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 9, 2016

This is Getting Ridiculous

The volume of comments on this blog is hard to keep up with. Once we reach a certain number, the software turns a page and comments can easily become hard to find or lost altogether. I welcome your comments and hope they'll keep coming, but to keep up with the volume I need to keep adding more posts such as this. Please from now on, post your comments here. Or, speaking generally, always post your comments under the most recent blog post, to make sure they get seen. Thank you.

239 comments:

  1. Doc wrote (to someone else, not me)
    "My theory is based on facts and logic, while yours is nothing more than a handful of dubious assumptions."

    Come on Doc...your theory, imo, relies less on facts and logic than BDI. Your WHOLE theory is two dubios assumption...John was a child molester and Patsy was completely in the dark about everything, including the murder. When FACTS and LOGIC tell us both of those things are probably incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New Anon here, jumping into the rabbit hole...

      I disagree that Doc's theory is based on those assumptions. In my understanding, the most important points are that

      (1) the 911 call was made while JB's body was in the house;
      (2) a detailed *ransom* note was found, implying a kidnapping, which it clearly was not since the body was in the house;
      (3) the guilty person(s) wouldn't have made that call when it was made (i.e. with the body still in the house), given that
      (3a) the ransom note gave someone (i.e. JR, to whom it was addressed) control of the situation, and
      (3b) it provided the guilty person with every opportunity to get rid of the body and finish staging a kidnapping; and finally,
      (3) since patsy is the one who made the call, thereby effectively negating the intended effect of the note, she must be innocent.

      Based on those three points, which hinge on facts - (a) a random note was found, (b) the call was made when it was, and (c) the body was in the house - the simplest, most logical conclusion is that JR did it.

      That JR was a child molester is possible but not a fact, and whether or not that provided him with a motive does not erase the points above, nor does it represent the foundation on which Doc's theory is built. So to argue for or against it is certainly interesting, but ultimately makes no difference to the three points above.

      And as for PR - why does it have to be that she was EITHER in on it OR completely in the dark? Is it inconceivable that she had suspicions, or that she had fragmented bits of knowledge without having a clear picture? I would venture to argue that it's almost impossible that she wouldn't have, at least at certain points. And she could have chosen to keep them to herself for countless reasons - fear, for instance, or denial. A lot of arguments brought up in the comments in favour of BDI hinge on interpretations of her lying or her behaviour, which are highly subjective observations and could be taken to mean tons of things that we may never know.

      Similarly, BR could know a lot more than he has ever admitted without having taken any part in that hideous night. Kids sneak out of bed all the time and see and hear all sorts of things they shouldn't. They even make themselves snacks at odd hours and leave them unfinished for any number of reasons (for instance a parent telling them to do so) without intentionally or deliberately committing murder.

      Delete
    2. Should have proofread - I meant "ransom note" and not "random note", of course, and at the end I mean "unintentionally".

      Also, the use of caps isn't meant to be aggressive, I simply mean to highlight the black-and-white view that is taken of the issue.

      Delete
    3. Thanks so much for this very articulate and thorough summary of the case I've been making. My only complaint is your lack of a "handle," since we have so many posting here anonymously and that creates confusion.

      Delete
  2. Fair enough as this is a case where many different people have many different opinions. I don't think anything you mentioned is fact, far from it in fact. But hey, thats just my opinion. To adress your dot points above:

    (1) Yes it was. They never planned to get rid if the body. The 911 call had to happen.
    (2) Yes, the Ramseys wanted to leave some tangible evidence that an intruder had been in the house. They couldnt exactly leave a note saying "hey, i raped and kidnapped your daughter. Check the basement." It had to be a ransom note as that was their only option and something they felt like they had to do.
    (3) null and void...see 1 above
    (3a) null and void...see 1 above
    (3b) null and void...see 1 above

    Patsy was always going to be the one to make the 911 call as it simply suited her better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Number 2 above i meant "raped and murdered"

      Delete
  3. If BR or JR were purposefully molesting JB that night (and had no idea things were going to get really bad), it’s highly unlikely they would use rubber gloves (especially Burke), and we know their DNA was not found in JB’s private areas, or elsewhere (or they would have been arrested already). However, we do know the perp had to be wearing gloves due to the lack of significant DNA. So imo, if the BDI or JDI theories are true, the molestation could only be part of the staging. But, why did there need to be molestation at all if it was supposed to be a kidnapping (the RN didn’t contain any sexual innuendos that would lead one to believe he/she was also a child molester)? Why not just kill her in the kidnapping gone bad scenario? Are we to believe the reason for the molestation was to enhance an IDI theory, or provide a smokescreen for an intended/accidental deadly head blow? WHY? Wouldn’t the gruesome strangulation be convincing enough (to the police)? Why go the extra ghastly mile?

    If intended molestation did occur that night (by JR or BR, or PR for that matter), that means some extensive scrubbing would have taken place. I’m not a medical professional, so I don’t know if that could/would remove ALL of the DNA.

    If there was a cover-up (resulting from the head blow or strangulation), I would submit the “molestation” was a punishment for wetting and/or soiling the bed -- an angry over-exertion of the cleaning up process. The blanket was still in the dryer in the basement because the sheets dry quicker and PR didn’t finish making the bed. She was using the washer/dryer in the basement since they would take a larger load.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello, we live to argue another day. Yes Zed, it's very possible they didn't intend to remove the body from the house. I think it's such a leap to suggest that the note was only intended for Patsy, so that she would be frightened sufficiently to take Burke and leave so John could what, take all day and then that night remove the body. Now he could have planned it that way but what are the chances the whole crime (especially after video cameras could catch "major CEO's car seen in vicinity") would be tracked back to the house, and to John. We only have Patsy's word for it that she found the note at the foot of the stairs, she said she stepped on it and then turned to read it. John then said he spread the note out horizontally so that he could read it all. Couldn't have happened that way. No shoe print found on note from Patsy stepping on it, and no fingerprints found on note from John moving it. She was supposed to call 911. Then they arranged the note to appear at the bottom of the stairs. And i agree, they just wanted to make it look like an intruder had been there with that note. We should address why John got so impatient that he ran to the cellar and brought her body up. At some point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When a 9 year old boy assaults a 6 year old sister with an implement is it sexual? Or is it just violent. There was varnish from the paint brush inside her vagina (a small fleck). Doc says that fleck got there from the gloved finger of John. I think more likely it was from the stick itself. If a small boy did the assault it wouldn't have had to have caused blood to "gush". There were abrasions inside the vaginal vault, the stick could have caused bleeding, doesn't mean it was applied with such force as to cause major bleeding. We know she had on a clean new pair of oversized panties. And that she was wiped down. Couldn't she have been wiped down with a baby wipe earlier, after she used the bathroom or if she wet the bed? Many people keep baby wipes handy by the toilet, and if she had had a bed wetting issues it's natural to use those wipes instead of toilet paper exclusively. That, suggest, was the "wiping down". Who changed her - maybe John is lying about changing her since a black fiber from his sweater was found in "her crotch." Doesn't say it was found inside her vaginal wall, just inside the crotch. The sexual assault came later, after the wipe down, it did stain the panties, but Doc is guessing that there was "blood oozing" and that a change in panties was necessary. I say the panties were already changed, and put on her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Really annoying and bizarre that people can dispute facts, and solid speculations and theories that support those facts, then ramble on about some crazy conspiracies that have no basis in any fact. The cancer that is John's misdirection, has reached metastatic levels.

    ReplyDelete
  7. what "people" are you referring to and what "facts" are your referring to. I've read the official autopsy, and I've studied this case for 20 years. I've read numerous books on the subject and tried to understand this case. I have been persuaded here to accept one theory, then had it not stack up. I do not in any shape or form believe an intruder did it, and there is 0 evidence suggesting J was a serial molester. So I hope you understand that and seriously contemplate all you have read and heard and then can argue whatever case you want to put forward here, hopefully using logic and reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whether John was a molester of Jonbenet, Burke or anyone for that matter is irrelevant to solving this crime imo.
    New Anon gave 3 facts
    (a) a random note was found
    (b) the call was made when it was, and (c) the body was in the house
    Then simply builds a theory supporting these facts, only to get beat down by Zed and further obfuscated by subsequent misdirection posts by Anonymous and Inquisitive. Why is simple not accepted? Why feed the misdirection cancer? Why let minutiae spoil the obvious theory that JDI.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi everyone, I'm repeating a comment that appeared to get lost earlier Bc I think it offers some unique insight:
    I have many friends in the military and some in the Navy. They all confirmed that knot tying is an integral part of basic training, with even more complicated knots being taught to seamen. JR was in the Navy. The knot on that garotte was very sophisticated. Now, I'm pretty good at knots from rock climbing and what not, but even I would not know how to tie that knot on the garotte.
    2. Speaking of the garotte, making a garotte is part of basic Navy training called emergency and extraordinary expense authority (E &E) . I also think other branches of the military do E&E training, but my Navy research has concluded that improvised garotte making is part of this training. Let's think logically- before hearing garotte in this case, had anyone ever heard of a garotte before? No, unless you are in the military and in that case you have. Again, JR was Navy and was well aware of what a garotte was and how to make one. That anyone else, PR, BR, or an intruder would have thought to make a garotte is far fetched unless they too had military training. Boulder is not a military town like for example DC or Norfolk, so you wouldn't expect your avg person to know these military techniques.
    3. According to research on Autism ( Burke was confirmed to be somewhere on the spectrum?) hitting others is a common issue because Autistic children have difficulty communicating. Hitting others is a fairly hallmark behavior to deal with this inability to "communicate feelings, get attention, or protect territory". BR had previously hit JBR with a golf club on her cheek.
    So at the end of the day, whomever hit her with the flashlight (maybe BR or JR) is irrelevant Bc the only person that could have tied that knot and knew what a garotte was and how to make it is JR. I think Docs best point is why PR would make the call w body still in the house. So I think BR clubbed her by accident, JR did the staging to protect BR and/or himself, PR called 911 before JR could stop her, and PR was eventually read in on the coverup by JR. Love reading everyone's comments and thanks to Doc for the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The clove hitch is a knot boy scouts are taught, which is wrapping a rope or cord around a stick, dowel, or implement. And yep, asberger's syndome is a form of autism, a behavioral problem. Many here think Burke struck the head blow, what people have trouble with is the rest of it. The garrot, the strangulation. The assault to her vagina. It's that portion in the "middle" of this discourse that we have a problem with. The letter writing, the window breaking, we all get that as part of staging. But some want to suggest that the strangulation and sexual assault was part of the staging as well. If you can consider that Burke did all of it, then a possible scenario can start to form in your mind that most of the rest of it makes sense - that the note and the window were done to cover up for murder to protect a disturbed son.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If IDI, then I think it's safe to assume the intruder did not wait until PR woke up and called LE to murder JonBenet. So if the intruder didn't wait until the Ramseys could follow instructions, why did they murder JBR in the home? Also, if not intruder and PR unaware of anything, and called LE, it would give the appearance that her phone call caused the kidnapper to kill her child. The primary reason for ransom note demand to not call police was prevent reader from calling police, this gave the perpetrator time/distance, but it also gave perpetrator "reason" why JBR dead (b/c PR didn't follow instructions). If ransom note was wrote prior to murder, not sure why so many steps taken if kidnapping gone wrong, the perpetrator should have fled asap instead hiding JBR in basement, garrote, wipe down, etc. If the note written after death it does both above, prevent call to LE and if call to LE reason why JBR died. Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think we already debunked the intruder did it theory.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good morning!

    The facts, undisputed are:

    1.The RN
    2.The 911 Call
    3.Murdered child

    However, every bit of evidence that has been presented, has been disputed or manipulated in some way to serve a particular agenda.

    And so, the only way to try and solve this crime is to look at the "players" and how they react or don't react. How they lie, how they contradict their own words, their own statements. Their behavior and how they interacted before and after the murder is very telling.

    We will probably never know what happened to JBR, unless someone confesses, but based on BR, JR and PR's behavior, it's pretty obvious that they were all involved in some way.

    EG

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. Looking at the behaviour of our main players:
    1) Patsy. Rang 911 (which as Doc suggests, makes no sense if she knew of the murder at the time of the call). Was subsequently heavily medicated so as to lose any control of events; reliant on JR to keep momentum of destabilising / manipulation of the situation. Then effectively "framed" as the author of the RN and having to account for this with LE.

    2) Burke. IMO coached in adult phrasing ("getting on with my life", satirising the media). His "guilt" relies on him being autistic to some degree, aware not to mention the pineapple in an interview and scatological tendencies....which is supposition.

    3) John. Finds the body, interferes with same, spooks Linda Arndt. Controls access of LE to family (especially Patsy). Documented changes to story. Got himself out of the firing line by being ruled out as author of the RN.

    Who do we keep coming back to in Machiavellian glory? John. Who had his finger on the Ramsay response to JBR's murder? John.

    In addition to Doc's logic as detailed in this blog, it is all John John John as you sort through the bizarre twists and turns post the 911 call. Not Patsy, not Burke. Of course, he could be covering for either, except that Patsy would not have called 911 with the body in the house, and the BDI theory is built on unsubstantiated claims and a lack of common sense.

    John.

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
  16. Howdy John? Sisu? Let's consider this. I'm not presenting this as a fact because it isn't. But I see that people are stuck in the notion that Patsy wasn't supposed to call 911, because John wanted to have time to remove the body. This is just a theory put forward by DocG. And it's his opinion. And he's entitled to it. But it has stuck in many people's minds here because logic would point to no kidnapper would write a note for ransom and then murder the victim and leave her in the basement for discovery. But I'd like to suggest something else and just bear with me. It's not fact. I've already made that disclaimer here. 911 was going to be called. But J and P were not on the same page as to when they should be called. Perhaps he didn't tell her I need time to remove the body. We will call 911 but not until I have removed the body. The note is so that LE will see that there is a kidnapping, body isn't in the house, so where could she be. But he may not have communicated that to Patsy. She could very well have "jumped the gun" and called. Hence, the hangup seconds earlier. The whole night was stressful to say the least. That they weren't on the same page could easily be explained by one being more methodical, the other more emotional. She was supposed to call 911. But not at that time. John was the architect of the police deception, knew what happened that night, knew where the body was, but did the murder? I don't believe so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sisu, Thanks for the learning. I had to look that word up. Machiavellian: "characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty"

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can no more substantiate my claims than any one can who believe JDI. right? There have been claims here that have called the injuries to the vagina as "chronic." That is unsubstantiated. No evidence of that. ONly that trauma "may" have occurred at least one time prior. There have been unsubstantiated claims that John wanted to remove the body and that Patsy didn't know and blew it for him by calling 911. There have been unsubstantiated claims that John killed JB because he was afraid she was going to tell others the day after Christmas and he had no choice but to end her life. THere have been unsubstantiated claims that John tied the garrot, sexually assaulted his daughter, wiped her down and wrote the note. There have been unsubstantiated claims all the way around. The only substantiated claim is what someone said on the record, what was found in the house, that a note was written, and a call was made. And most of us are trying to figure out how all of it fits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The six forensic pathologists and child sexual abuse specialists who were shown the autopsy report, photographs, tissue samples and slides found "evidence of both acute injury and CHRONIC sexual abuse." [emphasis added]
      CC

      Delete
    2. And there were just as many experts, specialists and doctors who disagreed with that including: Dr. Richard Kurgman, Dr. Richard Gardner, the FBI, JBR's pediatrican, and Dr. Michael Doberson Arapaho Co. Coroner. And I know what site you are citing, it's the same one I found a week ago.

      Delete
    3. correction in spelling: Dr. Richard Krugman

      Delete
    4. Dr Beuf never performed an internal exam. Doberson did not disagree, merely said he needed more information. Krugman's remarks were mocked by Dr Wecht. And NONE of them were shown photographs, tissue samples or slides from the autopsy. As for the FBI, my impression is their opinion was rendered by agents with their behavioral sciences unit rather than medical experts. If you have the names of dissenting medical professionals who were given access to the actual evidence that would be helpful and you should make that information available; otherwise, you'really merely spouting another opinion based on incomplete research.
      CC

      Delete
    5. And that's your opinion CC. But if you want to accept that there was chronic previous abuse you still cannot make the argument that JR did it. That would be an unsubstantiated claim.

      Delete
    6. So in other words you have no names of dissenting medical experts who viewed the available evidence, correct?

      It is indeed my opinion that you persist in spouting opinions based on incomplete research. In addition to the above, you recently posted that John was worth $14M, when in fact his net worth in 1996 was $6.4M. You wrote that Patsy stepped on the ransom note when in fact she said she stepped over it, then turned around to read it.

      Doc chided you yesterday for muddying the waters with misinformation, which does us all a disservice by fostering further confusion. You claim to be a professional researcher: Do better.
      CC

      Delete
    7. your comments to me are nasty and uncalled for. I cited information last week on the site where the experts disagree and you sent that information on to doc where you were praised for bringing it to the attention of all of us. Just where have I and was he directing his comments to me, have been muddying the waters? If you want to ask everyone here to cite information we will become a research group with footnotes, if that's what you want but it is not your blog site and that is not the purpose of blogging. I Just gave you the names of the dissenting medical experts, on the same site that you found the CON senting experts, that your forwarded to doc. A week ago. I read the man was worth $140 million when he went on a talk show a few years ago. Patsy commented she stepped on the ransom note and pushed it away with her foot in some interview. And by the way, I have litigated (my attorney has) in a civil suit which did not go to court because he told me it was much more risky for the verdict we wanted and that attorneys prefer to settle whenever they can. Now that is personal experience. We did settle and won a large settlement, something we may not have won had we gone to court. He said most attorneys prefer to settle rather than go to court. You do better, in fact don't direct any comments to me. That would be better.

      Delete
    8. Patsy said she stepped over the ransom note but when the police laid the sheets of the letter out on the steps where she said she came down the stairs they said they could't NOT step on them, after trying it several different ways.

      Delete
    9. Inquisitive, come on.....please cite the part where CC made comments that were "nasty and uncalled for". We're all adults here engaging in a mature debate, aren't we? He/she pointed out that a few times you have posted erroneous information.....to point out erroneous information *is* called for on a debate forum where facts are key, or else it all just turns into a farce. I can see no malice on CC's part. You have muddied the waters several times when you have cited information that is false, or that is based purely on speculation but presented as fact.
      The CBS documentary was the worst thing that could have happened to this blog.....everything seems to have dissolved into a bit of a travesty since it was aired.

      Delete
    10. I've read almost every book one can purchase on this case over the last 20 years. I can't cite every passage in every book I've read, or every thing John has said in his numerous interviews. I read the autopsy report at least five times in the weeks I've been on this blog and I've read websites that contradict findings of that autopsy or interpret it 8 different ways depending on who the experts are and what they believe. I did not put very much credence into the CBS special. I do not have much faith in Dr. Henry Lee or Dr. Spitz due to seeing them testify in other cases in which their findings or analysis was discredited. I'm not an attorney, I'm not a research scientist, I'm not a private detective, I'm on the same par as everyone else here who have heard things or read things about this case over 20 years. There have been people in here who read the housekeepers book and believed everything she said. Are they required to cite where she got her information? I have read timelines. There is not a theory in here that can be substantiated with fact. And that has been acknowledged as well. There are of course facts in this case and we have all of us posted those as well. But the conclusions we draw from them are speculation. CC has gone so far as to correct my spelling. Shame on me for typing chord instead of cord!

      Delete
    11. I was of the JDI theory when reading from this blog, but another blogger changed my mind, J if you want to know, and I also put quite a bit of credence into the book Kolar wrote which I read over a year ago. Not CBS.

      Delete
  19. My reasoning for thinking both Patsy and John were busy with the coverup all night is that if Burke ran to either one of his two parents and confessed what he did (he certainly didn't write the note), one parent would have heard that confession to the other, and/or noticed that one parent was missing from the bed and found out what was going on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here is something to think......

    Had the police opened that WC door, or FW had turned the light on when he opened the door, then JR contaminating the crime scene would NOT have taken place. The police would have secured the WC and no one would've gotten near the body. FW would not have picked up JBR and carried her upstairs. He would've yelled for the police. A parent would naturally pick up their child, remove the tape, etc. so you can't fault JR for that, nor could you find anything odd about that.

    If part of JR's plan was to contaminate the crime scene, he wouldn't have allowed the chance of anyone else finding JBR's body.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR did everything he could to not allow anyone finding the body, as it turned out. But, FW finding the body would have been more interesting, especially if John was then prevented from further meddling. The BPD would have had a field day documenting the WC.

      Or, another hypothetical scenario that would have been interesting: What if the police removed everyone from the house, waited for the Factionistas call, and, since they are seriously treating it as a kidnapping, still neglected to find the body until the hound dogs were brought in days later? What could the Ramseys behaviour tell us during that time?

      Delete
    2. Yes, Jon...I thought along those same lines. Suppose the police kept thinking "kidnapping", and neglected to scour that house. The body would've remained there for days. And yes, if FW would've found the body, he would've been their #1 suspect. I've often wondered why FW didn't turn the light on or ask JR where the light switch was located. Makes you wonder.

      EG

      However, I still have a problem with JR allowing for someone else to find the body. He may have done everything he could to deter people from opening the door to that room BUT he wouldn't know that anyone would've listened. As it was, FW DID open that door, but didn't turn on a light. What are the chances of that happening? I don't think JR would've thought he could get lucky that the BPD were inept and FW wouldn't turn the light on.

      Delete
    3. Yes EG. The whole thing about JR being agitated to the point where Linda Arnt suggested he take another look around to give him something to do and he runs right downstairs and unlocks the wine cellar and without turning on the light runs and picks her up and carries her upstairs. I just have to wonder why was he so anxious to get the body discovered after laying there all night and day?

      Delete
    4. He was "anxious" to contaminate the crime scene, and what better way to do it than "discover" the body himself?
      I believe JB's body, wrapped in the blanket, was probably in the suitcase earlier (which accounts for the blanket fibers found in the suitcase), which was possibly stashed in the trunk of his car. He was not too concerned with anyone checking this location, as it was being treated as a genuine kidnapping, so LE weren't looking for a body. But it was risky, and once he realized no one was ever going to get the hell out of there until her body was discovered, he moved her body to a more convenient location in the hour and a half he was AWOL, and saw his chance when Linda Arnt suggested he search the house again, so made a beeline to the basement, where he "found" her (completely unaware that FW had already checked that room earlier, as had another police officer - but that that pesky detail didn't appear to arouse much suspicion within LE, anyway)

      Delete
  21. Jon was reacting as he could - in Doc's scenario the plan was to not call 911. When PR did so, the partial upstaging, (potentially) prompting Patsy to call friends, the pastor, and the periods where he could not be accounted (presumably manipulating the scene) took place. He was flying by the seat of his pants here.

    The assumption he got lucky in finding the body is true only as far as it was not premeditated in his plan he would do so; it was a lucky break for him that no-one did after the premature 911 call.

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, it was a lucky break, but I can't see someone with JR's personality and analytical, emotionless mind to count on a lucky break. On the other hand, there was no evidence on JBR's body to point to them, because they cleaned up the scene, so did it really matter who found her? JR had to know there was a chance the police would locate the body if and when they searched the house. He couldn't know they were shorthanded due to the holiday and lacked experience dealing with a kidnapping.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He wasn't counting on a lucky break. But, as his plan to get the body out of the house later on in the day under the guise of "delivering the ransom" had been ruined by Patsy's call to 911, he wasn't left with many alternatives, was he? He had to wing it from this point on, and it was only through dumb luck, and the lax way in which LE treated the crime scene, that he got away with it. JR obviously did know the longer he left it, the greater the chance of JB's body being discovered - and in a much more damning location, one that would certainly point away from an intruder (my guess is the trunk of his car, but that is pure speculation) - thus he had to move her body to the basement, and "find" her himself so he could carry her body up the stairs in order to account for any physical evidence he may have left on the blanket/body earlier whilst he was transferring her body from location A, where she was originally stashed, to location B, the basement.

      Delete
  23. I'm curious what others' thoughts are concerning the new information that fruit cocktail was found in JB's intestine. When it was only Woodward citing this information, it was easier (for me) to not consider it as seriously, as she seemed to provide other misinformation. However, the same information has also been stated in the defamation suit Lin Wood has brought against Spitz.

    Steve Thomas stated in his book, that experts examined the pineapple in JB's intestine and determined it was fresh pineapple, consistent (down to the rind) with the pineapple in the bowl.

    When I think of fruit cocktail, the canned variety immediately comes to mind, especially when cherries are mentioned.

    I remember reading that Meyer (the coroner, I believe) reported that the pineapple in JB's intestine was in near-perfect condition, as if it had been poorly chewed. The pieces of pineapple in the bowl look rather large to me; not something a child could swallow with minimal chewing. On the other hand, the pieces of fruit found in the canned variety of fruit cocktail are usually diced and much smaller, which would fit with what Meyer reported.

    I realize that the contents of JB's intestine will not necessarily point to JB's killer, however, I think it's important, since a lot of the BDI theories include the pineapple evidence.

    Just curious what others think.

    ReplyDelete
  24. HKH

    What I find most disturbing about the pineapple/fruit cocktail evidence is what I find disturbing with all of the evidence presented. I don't think I've seen a case like this, wherein every piece of evidence has been contradictory. Depending on what group of experts you ask, they come to different conclusions about the SAME evidence.
    This is troubling and because of it, this case won't be solved looking at the evidence, as Doc has said many times.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wholeheartedly agree, @EG. I find it truly perplexing how information such as this can come to light 20 years later. The cherries and grapes were either present, or they weren't, when the autopsy was performed. There is no mention of anything other than pineapple in the autopsy report, so I have to wonder where is this information is coming from.

      Delete
    2. There was a small food container found in JB's room. Of course Patsy couldn't identify what was in it when shown the police video since she pled the 5th on just about everything.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, @Anon2:44. I read about the container found in JB's room. I read that it was not collected as evidence, and there was only a picture of it. Lou Smit theorized that it could have contained fresh pineapple, which JB ate in her room that night. Steve Thomas said that the photo was too grainy to determine what was in the container.

      Delete
  25. The autopsy report is vague as well. My physician friend said it reads vague. It states: "the proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple. So "may." But I would like to see the document from which Woodward is quoting. And no one has been able to produce that as far as we know, correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Inquisitive, I would like to see the source of that information as well.

      I have no idea how autopsy reports typically read, as I have only ever read two, including JB's. I just assumed that the autopsy report would be the official source of information for what was found in JB's intestine.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely, HKH. It's from the Office of the Boulder County Coroner,autopsy no. 96A-155, read it in it's entirety as a pdf file:

      jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf (from AP)

      Delete
    3. HKH the autopsy is straight forward. It's when the specialists, the examiners of photographs, the doctors come afterward and interpret what they see that there is always controversy (regarding the injuries to the vagina, etc.).

      Delete
    4. Oh oops HKH. I see what you just said. That you would like to see Woodward's source. I thought you meant the autopsy report.

      Delete
    5. @Inquisitive-- yes, sorry, I should have been more clear. I have read JB's autopsy. I would like to see the source of the fruit cocktail evidence as stated by Woodward, and now, Lin Wood. Thanks!

      Delete
  26. I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is Mike

      Defamation suits are difficult to prove. Not only that, but Burke and Wood may be opening a door they'd prefer to keep shut. I am not a lawyer, but my favorite coarse in grad school was business law. We spent a lot of time on libel, slander, and defamation lawsuits. That Burke suffered damages, "economically and mentally" will not fly. He is not a celebrity. He has not lost any royalities on books he has written, or movies he has appeared in. If he was fired from his job, or refused a promotion, he will have to prove it was directly related to his newly acquired infamous reputation. That Spitz has a poor reputation has zero bearing on anything. I doubt that a judge will even allow testimony from witnesses attesting to that fact.

      The plaintiff is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations made against them are false. That's the door I'm surprised Wood and Burke are willing to open. My guess is they will drop the lawsuit if they see Spitz and his team prepared, not just to open the door, but to rip it off its hinges either to expose Burke OR his father as the liars they are.

      Delete
    2. perhaps Ramsey is just sabre rattling, yep, he has to do it to keep that image thing going, save face, etc.

      Delete
    3. That's incorrect. The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil matters the standard is much lower - a preponderance of the evidence.
      CC

      Delete
    4. Further, it is not necessary for Burke to suffer actual damages - lost wages and the like. He can, and likely will, be awarded punitive damages for mental anguish and things of that ilk.
      CC

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

      Delete
    6. What I said was attorneys don't like to go to court - from experience in my own civil suit. that still stands. Reason being the fact finders or jury can go either way. Risky. ANd expensive to go to trial. And as far as we know, right? Burke is bringing a civil suit, not a criminal one.

      Delete
  27. the above I got from "Defamation lawsuits made simple" Nolo.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up.

      Delete
    2. thanks for explaining that to me HKH. I appreciate it very much.

      Delete
    3. You're welcome.

      Here's the link to the complaint, if you would like to read it: https://www.scribd.com/document/326687568/Burke-Ramsey-vs-Werner-Spitz#fullscreen&from_embed

      (I apologize to whomever shared the link originally. I can't find that post again to give proper credit.)

      Delete
    4. thank you I would like to read it. I'll get to it in a bit!

      Delete
  28. I have been alternating between BDI and JDI, and at various points have been wholly convinced of both scenarios. I couldn't understand how to account for the collaboration aspect in JDI, how Patsy could have accommodated John if he had been the one to kill JB.

    People always have motives and I think that Patsy lost her leverage by calling 911 when she did. Followed by John's efforts to clear himself from being the author, it stacks up that he then had the power over Patsy as being under suspicion.

    That's something that Patsy could only address so many times to John and she didn't have any leverage against him without lowering her own situation. So after a while, plus the 'fog of war' and sedatives even she would have stopped fighting the logic. She accepted that John probably didn't do it, and she knows she didn't do it, but arguing for the truth between herself and John would have been like trying to catch the wind.

    In regards to the current lawsuit by Burke, then really think about the idea that this is something John can also confidently refute as much as Burke - they both know for sure that Burke didn't do it.

    John keeps quiet on himself. He can refute the BDI claims. Burke can refute the BDI claims. Patsy's gone but most people think she wrote the note. John was cleared long ago by the handwriting.

    Try and catch the air if you will.

    - DT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John (and Burke) HAD to sue CBS because that has been John's nature for some way now. If they did NOT sue, then it would have looked like CBS were 100% correct. So there was no option.

      What I'm hoping for is that CBS refuse to pay Burke anything...then the ball is back in John's court. He will either have to drop it all together (which would look guilty) or go to court (which he has been trying to avoid). I hope CBS stick to their guns.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree Zed. Good point! Burke (and Lin Wood) had to sue CBS for defamation. If you look there have been so many instances when others have sued the Ramsey's for defaming them! There was the (sorry if I misspell it) Holgarth? case and then in 1997 Stephen Miles defamation lawsuit against Ramsey and the National Enquirer. The Ramsey's had no problem defaming others in their book and pointing the finger of suspicion at even their friends, and housekeeper. Let's keep a close watch on this Burke versus Spitz and CBS case!

      Delete
    3. This is mike.

      If, as you say, "they both know for sure that Burke didn't do it", then why continue "alternating between BDI and JDI"? Like Doc says, you have to stop thinking of the "Ramseys" as an entity, beginning with the 911 call that Patsy, and only Patsy, placed. Until you do, you're playing into the hands of John Ramsey by promulgating reasonable doubt where none exists.

      Delete
    4. Reply to Mike:

      You are right. I meant that "I WAS alternating between BDI and JDI...". DocG has been able to answer my unresolved questions about motives for collaboration - which weren't collaboration in the end but leverage.

      I agree with DocG that JDI did it.

      -DT

      Delete
  29. DocG, you posed a straw poll in the previous entry and I didn't get to leave my response there before it got too long. First off I'm not a parent, but an aunt and great-aunt, but if I was, and saw my older child over my dead or near dead child I'd see red, likely cuss to blue blazes, probably wallop the kid with one smack, go to the injured/dead child...then likely call 911 if I could calm myself. Also yell for hubby. However, if I was aware that my older child had previous episodes of abuse (of any kind) I'd probably still call 911. If it was my hubby or an intruder, I would shoot them dead. Then call 911. If someone had strangled and killed my cat or dog, I would shoot them dead, then call 911.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's upthread a bit, but wanted to say the Navy didn't invent the garrotte.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John claims he never learned knot tying in the navy, that he was a civil engineer. Burke could have learned how to do it however.

      Delete
    2. From what I've read, the device used to strangle JonBenet was not, strictly speaking, a garrote, but a "garrote-like device." Apparently it wasn't designed to be used as a garrote. The knot is sometimes described as a simple slip-knot, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case or someone's opinion based solely on the photo.

      Delete
    3. John also claimed to have removed his pants and shoes, stripped down to his underwear, put his shoes back on, lowered himself down into a cement crawl space, punched a perfect sized hole through a window, reached in and opened a latch without cutting himself, and crawl through feet first to gain entry to a house his neighbor had a key to. I would hardly call THAT "civil" engineering!

      Mike

      Delete
    4. right, I have read that too. IT was called improvising using what was at hand, in the paint tote. Good distinction.

      Delete
    5. Right Mike. What I would call that would be a lie.

      Delete
  31. I talked to the mother of a cub scout out in front of the hardware store today. I asked her "is knot tying something that is taught to the cub scout and also boy scouts? She said oh yes! Extensive training! Both as a cub scout and a boy scout. She said the cub scout is a cub scout longer than they used to be. That they can remain a cub scout until age 11, then become a boy scout. I didn't know any of this. But knot tying is something they learn to do at a young age in the cub scouts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. do you have proof Burk was in cub scouts.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous I have no proof he was in cub scouts or boy scouts. I didn't say he was. I said he might have been. In fact i cannot get a straight answer from any fact checking searches at all. That seems peculiar to me. "Was Burke Ramsey a cub scout or a boy scout?" Gives NO answer. Just people piggybacking on the Dr. Phil interview saying "Burke was a boy scout and learned knot tying". But there is also no proof that JR had knot tying training in the military. In fact in the deposition with Darnay Hoffman he answered that no, he did not. That he was a civil engineer and knot training was not in his training. So to say that the knot tying was sophisticated and therefore points to JR is another speculative comment. John went into the navy and began training as a civil engineer. Also he entered officer's candidate school immediately. Don't know if he was a boy scout either. He did own a boat, both he and Burke sailed on that boat so either one of them may know how to tie boat knots.

      Delete
    3. update: 10/10 see proof below Burke was in boy scouts

      Delete
  32. But improvised garotte training/creation is exactly what is part of basic navy training in the course E&E. They don't teach you how to make a standard garotte but how to make it from any material/medium. It's listed in both the army and navy basic combative manuals and one specifically for us navy hand to hand combat for naval aviators. Sure maybe the sophisticated knot could have been learned by BR but I seriously doubt he had training to know how to fashion a garotte. My point is just that JR was exposed to techniques in knot and garottes that the avg person was not. Not saying this alone points or guilt but if we've already debunked IDI, and whether BR hit her first, JR is the only one seemingly knowledgable for such a knot/garotte job given his navy background, even if it was a civilian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to wonder too though Anonymous, why if you think JR did the strangulation, did he find it necessary to use a stick (as a garotte)to strengthen the cord, make it tighter? I did read a DA analysis that the DA thought the "staging" looked childish. Hold on, I know you will want me to cite that as well. Will take some digging, it was 10 websites ago.

      Delete
    2. Inquisitive you make a good point. (I'm a new anon! I will start signing off as E to distinguish) I think the need for the stick in garotting (had to call my military friend to double check) is that when you strangulate with just a wire or string, you have to use force to pull backwards and the chord can slip thru your fingers when you pull hard. Unless you have a long chord and u can wrap it around your hands for steadiness. That would leave a mark on the hands of course so a stick or sticks make it easier to strangulate with force without any damage to the hands. I would love to see the part about it being childish. I'm still up in the air if BDI or JDI. Thanks! e

      Delete
    3. My problem is I can be persuaded, easily, to go wither way, BDI or JDI! What I try and do is argue passionately both sides of it, the leave it to others to react. I am in the BDI now after reading something J said. It was his steadfastness I believe that got me, and also I put quite a bit of stock in Kolar's book. I have the site where the DA remark came from, and after work if you are still around E, I will post that for you gladly.

      Delete
    4. And welcome E. I've been on for maybe 3 weeks? I think when it gets to the point where I don't think I can contribute anything or someone resorts to spell checking me I'll opt out!

      Delete
  33. Thank you all for adding that others learn knot tying and they don't have to be trained by the military. And thanks DocG for a clearer description of the device found. (and I have seen the pics numerous times). Mrs Ramsey was older than myself. I remember learning macrame back in elementary school during art class. It was a public school with both boys and girls in the class. She may have learned along the way how to tie knots in the manner found at the scene. Tying knots isn't a gender specific talent. I would think it might be a tad more difficult to tie the cord with gloves on. However the home likely contained latex or nitrile gloves for use in dying JonBenet's hair as well as what the housekeeper may have preferred to use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's great diamondlil - I mean they had a whole house hold full of items at their disposal, didn't they?

      Delete
  34. I'm in the camp of all three in the home played a part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that case, daimondlil16, the ransom note was composed strictly as a red herring.......so why the specific instructions that buy John time?

      Delete
    2. In that case, daimondlil16, the ransom note was composed strictly as a red herring.......so why the specific instructions that buy John time?

      Delete
    3. It's hard to say Ms D. But we know it bought the guilty party/ies almost 20 years of time living their life not being apprehended. Whoever wrote it managed not to leave a tear drop, or saliva, or had a runny nose or sneezed on it.
      Of course there is that Alabama woman that swears she is the writer of the lengthy letter but not the author. It's reported she even took an independent LDT and passed.

      Delete
    4. Same here diamondlil, same here.

      Delete
    5. That ransom note bought them nothing but grief. To claim the authorities were somehow fooled by it is to betray a profound ignorance of how this case developed. It's precisely why the BPD became convinced so early on that they were involved -- because it was so obvious the note was phony.

      John got away with it because of the foolish decision to rule him out, which provided him with the perfect alibi.

      Delete
    6. Complete hogwash. If it were not for that note, then the Ramseys would not have been going to their friend's house on the 26th but rather straight to the Police Station. There would have never been any consideration by LE that another party was involved other than someone in that house. Just like any other murder investigation where the body is in the house, it is directly to the Police Station for interrogation. I do not see why this is so hard for you to understand but apparently you have some glich. Now you show me other cases where a child was murdered in the house while the parents slept and LE just let them take off to their friend's house without formal interviews at the Police Station.

      Delete
  35. Apologies for double posts, but for some reason, when I click "Publish", my comments are posting twice, with the option to delete either comment not appearing. No doubt this comment will post twice also, so I will refrain from commenting until this glitch is hopefully remedied. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's happened to me too. I'm not sure why. I try to delete redundant posts but some get through anyhow. No harm done. It's software glitch that we can probably just ignore.

      Delete
  36. It's happened to me too, waiting to publish and prove I'm not a robot. I've been reading topix about JonBenet's dolls. And how fiber from her dolls could be some of the fiber found on her body and duct tape. Some writers have posed that the "intruder" took a souvenir. Was a doll missing? This thread says one was delivered to John's workplace after the murder. Perhaps JonBenet got up and not only took her pillow to the kitchen (seen in crime scene photos) but carried one her dolls down as well.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Link to doll info, poster claims for many years she has notified LE about the doll order.
    http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TEEDBH3MP8GLT6HHI/p1

    ReplyDelete
  38. Okay nay sayers - found it. Burke Ramsey was in the boy scouts as early as 1993 - from the Ramsey's book "Death of Innocence" page 97, stated by his parents.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Found it: regarding Burke being in the boy scouts:

    Burke Ramsey was in the boy scouts of America from 1993 - "Death of Innocence" Ramseys, page 97

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's inconceivable to me that the construction of a device like that would have been taught to either cub scouts or boy scouts. (And by the way, Burke would have been a cub scout, not a boy scout.)

      We're not talking simply about tying a knot, OK? We're talking about constructing a device whose purpose is to kill.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, I believe without question that JR tied the knot and made the device.

      Delete
    3. Doc you are absolutely right. This knot and garotte is neither from cub scouts nor macrame class. It's straight up an improvised strangulation based on likely basic training from the navy (see my previous posts) that could have only been made by one person in that house. It's not sexism - a nine year old does not know what an improvised garotte is and why you need stick attached to cord (leverage,torque) and neither does a housewife former beauty queen, no matter how many crafting classes she's taken.

      Delete
  40. oops, didn't mean to be redundant, I back spaced and then didn't see the first one.

    ReplyDelete
  41. wanna clear something else up: I said earlier Ramsey was in a deposition in the Hogarth case against him. It was Wolfe v. Ramsey defamation case.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Reading through a lot of the post's and comments it's becoming evident that certain posters believe what they believe in spite of anything new that has come forward. We are now debating over a magical fruit cocktail that JBR must have had stashed away in her room somewhere.
    A lot of comments get directed at Doc, which I understand because this is HIS blog, but unless he hasn't told us different, he is a blogger....not a detective.
    In order for the JDI theory proposed by Doc to completely fall apart, all that needs to be proven is that Patsy Ramsey was involved in the staging at some point. To eliminate her solely because she dialed 911 is just ridiculous and based on absolutely no facts whatsoever but simply an opinion.
    She dials 911 at 5:52 am and at 5:55 am she calls friends to come over. The note specifically says to NOT call or tell anybody and within a 3 min span she broke those instructions twice! The note also says they can arrange an earlier pickup of their daughter and neither John or Patsy attempted to do that. Also, Patsy 100% cannot be eliminated as a potential author of that note despite what anybody says.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J. _ Then, what plausible exlanation can you present why she called 911, if she did write the note?

      And, as far as an early pickup, the RN also hinged that on JR "getting the money early". He did not even attempt to get the money at all. Why would he? He had until "8 to 10Am" on the 27th, nearly 24 hrs. into the next day. Plus, at the time, anyone involved would have assumed that the factionistas had followed through with their murderous threats, since Patsy clearly did not follow their explicit instructions that were way too verbose for PR to read thru, let alone comprehend before calling 911, in her understandably freaked out state of mind. So, what would they expect to gain by getting the money at that point.

      So, while you can't prove 100% any or all theories, any reasonable person can and should rule out the fringe theories that seem to be based on very little proof at all. PR writing the note creates a slew of fringe theories bordering on conspiracy. IMO, PR has zero percent chance of writing that note.

      Delete
    2. For me, the RN took 3 minutes to read thru. The part where they threaten to kill JB if they "talk to anyone" was at the 1.5 mark. She dialed 911 imediately and obviously before reading the whole note. I don't think that is hard to agree with. JR wrote the note. If you have an agenda against the obvious, or are playing devils advocate, you could make up anything. But that doesn't make other theories less valid or interesting.

      Delete
    3. No offense but who is going to wake up with a ransom note in their house, theor daughter missing and NOT read the whole thing ? Would she not think these intruders might still be in the house and be scared to roam about the house by herself like any other woman would be ? How was she able to tell the 911 operator who wrote the RN without having the note in her possession as she claimed ? If she did not read all of the note then that makes her a liar doesnt it ?

      Delete
    4. J - "Would she not think these intruders might still be in the house and be scared to roam about the house by herself like any other woman would be ?"

      Precisely why she didn't take 3 full minutes before calling 911.

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

      Delete
    6. -J,
      I'm not sure to whom your post is directed. I posted about the fruit cocktail because it perplexes me that there are two different versions of what was found in JB's small intestine. I wanted to know what others thought, not just what Doc thinks. I know that I have posted a question or two specifically directed at Doc, but his opinion is not the only one I value. And I certainly don't agree with everything he believes. I think people post directly to Doc, because as you said this is HIS blog, and despite whether or not someone agrees with his theory, it is pretty clear that he is knowledgeable about the case.

      I, for one, have not made my mind up as to who I think killed JB, or which theory I feel is most plausible. I am here to read what others think, and learn more information about the case. That being said, I don't take what anyone says at face value. If someone shares information that is new to me, and they haven't provided a source to back it up, I take the time to try to verify it for myself.

      I understand that your post may have had nothing to do with me, but I still wanted you to know that there are people here, such as myself, who are not yet sold on any particular theory. I appreciate everyone's contributions to this blog. Even the assertions that I feel are not plausible can be thought provoking, and often prompt me to search for more information, which inevitably, allows me to gain more knowledge.

      Delete
  43. J, we have already gone over why Patsy allegedly "ignored" the note's instructions to not call the police, yet you continue to bring it up ad infinitum as though it has never been addressed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because MsD, that she "ignored" the note's instructions and the reason for it is pure speculation.

      Delete
  44. To eliminate Patsy as the author of the note because she dialed 911 is not ridiculous......it is the only sensible, logical conclusion. The author of the note clearly did NOT want the authorities called, thus the author of the RN would certainly not have been the one to call them.
    This rules out Patsy as the author.
    This is not an "opinion", it is a logical inference based on the fact that the author of the note laid out specific details, all of which become redundant if the police are called.
    Thus, putting forth the premise that the author was the very same person who called the authorities is preposterous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank you so much, Ms D for this clarification.

      Now of course it is true that anything is possible. For example, Patsy may have written the note and then had a stroke, which caused her to forget having written it. Or perhaps she has multiple personalities. Who can say for sure, right?

      The question is not whether it's possible for her to have both written the note and made that phone call, but whether such a conclusion can be regarded as reasonable, based on what we know about her and what we know about the case. And no, I've never seen a reasonable explanation for why she would call 911 after having written that note. Or to put it another way, handing such a note to the police while knowing the body of the victim is still in the house makes NO sense.

      And no, it is not reasonable to assume the Ramseys might have had a change of heart and decided against dumping the body after all. If they'd changed their minds they would also have changed their note, because a ransom note and a body in the house do not mix, and the combination of the two is bound to raise suspicions, NOT allay them. These are intelligent, educated people who would certainly understand this and would not be so foolish as to deliberately draw suspicion down on themselves by handing over such a document.

      The problem is that most people following this case have fixated on Patsy for so long that they are constitutionally unable to let go and admit they could be wrong. But there is no getting around it. To keep Patsy in the mix as a collaborator on either the crime or the coverup, the most fantastic notions and the most absurdly convoluted scenarios have to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    2. You already claim PR had a stroke and lost her memory. Thus how many things she did not lie about and thus just conveniently "forgot" so this would be nothing out of the orsinary for PR would it ?

      Delete
  45. First off, yes it is absolutely an opinion, there is nothing factual about what you just said.

    Your OPINION is that the person who wrote the note wouldn’t have alerted authorities with the body in the house. You absolutely cannot state that as a fact nor can Patsy be eliminated simply because you feel that. The JDI crowd’s theory is that John Ramsey was molesting his daughter over the course of years, all the while he was in and out of the house a lot due to traveling with his job. So, according to pure fiction, JBR was about to spill the beans and John had no choice but to shut his daughter up because he couldn’t have his name tarnished with these allegations. That leads him to plan a premeditated murder of his 6 year old daughter on Christmas night and writing a 3 page ransom note that had one purpose and that was to full Patsy. It HAD to full Patsy so that he could get the body out of the house, that’s what you JDI crowd will say in your OPINION of what happened.
    Here is the problem. If that is what happened, then PR dialing 911 = John being arrested on the spot. That’s 100% what he had to be thinking which is why there is zero chance that call gets made. According to both Ramsey’s, John was on the ground reading the note while Patsy made the 911 call. He could have grabbed the phone from her or forcefully stopped her from making the call by saying the note said to NOT alert anybody because JBR would be killed.
    I can do this all day Ms D……..you are 100% to feel the way you want, but PLEASE do not say that it isn’t an opinion that Patsy wasn’t involved because she dialed 911. Pure speculation and opinion

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  46. meant to write "fool Patsy"

    ReplyDelete
  47. “Now of course it is true that anything is possible. For example, Patsy may have written the note and then had a stroke, which caused her to forget having written it. Or perhaps she has multiple personalities. Who can say for sure, right?”

    Here comes Doc Trump just completely unable to stop himself from insulting the intelligence of people on here.

    You never for a second watched the CBS show with an open mind and might continue to fool others that post on here, but despite your continuous insults, some of us also have a brain and have looked at this case thoroughly. That open mind by some of us led us to the conclusion that Burke hit her over the head in a sudden moment of anger. John and Patsy trying to save their only living child did an unspeakable thing and covered up the crime.
    Burke who was only accused thru whispers dodged any serious public scrutiny. All of a sudden due to the 20 year anniversary, CBS puts together a team who was going to thoroughly investigate this case more than anybody before. Whether BR and JR knew that due to logic and looking at the facts they would figure out it was BR who did it or because they were tipped off, BR for the 1st time EVER does a public interview saying he is innocent. Oh and if that wasn’t enough, he goes on Dr. Phil who shares the same attorney and was Pro IDI.

    Good luck to other posters on this site, but be warned that if you disagree with this blogger, you will be hit with insults about your intelligence.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Here comes Doc Trump just completely unable to stop himself from insulting the intelligence of people on here."

      It's a logical argument known as reductio ad absurdum, i.e., reduction to absurdity. Sorry if you took it personally, that was not my intention. But if the shoe fits . . . .

      If you have a logical response to my argument, I'd love to see it. All I've seen from you is speculation, assumptions, accusations and arguments from authority.

      There is zero evidence that Burke hit his sister on the head or anywhere else. All they had on that show was his prints on a bowl from the house that could have gotten there at any time, plus something they think they heard on the 911 tape that many others did not hear, plus some pure fantasy about her grabbing a piece of pineapple, running away, with him in hot pursuit, followed by a fatal blow -- followed by a "coverup" too bizarre and disgusting to take seriously outside a madhouse. And you claim you've "looked at this case seriously?" Seriously?????

      The notion that John had been molesting his daughter is based on actual evidence from the autopsy, plus the unanimous opinion of a panel of pediatric experts. It's not absolute proof, but it does provide us with a reasonable argument for motive. And the notion that the ransom note was indeed a ransom note, intended to stage a phony kidnapping, is the most reasonable explanation for that note that I've ever seen. If you have a better one I'd love to hear it. The scenario I've come up with explains it. The BDI scenario dreamed up by Kolar never even considers it.

      Delete
    2. This is great. A bowl of pineapple and iced tea are sitting out when the crime scene pics are taken. The parents both said they didn't give that to the kids the night before. Burke went straight from bed to the friends house. BUT, on that bowl and glass are Burke's finger prints. Doc's conclusion...those could have come any time. Yes, Im the one not using logic.

      "The notion that John had been molesting his daughter is based on actual evidence from the autopsy, plus the unanimous opinion of a panel of pediatric experts."

      WAIT...EVERYBODY...DOC WAS ABLE TO FIND ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT JOHN RAMSEY WAS MOLESTING HIS DAUGHTER! Why are we still writing on this blog...PLEASE take your evidence to the DA immediately to serve an arrest warrant for John Ramsey!

      You have gone so far down the rabbit hole of JDI, that you are beyond unable to even consider another opinion. I looked at old post's and in the past you said BR couldnt have delivered the force necessary for the head blow and now that has been debunked, so you had to go on to calling everybody delusional for believing BDI.
      I've given you logical responses, it just isnt what you want to hear. But I will try it again. Not a single thing Patsy did that morning matches with a person who truly believed her daughter was kidnapped by a small foreign faction. The call felt fake, it sure looks like her handwriting and to think she would be so stupid to go along with lie and lie told by John Ramsey is unfathomable. You are never convincing me that Burke didn't do it, so go try to fool somebody else

      -J




      Delete
    3. Why are you still writing on this blog? You should go someplace with the rest of the sheep who fell for that garbage CBS put out

      Delete
    4. Hey after you find the evidence against Mad John Ramsey, can you PLEASE find out who really killed Nicole Brown Simpson and free OJ!

      You were duped by this site Anonymous....but good luck in finding the answers you seek.

      -J

      Delete
    5. J, Are you being paid to add noise to distract from JDI? Why is it so hard for you to even suggest it's even remotely possible? You are not being honest.

      Delete
    6. J, Are you being paid to add noise to distract from JDI? Why is it so hard for you to even suggest it's even remotely possible? You are not being honest.

      Delete
    7. It's probably John himself. The delusion is real!

      Delete
    8. Jon....I have been on this site for 5 years when a person named CH still posted on here. For 5 years I thought JDI as well, so save your insults. I never thought Patsy did it and IDI is pure lunacy. So that left John and Burke. I only eliminated BR because I didnt think he had the strength to strike the blow and now thats been debunked for me. The motive for John is absolute garbage with nothing to support it. So, CBS's special helped connect the dots for me.

      -J

      Delete
  48. If everything were just logical answers to this case, or any case for that matter, the police would have solved it 2 mins after JB's body was brought up. You can not just solve every case with what you think "the most logical" scenario is off of 1 fact, while ignoring the logic of 10 other facts and pieces of evidence. The Amanda Knox case is a perfect example, her prints were on the knife so logically she committed the murder. Not the case. PR was involved and it has nothing to do with not being fixated or not being able to let go of preconceived notions. Evidence points to PR being involved time and time again. You have to excuse or ignore 10 other facts while following 1 to make this theory work. The problem with saying that they would not hand over the note with the body in the house completely ignores the Ramsey's arrogance and confidence that the author would never be identified. If JR had in fact, authored the RN, then a perfect example of his arrogance is shown when he runs and grabs the pen and paper it was written on, (rather than grab any other pen and paper in the house) and hands it right over to LE. Keiser Sosay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was in fact the leading suspect from the start, according to Darnay Hoffman himself, based on his conversations with one of the assistant DA's. But you can't just simply arrest someone because you suspect him of writing a phony ransom note. And there was no way they could do that before attempting to determine who wrote the note. It was only after John was "ruled out" that the case went into a tailspin. And it's been spinning to this day, for the same reason: the "experts" made a huge mistake.

      If you want to argue that the note somehow helped them in their staging of a phony kidnapping you have your work cut out for you, because once the body was discovered it was clear that there had been NO kidnapping and that the note was part of a staging plot that went wrong.

      Delete
    2. I agree, JR WAS the leading suspect in this case for about a year and a half or so. Yet he was ruled out as writing the RN around 2 weeks after the murder. However, IMO what threw this investigation into the biggest tailspin was when LE started finding evidence of more than 1 Ramsey being involved. When that happened there was no 1 place to point a finger, regardless of who actually wrote the note. To this day that is still the problem, only now you have 3 Ramseys possibly being involved instead of 2, thus destroying any chance for anyone to ever be prosecuted.

      Delete
    3. And apparently anyone who disagrees with the blog administrator's points are no longer experts. They are "experts." Adios.

      Delete
    4. please produce the conversation Darnay Hoffman had with one of the assistant DA's that John was the leading suspect from the start. IT seemed to me on the deposition video on youtube that he was trying desperately to tie the note to Patsy. You have to wonder why 20 years later absolutely no one has published a single book pointing to JR as the murderer. Many books published that say Patsy struck the blow, and now Burke. Wonder why. Maybe because J didn't do it. At least the murder.

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

    ReplyDelete
  50. Im tired of hearing from Doc about how the RN did NOT work as it was intended to. If that RN is not in that house, then there is not 1 single shred of any intruder in that house. Without an intruder, we only have a scenario of a dead child found, garotted and tied up in the basement of a house, with 3 family members who were home and sleeping and claiming they did not hear a sound all night. No one on the face of the earth is going to believe that. Doc tries to present that the RN is why LE started looking at the Ramseys. Laughable and pure and utter hogwash. As a matter of fact had that RN NOT been in that house, then LE NEVER seriously looks for suspects anywhere outside of that house, EVER. The Ramseys do not leave that house for their friends, they go directly to the police station for interrogation like everyone else who has a family member murdered in their house while they are home and sleeping. That RN is the ONLY "evidence" of an intruder that there was. Without that note, this case takes on a whole new twist, where most likely, the outcome is very different. I do not see why this is so hard to understand but apparently it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A ransom note written on a pad from the house is hardly evidence of an intruder. A ransom note left in the same house where the victim is later found is hardly evidence of an intruder. Why do you think the authorities focused so hard on Patsy once John had been ruled out? Because they weren't buying that note as evidence of anything but what it was: a blatant attempt at staging.

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

      Delete
    3. Keiser, you can't see me, but Im currently giving you a standing slow clap for this post. It's SPOT ON! The RN DID work....the police focused their investigation outside of the house. If there is no RN, we aren't sitting here posting on this site, because arrests would have been made in minutes. The RN was the ONLY thing pointing to an intruder.

      -J

      Delete
    4. So you're saying if someone invades my home and murders a member of my family I had better write a phony ransom note before calling the police, or else I'm going to be arrested?

      Where on earth do you people get your ideas about how the justice system operates? My God, do I really have to spell it out for you?

      I'm running out of patience for this sort of nonsense. If you want to stop posting here that's fine with me, because you are wasting everyone's time.

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

      Delete
    6. Doc, do you even read your post's before hitting submit anymore? In this specific case THERE WAS NO INTRUDER! If there was no RN, then yes, the Ramseys would be arrested on the spot. Please stop asking poll questions or examples that have nothing to do with this case. You honestly dont believe they would have been arrested on the spot without the RN?

      Delete
    7. It's doubtful they would have been "arrested on the spot". Fortunately, that's not how the system works. BPD may have been immediately suspicious, as they were anyway, but it's necessary to have probable cause before an arrest warrant is issued.
      CC

      Delete
    8. CC is correct, warrants probably could not and would not have been issued, at that point. However, they can be, and would have been detained for 48 hrs if that RN did not take some suspicion off of the Ramseys a d put it elsewhere for that period of time (which is legal and standard if the police feel there is probable cause that suspect has committed a felony) then they can be "detained". Without the RN they would have been detained for questioning.

      Delete
  51. I agree completely about PR being focused on, later on. No PR was not focused on 10 days later, however. The RN was the only "Evidence" of there possibly being an intruder, enough so that it confused LE. It confused LE enough to consider that it was a possibility there was an intruder. And most of all, it confused police enough that they let the Ramseys walk out of that house and not straight to the BPD. Without that note that does not happen. They are not let out of that house and they go straight to BPD for interrogations, and like I said if they go straight to BPD then we most likely are not here today and have a different outcome. At the least,you must concur, that it at least bought the Ramseys time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got it wrong. They delayed interrogation of the
      Ramseys at first because Patsy was considered too upset. Very shortly John had hired one of the most powerful attorneys in Colorado and made one excuse after another to blow off the authorities. While the general public, including myself, remained puzzled and indignant, there was legally nothing the authorities could do. The Ramseys could not be compelled to testify and there was no basis for arresting them because there was no way of telling who did what. It was John hiding behind the legal barriers presented by his lawyers that prevented them from being questioned, NOT the ransom note, which was, from the start, the main reason why they were suspected.

      Delete
    2. No I do not have it wrong. I am speaking of that day in that house, and you are speaking of later on, though i keep repeating myself. My point is that without that RN, there is no possibility of intruder and they are detained by LE THAT day, THEY do not leave that house other than straight to BPD. The luxury of PR being too upset and BPD showing her compassion does not occur. No the reason they were suspected that day was most certainly NOT the RN, as I explained above. Without the RN there is only a child's body in the basement strangled and tied up. They arent just going to be walking out of the house in that scenario. Secondly the RN stopped them from being extensively questioned before the body was found. Without that RN, 5 mins after LE walks into that house they are pretty confident that someone in the house to be guilty.

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

    ReplyDelete
  53. Has it been discussed about JDI moving Jonbenet's body during the time he disappeared from Arndt (plus some more staging)? Since Fleet didn't see jonbenet's body anywhere in the am, I have a feeling it was hidden...then during the missing time for JDI put her back out somewhere and was either going to announce they should look for her again or when Arndt said they should he immediately darted for that location.

    Also, did Fleet give a detailed account of going to the basement? Such as, did JDI ham up some fake gimmicked room searching first or did he go straight to that room?

    ReplyDelete
  54. "A ransom note written on a pad from the house is hardly evidence of an intruder." LE did not know that at the time. They did not and could not find out until much later that the RN was written on pen and paper from the house, so that is irrelevant. "A ransom note left in the same house where the victim is later found is hardly evidence of an intruder." You are correct again, however when you have a long note written claiming to be a foreign faction and claiming your daughter will be beheaded requesting money and presented to LE as it was, then surely you have the possibility of an intruder. LE was sure fooled at the time, as they left only 1 officer in the house. And were fooled for quite a time after. Irrelevant anyways because you are speaking of months later, while I am speaking of what was the current situation in the house.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once the body was found the note lost any value as intruder evidence. From that point on it was recognized as suspicious and suspicion pointed directly at the Ramseys.

      Delete
    2. To this day the RN has not lost all of its value. It may have lost its value to you or me but there of plenty of people in LE, who were and are involved in the case, who believe an intruder wrote it. So obviously, it did not lose ALL of its value. As far as that day goes, it more than confused LE. They surely did not have the attitude THAT day that the Ramseys were guilty. Least they would have been hauled in to BPD without a choice.

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

      Delete
  55. Once the body was found the note most certainly did not lose its value and did NOT until later. Without it the Ramseys do NOT leave that house that day. In essence it bought the Ramseys time. Time to get out of that house. The RN, at the least, confused LE enough , to let the Ramseys delay questioning. Are you asserting that if there had not been a RN, the Ramseys would have just waltzed out of that house, over to their friends and delayed LE interviews for 4 mos ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm getting tired of continually trying to talk sense to people who have clearly lost (or never had) the ability to think objectively. So for the moment I'll simply repeat myself:

      So you're saying if someone invades my home and murders a member of my family I had better write a phony ransom note before calling the police, or else I'm going to be arrested?

      Where on earth do you people get your ideas about how the justice system operates? My God, do I really have to spell it out for you?

      Delete
    2. No Doc, you wouldn't. You would pick the phone up and ring 911 and am ambulance.

      In this case that did not happen. There was no intruder and the body was not found the next morning for the first time. The Ramseys felt like they needed the RN as better evidence of an intruder. Its just that simple in my opinion and you are overthinking it when you ask yourself what "you" would do. Because we dont know what exactly happened that night but John and Patsy thought the RN was needed. And I guess it worked. If Patsy was completely in the dark then I may as well believe pigs can fly.

      Delete
    3. I never said YOU had to write a ransom note. That is ludicrous. You will have to do something or have some way to point to someone outside of yourself bing culpable or you are headed directly to the station. Where you may or may not get out. Maybe you will use something other than RN. In this case that is what they did. You not answering my question over and over means that you have answered it by deflection and default. Thank you for agreeing :)

      Delete
    4. Keiser, I suspect you are not a native speaker of English, because you frequently demonstrate an inability to understand precisely what I am saying. And you miss obvious inferences, so I have to spell everything out to you in detail. Which can get exhausting.

      If the Ramseys had reported a simple home invasion, with no note, they would certainly not have been arrested that day, or any day in the following weeks and possibly never. Yes, we can safely conclude there was no intruder, based on what we now know about the case, but that would certainly not have been obvious to the police by any means. Since most such homicides are statistically performed by family members they would certainly have been regarded with suspicion, yes.

      But a lot of evidence would need to be collected before probable cause for arrest could be determined. And since the ONLY clear evidence of an inside job was the match between the note and the notepad from the house, and since in this case there would have been no note, then I fail to see how the authorities could ever have hoped to prove any of the Ramseys were involved.

      Yes, there was no evidence of forced entry. But the "intruder" could have had a key. If it weren't for the match between the note and the notepad, there'd have been no way to link JonBenet's murder to the Ramseys. It's hard for me to understand why you, J and Inquisitive have such a hard time getting that.

      Without the evidence linking the note to the house, literally any child molester anywhere in Boulder or beyond could have committed this crime. So no, a note written on a pad from the house would NOT be considered intruder evidence. Just the opposite.

      Delete
  56. In BPD's words, tbey were being compassionate to PR, who just lost her child. The Ramseys would not have been afforded that luxury had LE not been confused by the RN, the only thing that pointed to the possibility of someone outside the house committing this murder.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Makes sense to me KS. I personally think its ludicrous to suggest PR wasn't involved or didnt know what had happened when making that 911 call

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is ludicrous. Even Helen Keller would have been on to her husband by the 2nd day with these same circusmstances . Lol

      Delete
  58. Dear J - I agree with you 100%. And I'm going to exit this blog site now and wish all of you well. When the arguing becomes contentious then we have lost our objectivity, as we cling to firmly (almost set in stone) to what we believe, and not knowing at all if it's true. J, thank you for standing up for your theory, which I happen to share, and for not being snarky to calling other people's statements preposterous or "Doc Trump." Wow. J, I would just disengage from this site and find another one. And yes, cub scouts are given extensive training in knot tying. I asked the mother of a cub scout yesterday, when they were fund raising. Her son is a cub scout and age 7.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm getting tired of continually trying to talk sense to people who have clearly lost (or never had) the ability to think objectively. So for the moment I'll simply repeat myself:

      So you're saying if someone invades my home and murders a member of my family I had better write a phony ransom note before calling the police, or else I'm going to be arrested?

      Where on earth do you people get your ideas about how the justice system operates? My God, do I really have to spell it out for you?

      I'm running out of patience for this sort of nonsense. If you want to stop posting here that's fine with me, because you are wasting everyone's time.

      Delete
    2. Who knows what the thought process was for the Ramsey's that night. I'm sure they weren't thinking clearly at all. They weren't career criminals, and had to put an amateur plan together. So with that being said, I think maybe we are trying to come up with career criminal theories, and thus muddying the water as a result.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Doc but you are just making this way more complicated. Im running out of patience myself.

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

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

      Delete
  59. Inquisitive, I have to agree with you on all accounts. I also found a manual that shows the knots they have to tie on the internet (around a stick no less). I hope you change your mind about posting here as I have enjoyed your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  60. New here. Brilliant blog. Team Doc! I bet JR is ROFL with some of the comments posted here and how the case has transpired over the years. Master liar, deceiver, child molester, manipulator, and, of course, murderer, JR--case closed.

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but JBR's chronic bedwetting could have been a symptom of her chronic sexual abuse. Poor little girl. And, PR's ovarian cancer could also have been a symptom of her sexual relations with JR; cells mutating causing abnormalities. JR's sperm may have been cursed! Haha! This is my two cents---pure speculation folks, from a woman's perspective. Don't start another blog thread because of my comments now haters...

    Thanks for a great blog and brilliant logic, Doc!

    Grace

    ReplyDelete
  61. Maybe Burke had made that garrotte days, weeks or months earlier?

    He was one of the few people who went down to the basement and boys being boys like to make things. All boys like to make slingshots or animal traps or something like that. If Burke did make it, I do NOT think he made it whilst thinking “I’m making this to kill my sister”.

    On that fateful night, JB came downstairs with her pillow and saw Burke eating pineapple. She stole a piece or maybe he gave her a piece. I think Burke and JB then went to the basement to look at toys and thats where the fight started or Burke decided to be silly. Maybe Burke found the garotte and put it on her as a game and pulled it not realising how tight it would get. Maybe then JB started lashing out or trying to yell and Burke hit her over the head with the flashlight he used to sneak downstairs (so she wouldn’t wake his parents up). Then when she wouldn’t wake up, Burke prodded her with a piece of his train track that was in the basement. That would explain 100% why the parents didn’t ring an ambulance that night...if JB had the garrotte on.

    I think that scenario works well.

    Or maybe, John did the garrotte himself because they thought JB was dead and they thought they had to add another element for the intruder to ring true. Who knows what was going through their minds and they weren’t the most logical family. All I know is that in my mind, Burke WAS involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good scenario Zed! He very well could have made the "hitch" earlier. There were also presents for Burke in the basement they were going to give him for his birthday in January that showed signs of being torn into - according to Kolar's book. He could have very well been down in the basement that night with a flashlight doing that very thing when she comes downstairs.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't there something to do with Burke having his knife down in the basement? The knife the housekeeper said she tried to get Patsy to hide from Burke? And didn't the tape over the mouth show signs that it was torn, not cut with scissors? As well as the cord?

      Delete
  62. Thanks J, I will check in now and again. I enjoyed finding out things other people maybe didn't know about. Background on things. For instance it took me a while to find the resource that Burke was indeed in boy scouts. No matter how I asked the question all that came up was people's opinions (and I know I had heard it myself 20 years ago). Then i found it - his parents said in "Death of Innocence" that Burke was in the BOY Scouts they said, not cub scouts, but one can assume you start as a cub scout. And then I read that cub scouts are indeed taught knot tying and I'm assuming they get better at it when they "graduate" to boy scouts. In fact don't they give out merit badges for just such a skill? I then looked up knot tying techniques and skills a cub scout/boy scout would learn and that is where I found the "clove hitch" which looks alot like the cord wrapped around the "hitch" of the paint stick. But I didn't just assume that would be the only place Burke might know how to tie a knot. Burke began his scouting life in 1993, he would have been age 7, same age as the cub scout I talked to yesterday. And he was in scouting on from that year. Many other skills are learned as well, fire building, camping, the like but it's not relevant. I for one don't think the cord strangulation was part of the staging. I think it was the murder. The actual extinguishing of her life. It could have begun as a strange play activity by a disturbed little boy before the head blow, then more of it. Yep, it sounds bizarre but what part of this case isn't bizarre? What made me suspect Burke had a hand in the cord tying was that the DA said the crime looked childish. I have to get you a resource of just where I pulled that from and I would rather have a direct quote of course than someone said he said that. Tying her wrists loosely like that - that suggests play activity but of course not normal play activity. Also John would not have needed to use a stick as a garrotte. He would have been strong enough to do the choking without it. And I believe Patsy's 911 call was with full knowledge of what transpired that night/early morning. How many 911 calls have you listened to on True Crime shows that the killer makes it sound desperate and "get someone over here right away," panting, etc. Most of them!

    ReplyDelete
  63. One more thing J. Do you think it's possible, since her long johns were wet, that she had gone and gotten in bed with Burke as she had done many times before when she wet the bed and that's what angered him? She wouldn't want to tell her parents, she knew that she might get in trouble for that so she goes to Burke's room. He' none to happy about that. I read that she would often do this. He then walks her downstairs, perhaps she grabs a piece of fruit then, then he takes her down to the basement and ties her with the cord. As she struggles, perhaps cries out (neighbor said she heard a child scream around 2 a.m.) he then hits her over the head with the flashlight he brought with him when they headed to the basement. She doesn't get up. He prods her with the train track piece (it was down there in the train room), the rest you can surmise. Finishes the strangulation. Possibly. I can buy that a lot more than an afraid John Ramsey decided to silence his daughter Christmas night so she won't tell her step sister and step brother what he's been doing to her. All of that "chronic" abuse could most certainly been at the hand of whoever crudely abused her with a paint brush handle. he played with JB more frequently than his father. Her father was never home. or much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I think that is a bit far fetched. Yes I think Burke started this whole thing but I don't believe he purposely killed her. If he was the one who put the garrote on her, I think it would have just been as a joke because he spotted it and thought it would be funny. You know, like throwing a blanket over someone. In fact my son put a plastic bag over my daughters head thinking it was funny until I scolded him. Just kids being kids without thinking of what could go wrong. Suddenly the garrote tightened and JB started to panic and maybe thats when the headblow came to ensure parents didnt hear. Who knows. Im not 100% convinced Burke did the garrote as well but it is a very high possibility.

      If John wanted to silence his daugter from speaking up of this mythical sexual abuse, he would have killed her in a different way. And I dont believe for a second that John used the garrote for his sexual satisfaction that night. That did not happen.

      Delete
    2. I've been listening to the podcasts J. Thanks for telling us about them.

      Delete
    3. Me either Zed. And even if here was chronic abuse, which I have to say there were more experts than not that said there was, then who's to say it was J who was doing it? It's not a logical inference to say chronic sexual abuse = JR. And if you want to go back to the Journal of Child Psychiatry there is a higher percentage of brother to sister incest than father to daughter. Cited that a week ago. I don't think Burke purposely killed her either. He was not normal to begin with. But a psychopath? No. Whatever he did to her was either all in play, or out of anger, but no murder motive. He would have gotten psychological help (and I guess they did put him there for two years) if the parents had done the right thing and called the right person. I'm not saying it should have been LE, but to go and write a note and break a window I mean how does that help their son.

      Delete
    4. Hi Inquisitive,

      Glad you like that podcast. Really interesting how Jim Clemente looks at the case and explains his thought process. A lof of people are closed minded on here, but its hard to not trust his opinion when listening to him.

      Regarding your scenario....sure that is possible. I don't know that I 100% agree with their theory regarding her taking a pineapple piece and that setting BR off, but it could have been that or she wanted to play with his toy. I have seen brothers and sisters fight before and hit each other with objects that aren't a Maglite Flashlight. I definitely don't think BR meant to kill her, though Im sure there was jealousy from him to her.
      Burke's reaction when he was asked what the bowl of pineapple was on the table was definitely my "Ah Ha" moment. It was just sooooo strange and clearly felt like he knew he shouldn't say more. Couple that with him telling the therapist he wouldn't tell her secrets he had just added to it all for me.
      I always love a good debate, but am saddened that this site has become a lot of name calling and sarcasm. I know my goal and your goal and Zed's goal is simply to get to the truth of what happened to JBR. For 5 years I believed in Doc's theory, but I am not ashamed to admit I was wrong. I ALWAYS struggled with the motive for JR to kill her. The whole "covering up his molestation" just never added up for me. It was always the one lingering thing I could never add up in my head, so when I watched the CBS Special and was able to actually see how the house looked and hear from witnesses, it made the pieces all fit.
      I want to be done with this site, but always come back and always look forward to talking to you.

      -J

      Delete
    5. What a nice thing to say J. I read, I think it was you where you decided to go away for a while, it was becoming stressful, but you came back and offered your thoughts again and I'm glad. When you mentioned the podcast I looked it up and then it kind made up my mind for me. But it's been a long 20 years! I never bought the intruder theory, or a stun gun or watching Lou Smit climb down the window well. Did he ever show himself stepping up on the suitcase? He probably would have fallen and broken his neck. For a brief period I believed in the mother's rage over bed wetting. But Steve Thomas suggested she pushed JB and she hit her head on a tub faucet or the corner of the bathtub. I didn't see a picture of the bathroom to know there might even be a corner of the tub or not, but I didn't think that head wound looked like anything in a bathroom could have made it. And P doted on her daughter. Probably was a lot controlling but then mothers and daughters have a push pull relationship, my daughter and I had our issues when she turned 12. I wasn't sold on the JDI until I got here on this blog site. But I had read the Kolar book over a year ago and I don't think Kolar came right out and said BDI but strongly suggested it could be possible. I thought CBS cut their show off too soon. Had mixed feelings about it. But it fits with a head blow. And that he had stayed up late, and what I had read about him 20 years ago, the Asberger's, his father being gone, JB getting all of the attention. Then that video of him raising his fist and bringing it down on the table. His demeanor on Dr. Phil, his fetal position on the video, it made more sense to me that he would strike her with the flashlight. Well we've gone over it so much. What I have come to think in the last week is that he probably did the cord, the sexual assault, the strangulation. That is something I recently thought, because I don't get that either parent would do that as a "staging" event. The note, the window, yep. And even the 911 call. So here we are. No, I don't believe the pineapple had much to do with it other than he was downstairs eating the pineapple and she came down and took a piece. That's it. I think she set him off in some other way. If I stick around and read some things here no more argue matches from me! It's not worth it, is it?

      Delete
  64. Geez, no offense but can you and J just call each other on the phone and discuss your scenarios to your heart's content? You claim that Doc's scenario and logic is unbelievable, but yours is unbelievable and not very logical at all. Why is it so hard to accept incest? I know victims of incest and let me tell you, the perps are very secretive and crafty, and they don't get caught until they are outed by their victims. It just blows my mind that you people are so willing to give John a pass. Don't you know, from all that is in the media out there, that there are all flavors of dirty old men out there? There is no one profile of an incestuous person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we can agree to incest. Statistics show (from the Journal of Child Psychology) that older brothers commit incest at a higher percentage with their younger sisters than fathers to daughters. Don't know if what Burke was doing to her could be called "sexual," but it was certainly invasive, probably at times painful, and she had probably restarted her bedwetting because of it. If we're talking chronic then it could have been happening when she was at least 5 or 4. I could do some research on this type of behavior, abnormal child psychology was not my area, I was a behaviorist, but there are many many journals and studies about this subject, if you were committed to finding out you could do your own research.

      Delete
  65. Because the odds of someone not coming forth in a case as huge as this is almost 0. Couple that with the fact that this guy could pay for whatever kind of sex he wanted, wherever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Period. That leaves him with NO REASON whatsoever to risk his 6.4 million dollar net worth and prison to molest and then kill his daughter. It makes no sense whatsoever. Nor is there any report of this from his other children or the pediatrician or friends or anyone else. While Dr Beuf may not have done a vaginal exam he is very well trained on the pyschology of swxually abused children. The only thing that has ever cast suspicion after the initial investigation found this to not be true is this here blog. Couple that with a troubled 10 yr old who had been exhibiting odd behaviors and who frequently slept with his sister and you have your answer. Is it still possible JR was a sadistic pedo child killer ? Sure it is. Is it likely ? No its not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this was Kolar's reasoning as well. He makes it clear at one point that he can't imagine "good Christians" like Patsy or John murdering their own daughter. And for this reason, he never even considers the possibility that John could have committed this horrible crime.

      At the same time he is smart enough to realize there could have been no intruder. So. What other possibility could there be? Well, clearly that leaves only: Burke.

      Now we can give him some credit for being logical, yes. Only his logic is based on an unproven assumption: that both Patsy and John must have collaborated on the intruder staging. That works for him, as it explains why both spouses would want to work together on a coverup. If either John or Patsy did it, it's very difficult to explain why one would want to cover for the other.

      But if their son did it, then, as Kolar sees it, they WOULD be willing to collaborate to cover for their son. I think this is the main reason why so many are so willing to accept the notion that Burke killed his sister. This, plus the motive of sibling rivalry -- much easier to stomach than incest. And it fits nicely with the widely held notion that Patsy wrote the note.

      However: as I and many others here have insisted, this theory works only up to a point, and then breaks down. First, as I've argued over and over, Patsy would not have called 911 when she did if she knew JonBenet's body was lying in the basement. Second, it's impossible to imagine either of the two possible scenarios that would have followed the murder. I've already presented something very close to these two possibilities in my "Straw Poll." (see https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/09/straw-poll.html)

      The bottom line is that BDI works only up to a point -- and beyond that point becomes impossibly bizarre, gruesome, disgusting and literally unbelievable.

      Delete
    2. The problem is that no matter which Ramsey you enter into a scenario, it breaks down at some point, including yours. Every scenario is bizarre, gruesome, disgusting and unbelievable no matter WHO you think did it, obviously. With BDI we have odd behavior, we have fingerprints on the bowl and glass. A logical inference to that tells us BR was up late that night. BR goes on Dr Phil and says yes he was up late that night with his dad. BR sleeps with his sister and leaves feces all over her room. Him sleeping with her gives him easy access to her. With THAT fact in mind, it makes more sense that BR was doing some touching that he should not have been doing than it does JR was molesting her. Burke Ramsey has hit his sister in the face with heavy objects causing damage to her face before so it doesnt take any leap of intelligence to think that it is surely possible that he did the same thing again. How you think this is sooo crazy I really dont know other than you clearly have an agenda. If you believe JDI the story breaks down in places as well. It breaks down when you want to pretend PR did not know but beyond that it breaks down on letting PR call 911, it breaks down when he has to come up with a way the kidnappers were going to contact him and tell him where to go, and no him calling PR and disguising his voice to her pretending to be a kidnapper is not even close to plausible. It breaks down when he hands the pen and paper over to LE. If he did know the pen and paper could be traced then he wouldnt have just happened to use PR's pen and paper to write it and if he did know it could be traced, then he would have surely handed over different pen and paper over to LE. It breaks down because he would have dumped the body that night at 3 am despite the small risk of being seen thus eliminating needing a RN and having to worry about PR calling 911 and doing any staging etc etc. The benefit of dumping the body that night clearly outweighs keeping it in the basement and dumping it the next night. I have stated all these things before and you choose to ignore them and throw out some insult to keep your theory intact. If you think PR did it the only thing that really eliminates her is it does not seem as if she could do the staging. As far as her drama queen BS that you all buy into, sorry but I do not. I feel as if her being a drama queen probably came very natural as it was probably a part of her every day life and who she was. Reading stories of her prior drama and other stories do NOT lead me to believe she was a doting mother but rather a mother living vicariously through her child and that was her #1 priority NOT the welfare or happiness of her child.

      Delete
  66. We are not giving JR a pass, LE is. If it were up to me or any of us, JR would be up on the stand tommorow, as clearly he had some degree of involvement.

    ReplyDelete
  67. If Burke did the garrote (which is a possibility) then I'm happy to give John a pass. What a shit life he must have had...all because he wanted to protect his son (and maybe his own image).

    If John did the garrote to stage for Burke, then thats another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "A crime is like any other work of art.
    Every work of art, divine or diabolic, has one
    indispensible mark —the center of it is simple,
    however much the fulfillment may be
    complicated. . . .
    "Every clever crime is founded ultimately
    on some one quite simple fact—some fact that
    is not itself mysterious.
    "The mystification comes in
    covering it up, in leading men's
    thoughts away from it."
    G. K. Chesterton's legendary
    "Father Brown" in The Queer Feet

    ReplyDelete
  69. /Users/Chris/Desktop/Final_Judgment.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love to send you a book you might like. What's your email address?

      Delete
  70. Doc said:

    "I think this was Kolar's reasoning as well. He makes it clear at one point that he can't imagine good Christians like Patsy or John murdering their own daughter. And for this reason, he never even considers the possibility that John could have committed this horrible crime."

    JUST USING CAPITALS SO MY REPLIES EASIER TO READ :)
    YES HE DID SAY THAT. IT DOES NOT MEAN HE RULED OUT PATSY AND JOHN AS THE INSTIGATOR. I AM SURE EVERYONE WAS LOOKED AT TO EXTREME DETAIL. OF COURSE, WE ONLY KNOW WHAT THEY DECIDE TO TELL US. I THINK IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT THERE SIMPLY IS NO MOTIVE WHATSOEVER FOR JOHN OR PATSY TO HARM THEIR DAUGHTER. OF COURSE YOU CAN IMAGINE THINGS LIKE BED-WETTING (FOR PATSY) OR SEXUAL ABUSE (FOR JOHN) BUT THE REALITY IS THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS WHATSOEVER.

    Doc Said:

    "At the same time he is smart enough to realize there could have been no intruder. So. What other possibility could there be? Well, clearly that leaves only: Burke."

    YES, BURKE IS THE LAST ONE LEFT. BUT THAT ISN'T WHY KOLAR, THE CBS EXPERTS AND MYSELF THINK BURKE INSTIGATED THIS MURDER. WE THINK BDI BECAUSE OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE WHICH LEAD TO THE MOST LIKELY "ASSUMPTION". YES, EVERY THEORY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS UNFORTUNATELY AN ASSUMPTION. I WOULD SCORE BDI 80% POSSIBLITY (ON MY ASSUMPTION RADAR HAHA) VS 20% FOR JDI. BASED ON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENT.

    Doc said:

    "But if their son did it, then, as Kolar sees it, they WOULD be willing to collaborate to cover for their son."

    CORRECT. YOUR KIDS ARE YOUR BLOOD. ONCE YOU HAVE KIDS, YOU NEVER COME FIRST EVER AGAIN...THEY DO. SO YES, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT PATSY AND JOHN WERE BOTH IN ON IT (AGAIN, BASED ON FACTS) AND IT'S LIKELY THEY ARE COVERING FOR THEIR SON.

    Doc said:

    "This, plus the motive of sibling rivalry -- much easier to stomach than incest."

    I DON'T NECESSARILY FIND IT "EASIER TO STOMACH". I JUST THINK THE ODDS ARE GREATER BASED ON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. SIMPLE AS THAT. IF THERE WAS INCEST, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD MORE LIKELY BE BURKE GIVEN HE SHARED A ROOM WITH JB IN THE PAST AND HAD POSSIBLY LOOKED UP "INCEST" IN THE DICTIONARY AFTER HIS PARENTS SCOLDED HIM FOR IT AND TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT WORD.

    ReplyDelete
  71. CONTINUED…

    Doc said:

    "And it fits nicely with the widely held notion that Patsy wrote the note."

    IT DOES. THE NOTE HAD SOME PHRASES WHICH SOUNDED LIKE PATSY. IT ALSO HAD SOME PHRASES WHICH SOUNDED LIKE JOHN. I ALSO THINK THE HANDWRITING IS A CLOSER MATCH TO PATSY AND IT HAD HER FINGERPRINTS ON THE NOTEPAD (NO OTHER PRINTS). PLUS SHE KNEW SBTC OFF THE TOP OF HER HEAD ON THAT PHONE CALL WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE NOTE. FOR QUICKLY SCANNING THROUGH A DOCUMENT AND IN A PANIC, TO SAY THE ACRONYM 100% CORRECT..WELL THAT'S FAR FETCHED IN MY OPINION. PLUS THE 911 CALL HAD OBVIOUS PARTS OF IT WHICH MADE IT LOOK LIKE STAGING (ALTHOUGH SHE DID A GOOD JOB OF IT). I BELIEVE PATSY MADE THE CALL SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE COULD PLAY THE STRICKEN MOTHER BETTER THAN JOHN COULD PLAY STRICKEN FATHER..WHICH MOST FEMALES PROBABLY CAN.

    Doc said:

    "I and many others here have insisted, this theory works only up to a point, and then breaks down. First, as I've argued over and over, Patsy would not have called 911 when she did if she knew JonBenet's body was lying in the basement."

    WELL I TOTALLY DISAGREE THERE. IT IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL FOR BOTH THE NOTE AND THE 911 CALL TO HAVE HAPPENED. I KNOW I WILL NEVER CHANGE YOUR MIND, AS YOU WON'T CHANGE MINE..BUT I'M EXTREMELY CONFIDENT OF THAT.

    Doc said:

    "Second, it's impossible to imagine either of the two possible scenarios that would have followed the murder."

    YES, IT CAN BE A LITTLE TOUGH TO PICTURE IN YOUR MIND...BUT I CAN HONESTLY SEE IT HAPPENING. PLUS WE DON'T KNOW EXACLTY WHAT BURKE DID...HE MAY HAVE EVEN APPLIED THE GAROTTE. IF SO, THEN I DON'T SEE IT HARD TO IMAGINE WHATSOEVER.

    Doc said:

    "The bottom line is that BDI works only up to a point -- and beyond that point becomes impossibly bizarre, gruesome, disgusting and literally unbelievable."

    AGAIN, DISAGREE COMPLETELY. THE ALTERNATIVE IS JDI WHICH I JUST CAN'T BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND FOR A SECOND. I MEAN, IF IT WAS PREMEDITATED WHY THE HECK WOULD JOHN USE A GARROTE? THERE IS HEAPS OF WAYS HE COULD HAVE KILLED OFF JB AND IF IT WAS REALLY PREMEDITATED HE WOULD HAVE COME UP WITH A MUCH BETTER PLAN. PLUS A BETTER DATE...THAT WAS POSSIBLY THE WORSE DATE IMAGINABLE FOR JOHN WITH GETTING HOME LATE AND AN EARLY FLIGHT. SUGGESTING THE GARROTE WAS USED FOR HIS SEXUAL GRATIFICATION IN "ONE LAST SEXUAL HOORAH" IS JUST UTTER DELUSIONAL (AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT).

    AND IF IT WASN'T PREMEDITATED, DID HE JUST DECIDE ON THE FLY TO SNEAK DOWNSTAIRS, MAKE A GARROTE, WAKE UP HIS DAUGHTER, KILL HER IN "ONE LAST SEXUAL HOORAH" BEFORE WRITING A RN ON THE WORSE POSSIBLE NIGHT?? I MEAN, COME ON.

    THIS WAS A MAN WITH:

    - NO PREVIOUS SEXUAL ABUSE ON ANYONE
    - NO FUTURE SEXUAL ABUSE SINCE THEN
    - NEVER EVEN SMACKED HIS KIDS LET ALONE THUMP THEM OVER THE HEAD
    - OTHER DAUGHTER HAS NOTHING FOR PRAISE FOR HER DAD
    - A DAUGHTER (JB) WHO WENT TO HER DOCTOR REGULARLY AND JOHN DIDN'T CARE (SEEMS AWFULLY RISKY DON'T YOU THINK)
    - JB LOVED HER DAD READING TO HER
    - HE WAS PROBABLY NOT FATHER OF THE YEAR BECAUSE HIS MIND WAS FOCUSED MORE ON HIS WORK THAN HIS KIDS

    SORRY FOR LONG POST, BUT JUST WANTED TO REPLY TO THIS ONE. AND EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION AND I RESPECT DOC'S OPINION AND ANYONE ELSE WHO THINK JDI. BUT TO ME, THIS IS THE MOST UNLIKELY ASSUMPTION OF THEM ALL AND UNFORTUNATELY BURKE WILL NEVER ADMIT THE TRUTH AND WE WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH OUR OPINIONS FOREVER.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Someone earlier on this post mentions LHP wrote a book, to my knowledge it was a page and no proof the page I read was even written by her. I do however remember her saying something about her going round cleaning up Burke's wood shavings from the Swiss knife he had. Was he using the paintbrushes to carve and shard?

    ReplyDelete
  73. This is a Newsweek article from 1999 that is about the PMPT book and LHP is mentioned. It does give a great description of how the house is layed out and the difficulty getting to the basement and the weird placement of the light switch. Keep in mind at the time this was written all the living Ramseys maintained everyone was asleep.
    http://www.newsweek.com/death-paradise-168946

    ReplyDelete
  74. All of my comments keep getting deleted :(

    ReplyDelete