including the blood droplet on the underpants, was microscopic in nature.

    - They also suggested her heart may have still been beating, but she was brain dead at the time the garrote was applied. I understand the neck abrasions are up for debate one way or the other, but the petechial hemorrhages observed in the eyes that are consistent with strangulation - is the thought that even a brain dead person would exhibit these? Could she have been brain dead and still have a pulse for that length of time?

    - I found the CBS show fairly compelling, the behavior of Burke on the day of the murder and shortly after WAS atypical. But I'm not sold that BDI. Although they found a 10 year old kid to swing as hard as he could and crack a stationary skull with a layer of pig skin over it, I didn't find this too interesting. I can find a kid who can hit a baseball 400 ft too, but in general it would be considered an extreme rarity. I noticed they had a second skull there too, who knows how many he went through before they got one to crack/break.

    - It's almost as if Lou Smit was instructed to come in and specifically focus on a possible intruder scenario.

    - My biggest problem with the case is the cover-up. Perhaps someone here can give me a link or educate me more on John's past, but as sloppy as the crime scene staging could be viewed, it could also be viewed as just a little too good. How many software nerds would think to remove the batteries from a flashlight and remove old fingerprints/DNA? If it were me I'd probably just have thrown out the flashlight, along with the gloves and whatever else was used in the cover-up, rather than just leaving it on the kitchen table. I just can't fathom a software CEO as being able to successfully cover up a murder / accidental death successfully on his one and only attempt at it, in a short time window. The ransom note alone had to have taken ~90 minutes to complete, possibly even longer. It took the experts on the CBS show nearly 30 minutes just to transcribe it, without having to think and waste time on the practice drafts.

    Such a bizarre case, I still hope it gets solved. It seems John isn't too worried about that happening, having recorded the 'Her Father Speaks' program that airs later tonight on A&E. I have it set to record, so I can watch it after my own 6 year old daughter goes to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can look up poster CC post on September 25 "Evidence on chronic sexual abuse' on this site. The many pathologists and Dr's that she listed who thought there was sexual abuse was very convincing I thought. And of course CBS didn't want the sexual abuse because it didn't fit with their theory that BDI. I have the impression that the CBS show was more show and make believe and the Drs went along with it and said what CBS wanted to hear.

      I am not in the medical profession and don't know about blood pressure in a brain-dead person. Poster CC said she showed the pictures to two medical emergency personnel people and they told her that JBR would definitely have had a pulse and probably also muscle cramps and things like that.

      I still don't understand about the flashlight, the fact it was wiped clean seems strange to me especially the batteries, the skin was not broken there was no blood why clean the batteries?
      The easy thing for JR was that the crime scene was in his house and he moved the body, it made all the fibers and fingerprints meaningless, also the police didn't do a thorough job in containing and processing the crime scene. I think JR stayed up all night, he has had a lot of time but I don't think he did a good job staging the crime scene. I think he got away because he was lucky and rich.

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

      Delete
    3. I think he was hoping the Maglite would be seen as intruder evidence. And if an intruder had left it in the house, then he'd certainly want to wipe all his prints. Which is probably why he wiped them. He was, of course, improvising, because it was known that the Ramseys did in fact own a Maglite and no other one was found.

      Delete
    4. Batteries matter zero. Flashlights come with batteries in them. No human may have ever touched them. Or, if prints were on them, who cares? That means nothing.

      Delete
    5. If an intruder had replaced those batteries, then his prints might well be on them and could be used to ID him. I think this is what John was trying to suggest when he wiped them clean.

      Delete
    6. I was thinking just fear of something from JonBenet getting into the battery slot after striking her over the head with the flashlight, and removing prints since I have to imagine John was the man of the house replacing batteries in the flashlight. Interesting. Sure John had some story planned about it.

      Delete
  11. JR never said that he and PR read to JB. That is either another made up red herring or a miscommunication in his statement, although i guess it is possible that he did lie however the only official statement I have ever seen was JB was sleeping and taken directly upstairs to bed without ever waking up. JR is not the only Ramsey to make this statement and stick to it, BR and PR did as well. If this is the case and he did lie then now we have PR and BR who know that is a lie since day 1 and both of whom have then also lied during their interviews to LE. The flashlight pictures, I believe were too dark when he he was shown them or something like that but again who did he put to bed that night with the flashlight ? Burke, who was questioned at 9 yrs old and never mentions this until 20 years after his sisters brutal murder ? Most likely he lied about it back when LE interviewed him to begin with. So if he in fact did lie about these things then 1 has to ask why is the whole family lying about these things ? I am sorry but I am not going to buy that JR was a pedo molester brutal killer and the whole family is going to lie to cover up for it. If that was the case PR would be worried for BR's life and for her own life which equates to the marriage being extinguished and her trying to keep BR away from her psychopath husband. I stick to transcripts and depos as I know those are factual. When you read the transcripts and watch the depo, clearly 1 person tells many lies and gets caught red-handed in a few and guess what, it is not JR but go ahead and read them yourself.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think JR did it. I think the IDI is silly on so many levels but I still prefer IDI to BDI if I had to choose between those 2.
    An psychopath intruder who stayed in that huge mansion for an extended period of time (days) sneaking around finding things out and befriending JBR only to kill her later and write a RN to maximize pain and destruction and JR reacting to finding her as a cowardice bumbling fool while he stayed outwardly cold and suave is hard to envision. But the BDI is even more outrageous.
    There is no way I can believe that upon finding JBR alive after being hit by a murderous BR (and maybe sexualy abused by him) a parent would not desperately try to save JBR and call an ambulance, but instead would decide to murder (!) her with a garrote all to avoid public embarrassment that in no way would destroy their lives, and stage a weird kidnapping/hiddeous crime scene that they knew would definitely totally destroy their life and status. Parents are always suspects, and this cover-up would always be highly suspicious.
    If BDI by accident the whole thing is even more absurd.
    It all points to JDI, I will give the IDI a 0.1% probability and BDI 0.01%
    Sure a parent will often try to cover-up for a child, but not by murdering their other child who is the victim, and then staging something that makes it all far worse.
    I don't understand how BDI people can like their theory. I wish they could explain it, but all I get is that BR is weird so of course he did it/ parents would do anything for their child ( but not for JRB apparently)./ if JR was the murderer PR would not want to live with him ( though it is well known that partners and children tend to believe their partner/parent is innocent even if his guilt is obvious to an outsider)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So do you think PR was complicit at all, or that she thought it was an intruder until the day she died from cancer? I'm still torn on how involved PR was in the case.

      It's too bad the majority of the grand jury testimony is sealed up. The fact they found JR and PR to be criminally negligent (I forgot the exact terms), makes me feel like there's a lot the public isn't aware of to this day.

      I agree that BDI it is not the most likely scenario, but yeah he may have been the one who was sexually 'abusing' JBR, or just a kid who has some strange developmental issues. He had just smeared feces on a candy box or whatever it was that JBR had received on the 24th. It seems very odd he stayed in his room the entire morning of his sister's death, with all the activity in the house.

      JDI is the most likely scenario, it's just the whole cover-up that seems to have a lot of oddities.

      Advances in science and forensics is the only hope of this case being solved, but it doesn't even sound like the case is being worked on any more by LE, they're just "waiting for tips".

      Delete
    2. I think JR convinced PR that IDI and reminded her that the police always thinks the father did it so she had to help him. And I think PR totally trusted JR. I know of a case in which the husband was arrested because his DNA matched that of the seemen on a raped and strangled teenage girl, the man confessed, but his wife was still convinced he was innocent, she was sure the police faked the DNA match and had brainwashed her husband into confessing. Often people think they know their partner and nothing can change their mind.

      Delete
    3. If BDI, maybe JR and/or PR didn't know that JBR was still alive, so they did the staging. I'm not so sure that I would be able to determine if someone is still technically alive or not.

      Delete
  14. It was an intruder.. The head blow was last.. she was garotted first as there was no bruising to the scalp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then why was there extensive bruising on her brain, as well as a minimum of 45 minutes worth of bleeding and edema in her brain and cranial cavities?

      You are clearly twisting everything to fit your theory that she screamed, your intruder hit her, and fled in a panic.

      Delete
    2. We dont know there was 45 min. of bleeding.. We do know that there was minimal swelling and no bruising.. The heart can beat for a short while after death..

      Delete
  15. I have a question.. are cops lying about the garotte to place blame on Patsy? Why is the paint brush in the tray BLUE but the garotte is BARE wood..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, if the garotte is about 10 inches and the brush in the room is another 6 inches.. Thats a 16-18 in brush.. Just how long is the remaining piece that missing.. . Makes no sense..

      Delete
  16. For me (and maybe me only) the case is solved. Im 99% sure it was Burke. It all adds up and everything just makes sense. No other theory adds up. John covered it up and deserves to be prosecuted. Patsy wrote the RN with John dictating parts of it.

    I wont be posting anymore unless there is some kind of twist or new info comes to light.

    Have been reviewing the Amanda Knox case more than JBR. That case was so much simpler than the Ramsey case. Amanda Knox innocent...cant believe the poor girl and her boyfriend did 4 years behind bars.

    Anyway thanks for the blog Doc and I'll be back if there is any updates to the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Facepalm... She is guilty as sin..

      Delete
    2. Lol that is funny. Coming from someone who believes IDI, your comment means very little. Knox is innocent as they come.

      Delete
    3. I'm in the same camp now Zed. Way back in '96 and '97 I was believing IDI and Smit did show that yes, a grown person can enter the home thru a basement window. But over the years, various info from the actual LE that worked with evidence and interviews and some of the very recent and different statements in 2016 from surviving family members, yes, it seems more probable that BDI to me. I also think what another person said on topix may be true, that the scream that a neighbor reported hearing that night, was not from little JonBenet, but it was Patsy's scream, upon finding her unconscious and unresponsive.
      I've enjoyed reading your posts the past several days. I didn't follow the Knox case, but do follow the McStay case. I post on another blog for that one (not the ranting Rick Baker one). Take care Zed, you seem like a good egg!

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

      Delete
    5. My goodness, Leigh Too, we agree on something! However, given the bizarre distortions you indulge in on this forum, I have no doubt you are right about the Meredith Kercher murder but for all the wrong reasons! Hehe. After all, Amanda's invention of clearly idiotic post-hoc lies to account for the evidence - ie, the evidence of cleaned-up footprints in blood in the hallway and the *absence* of at least half a bloody footprint in the bathroom being subsequently explained by the lie that she stood on the bath mat and shuffled out of the bathroom and down the hallway on it (who has ever done that, ever?!) is no more believable than John Ramsey's account of having stripped off his suit to enter through the broken window once before, last summer, or some summer, or maybe it was twice, or maybe three times, when he locked himself out, or was returning from a business trip, or had given his keys to John Andrew, or a neighbour, and then the window was repaired, or not, or maybe, he can't specifically remember because he doesn't know yet what exactly the evidence shows about the window...

      Come on Leigh. Both these intruder stories are entirely bogus. As bogus as the Madeleine McCann intruder. In fact there's much better staging in Perugia than in Boulder. There was actually a rock, and glass sprayed around.

      Delete
    6. Im not sure what your point is with John and the window. And I have asked poignant question regarding the case.. Why IS the brush blue in the carrier and bare wood in the garotte? And no brush is longer than 16 inches..measure that out with your hands right now.. They are lying to frame Patsy..The intruder prolly brought the garotte with them...already made..

      Delete
    7. The DNA got there because he removed his glove to sexually assault her.. Prolly licked his finger to insert it into her and dripped his saliva and her blood on her when he removed it..

      Delete
    8. If you do a search on "basement window" you should find what I've written about it. Then you'll see my point. If you have questions about anything in those posts, feel free to ask them here.

      Your question about the blue brush handle is interesting. That does seem to be a discrepancy. But I have no idea what it might mean, or what bearing it might have on the case. The forensics people matched the two pieces of wood by shape not color, so the "garrote" definitely came from the brush handle.

      And if the DNA got there the way you suggest, then, once again, there would have been lots of it, not just a few stray skin cells, as discovered via "touch DNA" analysis.

      Delete
    9. Ever see any pictures of the brush and garotte together showing the alignment? I havent.. Anyone?? They are lying to frame Patsy... more disinformation by the police.. And the DAN was done 20 years ago.. its not like today.. And why did the BPD only test one spot on her panties and not both.. That was done a few years later which led to the DNA database sample. And why havent they done a better test in the last few years

      Delete
    10. And where is the supposed 3rd part of the handle? And how long was it? How long can a brush be? More than 16-18 inches? Laughable..

      Delete
    11. Oh and the basement window.. John claiming he did it earlier would point away from an intruder.. not towards one.

      Delete
    12. "Oh and the basement window.. John claiming he did it earlier would point away from an intruder.. not towards one."

      Well then, clearly you didn't read Doc's section about the basement window at all.
      I'm genuinely curious....why do you continue commenting on a blog you can't even be bothered reading?

      Delete
  17. So, if J's prints are on the batteries, it proves he is complicit in staging.

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

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

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

      Delete
  19. For anyone interested in a 1998 interview with Linda Wilcox, former housekeeper to the Ramsey family, here is a written transcript of her radio interview. She says the only joy in that house was JonBenet. The only one that was happy in that house was the youngest child. She talks of Jacques v1 and v2, when the kids had chicken pox, when Burke asked if he was fat...

    http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/07211998lindawilcoxon-pb.htm

    ReplyDelete
  20. All this attention at the 20 year mark feeds right into the "Ramsey machine" as controlled by John. He has successfully controlled the narrative from day one. And one has to think....why?

    Observations:
    1) missing time during the initial hours the police/Arndt were in attendance on the day JBR was reported "kidnapped";
    2) The bee-line to JBR's body/wine room, moving the body, tape etc;
    3) Delaying the initial questioning by police, then hiring of lawyers/investigators/PR;
    4) Long period of PR being sedated;
    5) Television interviews;
    6) Multiple changes of story.

    If JR was that controlling of the "external-facing" aspects of the Ramsey machine, I would suggest he was just as active with the "internal stakeholders", e.g. PR and BR. Doc has suggested that JR manipulated PR - and it is consistent that he would have with Burke as well.

    What struck me about the comments/attitude of BR in his two interviews as a child is a) how "adult" some of his comments were (e.g. "I'm basically getting on with my life" and derision of the media circus around his school). This is not (to me) an indication of callousness or indifference, but evidence of adult coaching....by JR.

    Re: Burke's attitude towards his sister's murder - again we don't know what he was told, but I imagine (given the religious nature of the parents and the horrible way JBR died) that it was along the lines of JBR being in a better place, an angel, that sort of thing. And as much as we want to think children will reflect adult emotions, in truth they do not - after the immediacy wears off, they will respond to adult emotions (consoling a mother if she is upset) but will not usually have the same emotions themselves.

    Doc's theory makes the most sense - it explains the narrative that John Ramsey has tried to control and twist (and has been largely successful in doing so) over the last 20 years.

    -Sisu

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

      Delete
    2. That is a very good observation Sisu. You are right. I have noticed the same thing (but stupidly never connected it to BR). When children are heavily coached often they really do repeat ad verbatim the explanations the adult gave them.

      Delete
  21. No scenario strikes me as plausible where John waits 45 minutes but doesn't think JonBenet is already dead. Some preparation for beheading, as mentioned in the note, seems more likely than John realizing she isn't dead 45 minutes later and deciding to strangle her. The head blow seems like enough. The garrote seems that kind of 'overkill' like 55 stab wounds or something, begging for some other explanation than just making sure she is dead. Some type of bdsm sexual thing for John could explain it, but at least at first blush seems a lot less plausible than beheading, which again I emphasize is mentioned in the note, which here we try to recognize as deliberate and not mere ink shooting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a gruesome thought, but maybe you are right. I read somewhere she wouldn't fit in that suitcase unless she was beheaded. He may have waited nearly an hour to give the blood time to congeal so there wouldn't be much blood spill. But when he comes back she isn't dead and he is running out of time, can't wait another hour, so he does the awful garroting thing.

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

      Delete
    3. "she wouldn't fit in that suitcase unless she was beheaded" That's exactly my thinking. I bet you a huff of a dirty sock that the suitcase was part of the crime. Too many red flags. John uses it instead of a chair in the staging. Fleet White doesn't seem to notice it or JonBenet, suggesting perhaps both were in the trunk. It belonged to John Andrew, i. e., not John, like everything used in the crime. The two "feminine" flourishes in the note seem to be the parts telling John to "make sure" he brings an "adequate size" attache (like a samsonite suitcase? adequate for the ransom or for a body?) and that he is rested since tomorrow will be "exhausting" (because you have to finish with the beheading?) Not to mention, aside from beheading, there is nothing slightly foreign faction about it.

      One thing I am not certain on and wish Doc would be charitable enough to shed light on is when it seems best for John to dump the body. Is he doing this on the way to the bank, or later and when delivering the ransom? His original scenario seems to say later, but then why add more steps?

      Delete
    4. I think you are letting your imagination run away with you with your beheading theory. I see nothing that John would have gained by literally beheading her. For one thing there'd have been a ton of blood in that basement which would mean she was beheaded in the house, which goes totally contrary to the scenario set up in the note. Also there is NOTHING that a Samsonite suitcase and an attache have in common.

      To answer your question: why on earth would he want to dump the body on the way to the bank, in full daylight where anyone could have spotted him? As I see it, his best bet would be to dump her the following night, under cover of darkness.

      Delete
    5. He would gain obscuring the cause of death by making the head with the cracked skull go away. I don't think he was going to behead her in the house. I think it's what was going to make the next day exhausting. Samsonite is the first recommendation if you search for attache cases on google. A samsonite suitcase is very much like a bigger-than-normal attache case. Further, he needed some deviation from the instructions to behead her per the note. A big samsonite suitcase not being technically an attache case possibly gives the reason for why the note says 'attache', something sticking out enough for others to blame on Patsy.

      Dennis Nilsen noted there wasn't much blood to clean up when he dismembered whole bodies, for the blood congeals. "It's like a butcher shop".

      It seems very reasonable to say he was going to dump the body when he delivered the ransom. I don't really suspect otherwise. However, it's one more trip. Dumping at night means one more day dealing with the body. His first excuse to get out of the house would be to go to the bank. Suspect he would have used both trips to get rid of evidence. As John is good at misdirection, I wonder if the body would be gone by that night.

      Delete
    6. The fact that the suitcase was placed perpendicular to the wall seemed interesting to me. If you were going to use it as a step stool it would seem more logical to place it against the wall, parallel. Not to mention the crime scene video showed an actual step stool about 4 feet away, which would have been easier to use than a suitcase, although it looks shorter.

      Delete
    7. You're missing the point, Punisher. John's plan would have involved getting the ransom money first, and then dumping the body while claiming he was delivering the ransom. That's an important feature of the note, which sets that up beautifully. If he or his car is sighted near where the body would eventually be found, delivering the ransom becomes his alibi.

      And no, Pro Cams, the suitcase was originally found flush against the wall. Fleet White moved it to the position shown in the photo.

      Delete
    8. John probably knew she wasn't dead after the blow to the head and spent the next 40 odd minutes thinking of what to do. Before he did anything he had to kill her, especially if her body was physically reacting to the head injury.

      John's plan was pretty bad considering he couldn't actually stage a call to give delivery instructions. The police would have known that there was no incoming call to the house. He would had to have written yet another letter.

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

      Delete
    10. I get the point that it's what you say, and the note does set it up nicely, but then he's either driving to the bank with the body in the trunk or he's hiding it at home while he's going to the bank. Risky business. The note also sets it up perfectly to find a body without a head, and the crime was to her head.

      The suitcase was said to be flush against the wall, but presumably that still means normal to the wall rather than parallel, i. e. in the same position but a few inches toward the wall. I agree with Procams. I find the shard of glass suspicious too.

      Delete
    11. Raven, it was actually possible for John to stage a "kidnapper's" call, as I suggested here some time ago. He could have called home from a phone booth -- the call would have been picked up by his answering machine. Whether that was part of his plan I don't know, but he certainly could have done that. You have to realize that thanks to the ransom note he'd have been completely in charge of everything. Once Patsy and Burke were out of house and staying with friends he could have played it any way he'd wanted. And if he wasn't able to get Patsy out of the house, he could have disguised his voice when he called. Or written another note and claimed it was inserted in his mail slot at some point.

      Punisher, the note sets up a beheading, yes, but only if the police are called. John's plan would not have involved calling the police and he would have delivered the ransom as instructed, so there'd be no need for them to behead her.

      And the suitcase was reported by both John and Fleet as both flush and parallel against the wall.


      Delete
  22. Good morning!

    I was able to catch the A&E program last night as well and what I find most astounding is that these "experts" all come up with different answers. The only thing they agreed upon, was the lack of sexual abuse prior to that night. How is that possible when others expert in their fields have found chronic sexual abuse? It's mind boggling to me.

    The other issue is what came first - head blow or strangulation. They even differ on this.

    It's very frustrating when you keep getting different answers from different so called "experts".

    John's demeanor has remained the same - cool and calculating. And I was left where I always am with this case. Baffled!

    I tried to find where I'd read that BR liked to play doctor, but I can't find it. It may have been on another blog.

    I also found where PR and JR found a book about learning Danish in their room that they said wasn't their book. Anyone know anything about that one?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I'll watch the A&E thing then, thanks for the heads up! Imagine how absolutely great it would be to have a major network start back at the drawing board and recreate another scenario - one in which JR does it. It's incredible to think that they can't solve it given the theories they have come up with but they refuse to act out a scenario in which the one person they aren't going to consider, did it. In some ways I believe it was the Lifetime movie years ago based on Larry Schiller's book "A Perfect Town a Perfect Murder" (did I get that backwards) that at least showed a suspicious looking John. He did seem the way Linda Arnt described him, He did seem evasive. And they didn't make it out that Patsy did anything and certainly they didn't point to Burke. I think the Burke thing is fairly recent, like in the last ten years as they can't prove Patsy's involvement and they don't want to look at John so hey, it must be Burke! So I would suggest for your own peace of mind, don't watch these cable TV treatments, because they are getting it wrong. Believe me, it took a long time for me to be dead certain of JR guilt. I believed it when I first heard the autopsy report long ago, 1996 or 1997, then when the media went in the Patsy wrote the note frenzy I believed it was Patsy. Then I read Kolar and I thought well, maybe Burke (the train tracks stuff) but now I've been restored to my first gut instinct with absolutely no faith in the media or television treatments.

      Delete
    2. As I've said before, this case will never be solved by analyzing the evidence, because it's always possible to find "experts" to support any interpretation. You go around in circles and get nowhere.

      That's why, as I keep repeating ad nauseum (forgive me!), I stress the facts and the logic. That's really all we need, imo.

      Delete
    3. Yes DocG, when I did internet research for a few PI's a while back I was told to just stay on track, and only look for what the client is paying us to find. I tend to believe when it's seen in totality though all of the pieces can fit, but not necessarily so.

      Delete
    4. I disagree. Experts in forensics cases that go to trial always differ in opinion, but forensics is the only way this crime can be solved at this point, barring a confession. Facts & logic would never be enough to generate an arrest warrant, as most of the facts are a mess to begin with. Someone like Henry Lee is the only chance of this case ever being closed.

      Delete
    5. Are you kidding? Henry Lee should stay in his lab and never come out. He was a travesty in the O.J. Simpson case, he got worse during the Michael Peterson case and now he can't believe the flashlight wouldn't have broken the skin. Stick to collecting DNA off new panties.

      Delete
    6. I said someone *like* Henry Lee :D Anyway, the OJ case was part of the reason JonBenet was never vindicated, because the DA was scared of repeating that debacle.

      Science is the only way the JonBenet case would ever come to a close, barring a confession, which obviously isn't forthcoming.

      Delete
  23. Regarding the maglite: It almost seems as if JR has a child like mind when it came to some of his staging. Putting quotes from movies in the ransom note, making a garrot but tying the hands so loosely as if the killer thought she might struggle (even though she was unconscious and age 6) and the wiping down of the batteries and flashlight. He would need to distance himself from that flashlight completely by saying he didn't recognize it so that we would infer the killer must have brought it. But if we believe that, then why would the killer wipe down the batteries? AND, leave the murder weapon in plain site? If the maglite was wiped clean of prints (no intruder's prints found there) then what a clever intruder to also wipe down the batteries. Yet the killer was stupid for leaving the murder weapon there if he brought it into the house. I think not so much that JR was good at staging a murder but that he was good at MISDIRECTION and subterfuge and confusion. Probably all skills he learned in his training in the military filed under "covert operations."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, I think until we can all sit down in a room and examine ALL of the evidence for ourselves, we are going to be speculating 20 more years from now. There are too many inconsistencies, lies and misdirection, and the varying opinions of the "experts" only makes it worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely. A spreadsheet showing all of the inconsistencies would be interesting. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
  25. As far as the flashlight goes, didn't JR at one point say he used it to bring BR back to his room? (which was odd). If it was his flashlight, isn't it logical that it WOULD have his fingerprints on it. Why wipe down fingerprints on a flashlight that's yours?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yep EG, that's what I said earlier. He needed that maglite to look like an intruder brought it. Hence, he wiped down the lite and the batteries.

      Delete
    2. I guess it was mentioned that the presence or absence of fingerprints in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything.

      Delete
  26. this isn't evidence, for sure. It's a hypothesis. It occurred to me that perhaps the sexual attack was not an incestuous "rough" molestation at all. I was thinking mostly for years that that's what precipitated the murder, that it hurt, she cried out, said she'd tell, said no more, so he silenced her. It's totally possible that he decided to murder her first, either because she told him before he slugged her that she was going to tell on the other times, or that he was suggesting they go someplace private that night and she knew what he wanted to do and wanted no part of it. Then the rest of it was all staging. I'm sure he enjoyed it though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. in otherwords, the sexual attack was part of the staging, but not a part of the murder.

      Delete
    2. I am so torn about JR's having sexually molested JBR. I read the Wilcox interview and she said JR would get frustrated with JBR not wanting to go to sleep. Wouldn't he have wanted that, so he could stay in the room with her longer if he was molesting her? Instead he gave her a bottle and turned a video on to get her to fall asleep? Wilcox made it sound like neither parent was very involved with the children. And she even said BR wet the bed at 7 years old? That's not normal.
      They pretty much had two children wetting their beds on a regular basis. I'd like to know if they addressed this issue and if they did, how they did.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Dr. Lee and Dr. Spitz both feel she was never sexually assaulted, before or during the crime. They said any evidence of abuse wasn't even visible to the naked eye, and they have about 80,000 cases between them. Their opinion means more to me personally than anyone else.

      Delete
    4. Same here pro cams. AND it's not that I want to believe them so it fits a certain narrative I have in my mind is ju st who I am invoiced to trust. Doesn't mean John did our didn't kill her. He is so cold in interviews... the window... the beline for the wine closet. He so knows what happened. But I believe the experts I saw on TV that determined she wasn't sexually assaulted. I know I know there was a pediatric panel. Did they see over 80,000 cases? I don't even know who these people are. But I saw Lee and Spitz on my TV screen and I heard their rationale, know their experience, and I believe them. What would be their motivation to not give their true opinion?

      Delete
    5. Also I know lots of boots who wet their beds well past the agend of 7. Both my brothers did until middle school. I think it's weirder that Burke was plaYing with his poop!

      Delete
    6. No one has ever said that Patsy was ever upset over this.. So no motive there..

      Delete
  27. John is distant and controlled.. Men tend to be, plus he had lost 2 children and nearly lost his wife.. The man has been through a lot.. He is also the CEO of a billion dollar company.. But last night on the A&E special.. I saw his pain and anger for the first time.. He is in his 70's now and its not so easy to keep a lid on things.. This s a broken man...He has lost everything.. imagine losing not one but 2 children and a wife..and everything you worked for..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He hasn't shown an ounce of remorse for killing his daughter.

      Delete
    2. John has used gaslighting on himself, he now actually believes he is innocent.

      Delete
    3. He shows no desire for the capture and/or killing of IDI, like most male parents would be seeking vengeance/retribution. He has also never shown any sort of empathy in any interview except for himself/PDI. He seriously does not care, and the best times of his life were around 2001-until last year when people stopped bothering him about this inconvenience.

      Delete
  28. Just curious - Did anyone note how Burke was at the Fleet's after they took him out of the house the morning of? I would think if he was truly up all night, whether he did it or not, he would have been extremely tired and probably enough to go to sleep. 9 year olds are not able to be up all night and be able to carry on through the next day. Most adults aren't either except for the adrenaline that might keep them up in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the police reports said he was crying as they were taking him to the car, but I don't recall any other observations after he was at the Fleet's.

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

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Inq. Actually I've spent most of my life as a teacher. At just about every level, from kindergarten, primary school, middle school, high school, to undergraduate and graduate college/university level. And I've always (or almost always) enjoyed it. I love kids. They tease me and I tease them and we usually get along fine.

      I guess I do see myself as a teacher when it comes to this blog -- also maybe a bit of a preacher. So long as they rhyme I'm good with both. :-)

      Delete
    4. That is so awesome DocG. I think you are very good at it, kind of guiding us back when we get too far out in left field. From someone who has gone round and around with this case for 20 years it was refreshing to see it laid out in a logical way that made sense. No one else has done that. Came close with the Hodges book but then I just never could wrap my mind around Patsy writing that note - or sitting and having it dictated to her. Really preposterous. But like you said, one must have an open mind and be willing to be educated, to read everything they can and be willing to learn, otherwise nothing is going to get inside and alter thinking. And I think most of us here want to learn and understand.

      Delete
  29. I think it was Pugh, Helgoth and or the Ninja guy.. or any combination of the 3....

    ReplyDelete
  30. Leigh -- regarding the paintbrush in the caddy, you are looking at the wrong one (it's not the blue one). It is hard to see the broken end, but if you look close enough you will see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes, I think you might be right.. thanks.

      Delete
  31. Another thing that's so strange that points directly to JDI/PDI is the fact they invited all their friends over minutes later. If your child is kidnapped and the ransom note has SPECIFIC dollar amounts that only someone around you could possibly know of, you would be completely untrusting and skeptical of literally everyone you knew outside of who was in the house.

    lol. It gets sillier and sillier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PR wasn't supposed to call 911. That wasn't in John's plans. So since she did, he probably suggested that she invite a household of people over so he could keep her occupied and surrounded when the police came and would want to question her. If all would have gone according to his phoney staging he would have removed Burke and Patsy from the house and finished doing what he needed to do, that night. She didn't know the body was still in the house. Only John knew that. If you think she was in on it then she wouldn't have called the police knowing the body was still in the house.

      Delete
    2. That's an interesting thought. We really have no way of knowing exactly what went on between them at that time. It's easy to assume calling the friends was Patsy's idea, but it certainly could have been John's, yes.

      Delete
    3. She called friends because she had no family in Boulder.

      Delete
    4. Leigh, you're just too funny.

      Delete
    5. If my kid got abducted I'd probably call friends too. Once you call police and realize not much is being done, you probably just get panic-stricken and call everyone you know, in a futile attempt to 'locate' her.

      Delete
  32. So Leigh Too believes IDI and thinks Amanda Knox is guilty? Lol. Are you voting for Trump too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rude! Leave politics out of this; its a free country and people vote based on their personal beliefs and desires for what they want to see in a leader. This blog is about finding justice for a little girl who is dead and never got to vote.

      Delete
  33. Replies
    1. Of course you are. Logic and facts are a secondary concern to you.

      Delete
    2. Nah, I just want someone in the White House who wont be selling off the artwork for her profit..

      Delete
    3. You just went way way up in my estimation Leigh!

      Delete
    4. Some see it, and some don't, right Leigh? As for Amanda Knox, I never really followed that one. She just kind of presented herself to me as a rich liberal Seattle brat who had her parents wrapped around her finger, who gets a "Rome Adventure", and was involved in something very bad but got away with it by batting those big blue eyes. Now she has a Netflix special so she can explain herself yet again. But hey, I didn't really follow it.

      Delete
    5. She has a new special?? I agree on her batting her eyes.. she is very manipulative..

      Delete
  34. I too find artwork profits to be of utmost importance this election year.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Are you being facetious or did you miss the metaphor.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And why is it that she always get in and out of the mega medical van on the opposite side where no one can see her..yeah we know why..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leigh, you made my day.....:)

      Delete
    2. Can we move away from the personal stuff and get on with discussing the case? I should delete a lot of these posts but I don't have the time or energy at the moment.

      Delete
  37. Mervin Pugh asked police if JB was missing or dead and if she was strangled.. He is trying to find out what the hell went wrong with his plan..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is all the evidence missing from the Ramseys? AT the Pughs.. They had the duct tape.. nylon cording and a ransom note pad.. They would know about the $118k, the lay out of the house.. use of the back stairs... knew the alarm wasnt set and had a key..and asked questions like that... Book 'em Dano..

      Delete
    2. And Linda is standing out on the sidewalk handing out copies of evidence against Patsy to people walking by..

      Delete
    3. I remember I saw a case on Forensic Files where they were able to match up pieces of duct tape to one another to determine the source, much like they were able to match up the ransom notes to the originating pad from the tear pattern. I wonder if that was attempted in this case.

      Delete
  38. Inquisitive: I recommend studying the Amanda Knox case. It has more or less a straightforward conclusion, but she is absolutely innocent. The case against her was nothing more than character assassination and innuendo. DocG has a few blog posts on this very site pointing to her innocence and why DNA can be problematic when it isn't properly sourced. Definitely read them.

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

      Delete
    2. It just wasn't a case that drew me in (Amanda Knox). I just didn't care enough to follow it. Michael Peterson was fascinating, especially since he had a documentary filmed on himself by his lawyers while he was awaiting his appeal I believe it was. "Under the Stairs" or something like that. It was uncovered that he was involved much much earlier where a woman fell down a flight of stairs to her death - but that was staged too. By him. I also followed the Casey Anthony arrest, trial, acquittal. Not all cases draw me in. JB does of course.

      Delete
    3. Hey inquisitive what do toy think happened in the casey Anthony case? I follow and totally think she knows c what happened to her daughter but I can't figure out actually b what that is...

      Delete
  39. ....... READ the Whole thing ....... http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031576253FSupp2d1323_11466/WOLF%20v.%20RAMSEY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blah, blah,blah.. The BPD had them file this case so they could force the Ramseys to testify under oath.. And what did they get from it.. Nothing.

      Delete
  40. I'm curious what ended up on the cutting room floor of the CBS documentary? Here they stage a whole warehouse to look like the Ramsey home, they spend virtually no time on it at all, they show the dining room with the pineapple bowl and the kitchen area and the basement. They didn't recreate anything to do with JB's bedroom, or her parent's bedroom, or JB coming downstairs, only showing JB reaching for pineapple. A waste of their time, and ours for watching it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I communicate with the author of the Facebook memorial page pretty often. According to her they are going to air a third episode according to the main two investigators on the show. They said this on their Facebook pages. We'll see.

      Delete
    2. Hi Zack. What would be helpful, since they are "recreating" what they think happened according to the scenario BDI, if to be fair, and just for fun, if they also included all three scenarios. A PDI dramatization (bed wetting, losing her temper, pushing her against the tub spigot, etc. then writing a note), a JDI dramatization, luring her out of her bed and feeding her a pineapple chunk, then on down to the basement, or a combination of all three scenarios. Then let the audience decide. Which seems most plausible. So we've seen their BDI scenario, shouldn't we be allowed to see all scenarios? In fact in their BDI scenario they didn't show anyone writing the note. One would assume that if BDI one or both of the parents would have been involved in the staging. Yet....odly enough, they left that out. Fear of a lawsuit perhaps? They played it safe. By saying BDI they could just stop tape right there. No one is going to sue them over their theory. But if they had played out a PR scenario or a JR scenario you bet your boots lawsuit would have been forthcoming. By the way, is CBS being sued now? Doubtful.

      Delete
    3. I agree that all scenarios should be played out but they are playing it safe, which is disappointing. Burke is suing CBS with Lin Wood's help from what I've read.

      Delete
    4. Wow. Well, that should be interesting. I just read the Mark Bechner AMA on Reddit. It was interesting. He wouldn't answer some questions regarding Burke. He said someone submitted a theory of JR DI - was that DocG? - and that he found it interesting but didn't give it much credence. Pity. He said he doesn't know who killed her, doesn't want to rule anything out including IDI, but thought Lou Smit became emotionally involved with JR and PR and so wasn't objective. He said that because there is DNA found that they couldn't match it will make prosecuting a family member very difficult. So this is what Leigh Too has been saying here. Of course we may have an explanation for that DNA but at the time Bechner said it's not going to be discounted. Bechner said Burke had one interview on the 26th and one with the social worker. He said they had paid people go out to talk to him not all that long ago and he refused to talk to anyone.

      Delete
    5. Yes, dont leave any theory out or any person.. It seems to me there is more evidence against other people, more so than the Ramseys..IMO. But I wonder if they are suing on the grounds that Burke has legally been ruled out.. I dont know

      Delete
  41. Well I woulds sure like to know if BPD is doing anything regarding the Hispanic DNA discovery.. Do airlines keep passenger lists for 20 years?

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

      Delete
    2. And this is how cases dont get solved for 20 years..ALL evidence needs to followed ..ALL.

      Delete
    3. But them the BPD saying they didnt know this for years would be spurious..

      Delete
  42. The DNA is a red herring. 6 different DNA was found on JB. Are you suggesting a gang of foreign factionistas took part in this crime, on site? Read this: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-problem-with-dna.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are only concerned with the DNA on her panties and jammies..

      Delete
  43. Reading a deposition from Oct. 20 1998 Stephen Miles versus Ramsey and the National Enquirer. Not much there, just some background info on John Ramsey, where he grew up, went to school, Naval training, had Top Secret clearance, etc. Said he's been on prozac since 1996. But nothing really there. It was dropped by a court in any event, nothing could be touched on much regarding the crime as he was about to go to the Grand Jury.

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. Once you accept that there was no prior sex abuse and that Patsy never was upset about the bed wetting.. you have lost them both as suspects as there is no motive.. Burke was cleared by BPD.. Like it or not, that leaves the IDI theory as the only possibility

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe there was any sexual abuse at any point. But I don't see how this rules out John. There's lots of child abusers, not very many of them are murderers; the two aren't connected. I don't buy the theory that he killed her because she threatened to tell someone, that's extremely far-fetched IMO.

      Delete
    2. Are you sure Burke was officially cleared by BPD? I remember reading something that Lin Wood wrote up concerning Burke, that he wanted AH to sign. AH wouldn't sign it the way it was written the first time.

      Delete
  46. M - regarding Casey Anthony - when the scientist testified that the gas chromatography-mass spectometry (GS-MS) test on the trunk of her car had a very high level of chloroform I thought for sure that was how she killed her child. But the day they think she did it as it was the last her father saw his granddaughter before he went to work (June 6 I believe) Casey came back home after pretending to leave for a job she didn't have. She was on the home computer around the time she would have killed her daughter. She did make several calls in a row to her mother, and took a call from her friend but said nothing about being in a panicked state, but did sound unusual according to the friend. Her calls to her mother, one after another, were not picked up. Regarding the chloroform, she would have had to have made it somewhere - the house, the garage, and that particular day. Yet no purchase receipts were found for acetone, no receptacles for mixing it up were found, and it has to be used fairly quickly. It can't be stored. So how did all that chloroform show up in the trunk of her car? A mystery. I think she was not paying any attention to her child that afternoon. I believe she was on the phone or the computer or both and Caylee wandered outside and up the ladder and into the pool. Child neglect. Then the coverup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds completely plausible but then why the high levels of chloroform? Do you have a particular book on the subject you recommend me reading? I am pretty sure I read the Prosecutor's book. Jeff Aschomb?

      Delete
  47. And if I had to put money on someone today.. I would say Ninja guy did it.. The Ninja break ins suddenly stopped for almost a year after JB... and then the guy attacks the 12 year old, almost getting caught, then, disappears off the face of the Earth..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother came face to face with him with the lights on... Thats why he disappeared.. The BPD never even did a face sketch.. because it wasnt a Ramsey.

      Delete
  48. Also, I tie the ransom note to him too as he appeared to be taunting John..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh poor widdle John get taunted by the foreign faction

      Delete
    2. I think that was the least of his worries.. :)

      Delete
    3. I don't know anything about the ninja, or the suspect pool outside of the family, but I had thought of the 'taunting' thing too. But more in the sense of, John pissed someone dangerous off in business, and they killed JB as punishment, and the John had to scramble and do a cover-up, instead of presenting it as a homicide from the outset, out of fear of the rest of the family being killed as well. This might explain some of his weird behavior, being sort of emotionless, calling for his private plane on the same day, etc. Hmm, okay not too likely, just throwing stuff out for discussion. :)

      Delete
  49. How do you get IDI out of no sexual abuse and PR not angry over bedwetting ? There could be 7 other motives we dont know about or it could have been BR.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Right but there is no other evidence.. No one said Pasty wrote the note.. there is no weapon.. there's nothing..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No weapon? I guess Jonbenet split her own head open and strangled herself 45-90 minutes later. How much is John Ramsey paying you to perpetuate this nonsense?

      Delete
    2. John Ramsey is broke, living in a 1200 sq ft rented house. I doubt he is paying anything to anyone.

      Delete
    3. Agree with Zack. The flashlight was the weapon. I think Leigh is John Ramsey.

      Delete
    4. lol am a woman.. But anyway.. not everyone thinks it was the flashlight.. As I have said before.. The arc is upside down..and no tissue or hair or anything was found on it

      Delete
    5. Didn't they show John Ramsey's house in the A&E special? It was in the middle of nowhere but it surely was nice. Not the house he killed his daughter in nice, but certainly decently sized.

      Delete
    6. I wouldnt say that... 1200 sf? But it is a rental..he doesnt own it..

      Delete
    7. Sorry but that does not look like a 1200 a month house, it was very nice and looked brand new. I find it very very very hard to believe JR is anywhere near broke with all the lawsuits and such he has collected on over the years. I think he said that in hope that he could get more people involved in his pity party.

      Delete
    8. Yeah there's no way it's a 1,200 a month house, and I agree with everything you just said Anonymous @ 8:52pm.

      Delete
    9. 1200 square feet.... I understand that Patsy didnt have health insurance when she became ill again which no doubt cost a small fortune.. and he has not been able to work for years..other suits were for Burke..not him..

      Delete
    10. And you have to remember that when you win a law sut, you end up with about 1/3 of the award after taxes and lawyer fees..

      Delete
    11. Which would still equal millions.

      Delete
    12. Or not..and we talking about 20 years and Patsy with no health insurance..

      Delete
    13. Lin Wood is a very good lawyer who wins most of his cases. He's fired countless lawsuits for the Ramsey's. I'm sure Lin Wood, Burke, and John are doing just fine.

      Delete
    14. Yet cant get enough money together to buy a house for he and his wife.

      Delete
    15. I'm not sold on the flashlight either. Anyone with the awareness to use gloves, would most likely realize it's best to get rid of the murder weapon too. It's not like he could have predicted the crime scene would get contaminated and basically a single investigator there all day while friends and family stampeded around the house.

      Delete
  51. A tidbit on Lin Wood, Ramsey attorney. He actually seems like a pretty decent man. Only takes high profile cases now. His turning point came in 1996 when he successfully sued many entities over the treatment of Richard Jewell. He is a libel and defamation attorney. He has also represented clients Howard Stern, Beth Holloway, Gary Condit and of course the Ramseys. He says many a case gets won or lost in the deposition stage, never makes it to trial. And so he sees lawyering like an art form, and making sure the right questions are asked during a deposition or the questions you don't want answered don't get answered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont know.. I think out justice system needs a bit of tweaking so that everyone has equal justice..

      Delete
  52. The flashlight was wiped down, obviously. Did you not watch the CBS special ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wiped down, or never used in the first place. The absence of finger prints is apparently not that remarkable. If it was the case that 99% of used maglites have prints on them, then I'd be more confident in it being the murder weapon.

      Delete
    2. John has now admitted to using the flashlight the night of the murder, so the absence of prints is very remarkable, I'd say. If he really did use the flashlight just to walk Burke up the stairs, why weren't his prints on it? Even more perplexing is why, for twenty years, did he claim to know nothing about said flashlight? No, there are too many lies regarding that torch for it to not be significant.

      Delete
  53. Just a thought....if Burke got a Nintendo for Xmas, I highly doubt he and his Dad were putting together a "model plane or plastic toy" Christmas night. Kids AND Adults who are into video games are quite obsessed with them. I think it's possible that Burke was up late playing video games in his room and JonBenet wanted to play or interfered with Burke's game. He also mentioned to the therapist something to the effect of that the way JonBenet played video games, the sounds she made it make, annoyed him. I don't think Burke got mad over Xmas presents or pineapple, I think he perhaps got mad over interfering with the Nintendo. It's also possible that the flashlight was staged and wiped to take away suspicion off the real weapon, the game controller. Burke Very well could have strangled her and dragged her downstairs. Jon Benet's hair was a mess and the position her arms were in, above her head could indicate that she was dragged from her arms then left there for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Another poorly thought out BDI theory.

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

      Delete
    2. What games do you think a child is most likely playing late at night, Nintendo or a model airplane, why was the flashlight clearly wiped down in and out but places in the wide open and why were JB arms found in rigor above her head?

      Delete
  55. Good article which was on news.com.au today regarding Burke:

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/shock-claim-burke-ramsey-killed-jonbenet--but-with-different-weapon/news-story/b700bcd48d7bbc093b34cf7feb77d6de

    I still think it was the flashlight but it could be the bat/golf club. Doesnt really matter. EVERYTHING points to Burke:

    1. This happened on xmas day..this points to a child straight away. Someone who is hyperactive and can't sleep. It was the worse possible night for John to do this, got home late and had to be up early on a flight.
    2. Burke made and ate pineapple. JB ate pineapple....
    3. Burke never finished eating the snack he made himself...I wonder why.
    4. He had beaten JB with golf club previously (witnesses prove it wasn't an accident). John never even smacked JB before.
    5. John didnt spend much time with his kids, he was more focused on his job.
    6. Burke spread feces in her room THAT day...he was disturbed or really hated JB. Heck maybe he strangled her as well and thats why John had to make a garrote and stage it...makes sense to me.
    I could go on and on with other stuff but I've posted it all before.

    This case is solved in my honest opinion. BDI and John and Patsy covered (with John doing the physical stuff).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make some good points. The fact that they had a trip planned for early the next morning makes the JDI theory a tough one for me to fully embrace too. Burke stayed in his bedroom for the entire dramatic scene in the house when they discovered his sister missing and then murdered too ... on Dec. 26, when (presumably) most of his new toys are downstairs as well.

      Delete
    2. Even if Burke struck her on the head, he still didn't kill his sister. Someone else finished that job so the whole BDI theory is really just "Brother injures sister and then parent denies medical care, strangles and stages kidnapping and sexual assault"

      None of the points you've made convince me that Burke hit his sister over the head. It being Christmas day? I mean really?


      Delete
    3. And why would an intruder care about changing her undies and pulling them up? It seems most dead bodies found of any age and either gender if the perp had any sexual assault or mutilation are often found naked from the waist down. The perps don't tend to re-dress them, and bring a change of clothes for their victims.

      Ah, thanks Zed for the link, I'll read it after I finish the posts here. (well one I skip and scroll since by since we don't have an iggie option)

      Delete
    4. Burke could have strangled his sister, if you look at the crime scene photos, the garotte was not complicated and even if it was, Burke could have put it together.

      Delete
    5. So, after Burke hit his sister, his parents are left with two choices:
      1. Call an ambulance, possibly save their daughter, but incriminate their son in the process.
      2. Finish the job their son started by tying a garrote around their unconscious daughter's neck, then penetrating her vagina with a foreign object and completing the cover up with a two and a half page ransom note for a kidnapping that never happened.
      These two parents love their children SO much that they will go to such drastic lengths to protect Burke, yet have no problem sacrificing their daughter's life in doing so.....sure, sounds completely logical.

      Delete
  56. Did any of the (independent) handwriting analysts conclude that JR or PR were likely to have written the ransom note?

    Aside from that, handwriting experts can usually tell the speed at which something was written.

    I would also like to see their opinion about how the letter matches itself too. I imagine if I was trying to disguise my writing, I might feel I did an adequate job of hiding that I wrote it, but having letter formation that's both different AND consistent, that seems damn difficult to do.

    Passing a bunch of polygraphs is one thing, altering your handwriting and having the letter formation match throughout the document would seem to be quite a feat. I'm looking at the note right now, and the formation of the upper case W and lower case w is quite distinctive, how would you pull that off, unless you painstakingly went letter by letter, which an expert should be able to easily detect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pro Cams, read DocG's analysis of the handwriting. He posited that John could have traced the document from a word document on his screen and never saved the doc. The perfect borders, the letter and word spacing, is all too formatted to have been written completely freehand.

      Delete
    2. Pro Cams,

      PR's handwriting couldn't be ruled out.

      EG

      Delete
  57. They never planned to get rid of the body in my opinion. I mean, seriously think about it:
    - risk moving body out of house into car without being seen
    - risk dumping body somewhere without being seen
    - risk no evidence of her body in the car
    - risk body being found and evidence linking them to crime

    It was just too risky.

    The RN was purely just to leave tangible evidence that someone had been in the house. Thats it, very simple. I dont know why thats so hard to fathom. 911 call was always going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning!

      I agree with you, Zed! And they'd never cover for each other, if one of them was responsible for the murder. The only one they'd cover for would be Burke.

      The RN was just to throw them off track and to make everyone believe it was a kidnapping gone wrong.

      The 911 call was deceptive from the beginning. "We have a kidnapping" would be the LAST thing a mother would say. After that, follow the pronouns and they don't lie. Many think it's pseudo science, but I happen to think the truth can be found in the words people use or don't use.

      I also find it hard to believe that on Christmas night after a long day, and an intended early trip that JR wanted to molest his daughter. I just don't buy that.

      I will admit that JR seems like a cool customer and the fact that he kept a picture of his dead daughter in his bathroom seems rather strange to me. (Wilcox interview). However, neither parent paid much attention here, as proven with the bedwetting, feces smearing, aggressiveness, etc. Those kids were crying out for something--probably love, attention. PR wasn't well and JR was never home. Was a recipe for disaster.

      EG

      Delete
    2. i agree, the ransom note was intended as a kidnapping gone bad. there is no way they would have risked dumping the body.

      Delete
  58. @Doc, was the Diane Hollis information ever seriously looked into? The only info. that I could find online came from various forums. I couldn't find an official statement from LE regarding that information. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Apart from (unsubstantiated) comments from the recent documentary, is there any substantiated evidence that Burke had scatological issues?

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, statements to LE, LE reports, given by staff, also stated that the maternal grandma was present. If not linked before in previous posts, then do a search here or google. It's in Kolar's book as well, irrc.

      Delete
    2. I know many don't agree with the BDI theory and that's fine, as we all have our own opinions and thoughts. I feel there is just so much information and evidence that leads to BR being an angry, jealous, emotionally confused boy.

      The grandparents purchased these books for PR and JR:

      • The Hurried Child – Growing Up Too Fast, by David Elkind;
      • Children at Risk, Dobson / Bruer;
      • Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick.

      Why would grandparents buy these books? They saw the problem, even if the parents refused to.

      EG

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

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

    ReplyDelete