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.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Did Lin Wood Have a Change of Heart?

Here we see an interview with Lin Wood, dated Sept. 22, 2016. In it, he assures the interviewer that he will file a lawsuit against CBS after a mandated waiting period, giving the network the opportunity to retract. If there is no retraction, the lawsuit will be filed "sometime within the next 30 days." He then adds: "It's not a threat. It's going to be filed."


Well 30 days from Sept. 22 have come and gone, and it is now Nov. 16. No word of a retraction from CBS and no word of a lawsuit from Lin Wood. A lawsuit apparently has been filed against Dr. Werner Spitz, but that's in reference to a radio interview with CBS Detroit, not the more widely followed television documentary in which he took part.

So what is going on? We've been assured of a lawsuit against CBS. I've already bought the popcorn and a new, extra-comfy seat cushion. Is Wood finking out on us? Does he need more time? Google is NO help. Anyone out there with any ideas?

235 comments:

  1. It's my understanding he sent the demand letter to CBS in California. The statute of limitations there is one year for defamation suits, so Wood may leave us hanging for a while.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What did the the LE officers/perpetrators have to gain by leaving a live victim in the very house they were demanding the ransom from, WF?"

    I think JonBenet was at least unconscious and in the process of dying. And maybe it was their intention all along to kill her to prevent her from identifying them. Or perhaps JonBenet accidentally saw one of their faces or heard one of their names thus the decision to kill her was made at that particular time. We simply do not know. It's possible the kidnapper thought she was dead after the head blow. The kidnapper hiding JonBenet's lifeless-looking body in a remote area of a huge house instead of taking her with him is a much safer option. That would explain why a ransom note had to be written instead of making a simple phone call. Without the note, the parents would have done a much more thorough search of the home.

    When the killer returned after the 911 call to move her body into a position to be found, JonBenet might have showed signs of life which would then explain the application of the garrote. Inflicting another head blow would have been risky since the Ramseys were standing just above them (in contrast to being asleep on the top floor) and might have heard the sound this time.

    "And why did the kidnappers risk detection a SECOND time by breaking into the house after the 911 call to strangle JB?"

    They did not have to break into the house a second time. The 911 dispatcher sent Officer French to the scene. According to Kolar, it only took him 3 minutes to get there. When Reichenbach heard the dispatch, he abruptly left the police station and rushed over to the Ramsey home without being instructed to do so. - WF

    ReplyDelete
  3. The amount of people on here who believe IDI is part of the problem with out country. People so badly NEED things to be more than they are. JFK conspiracy, we didn't land on the moon, OJ didn't do it, Casey Anthony is innocent, Donald Trump says something and the media gets blames, etc. I don't want to get off topic, but it is baffling on so many levels that anybody can possibly think an intruder committed this crime. I have seen the police killed JBR, neighbors killed JBR, friends killed JBR, a ninja killed JBR and on and on and on and on and on. This gets me to my point. Whether it was by accident or on purpose, the Ramsey's are kind of brilliant. Because the RN contained so many motives that could have come from hundreds of individuals it has left us guessing to this day.
    So, IDI's please post away, but I think at some point we need to realize the pure lunacy of an intruder committing this crime.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're so right J. I bet all the members of the Casey Anthony jury believe IDI. These people can't seem to put together pieces of circumstantial evidence, including the past and current behavior of the suspect(s), and come to a conclusion that meets even a modicum of common sense. I even saw one comment after the Casey Anthony trial that the police should still be looking for the kidnapper-after she had already admitted Cayley drowned in their backyard pool! Don't know if they have a low IQ or their brains are just wired differently.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I think JonBenet was at least unconscious and in the process of dying. And maybe it was their intention all along to kill her to prevent her from identifying them. Or perhaps JonBenet accidentally saw one of their faces or heard one of their names thus the decision to kill her was made at that particular time"

    If that were the case, her kidnappers would have killed her there and then, rather than risk coming back, wouldn't they?

    "They did not have to break into the house a second time. The 911 dispatcher sent Officer French to the scene. According to Kolar, it only took him 3 minutes to get there. When Reichenbach heard the dispatch, he abruptly left the police station and rushed over to the Ramsey home without being instructed to do so."

    But, WF, they were counting on the Ramseys NOT calling the authorities, so how were they planning to break in a second time in order to collect JB, with the Ramseys moving about the house? No ransom would have been delivered without proof of life!

    Why did they choose a release date of a movie as the ransom amount, considering it is such a paltry amount to split three ways? You don't find that utterly absurd? Or remotely coincidental that the amount happened to correspond with John's xmas bonus?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've thought all along the ransom amount was a deliberate attempt by the Ramsey's to point to someone close to the family

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's my thought on that. Patsy was given a house- hold allowance.

      Other than that, she had no idea how much cash could be readily obtained or what was a reasonable or unreasonable amount.

      Money, and figures, were something that just was over her head and something she never concerned herself about.

      The $118,000 sounded reasonable to her. And back then, that amount was not small. It was worth more than it is now. Probably quite a bit more than her monthly allowance.

      GS

      Delete
  7. BGH,

    It’s not that I want to talk about Casey Anthony, but there is absolutely zero doubt that she killed her daughter. It’s not debatable and some of the theories coming out with the JBR case regarding IDI is just laughable. I honestly don’t believe JB will ever get justice for what was done to her. Barring a confession or some new evidence, this case will never see a courtroom. For me, I stay on the blog because it’s interesting to see others opinions on this case and have friendly (most of the time) banter on the subject. I fully believe BDI and don’t have any doubts about it. I don’t know that I will ever have a great explanation for the heinous cover up that ensued after the head blow, but the cover up DID happen, so it is what it is. IF it was possible for Burke to have tied the garrote I could see him playing a game with JBR to teach her a lesson for touching his pineapple or toys, she then screams and the head blow with the flashlight happened. After a bit of time passes, he gets John as he wouldn’t have gone to Patsy who cherished JB so much. I don’t need to get into any more speculation, but the case has 4 possibilities and I feel extremely confident that IDI isn’t remotely possible and PDI isn’t likely. That left me with JDI and BDI and I believe BDI just makes more sense.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That left me with JDI and BDI and I believe BDI just makes more sense."

      But why, J? Why does it make more sense? Because John had no history of child abuse? In recent years many women have come forward with stories of sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers. And over and over it's the same story: no one ever suspected because the father had been regarded as above reproach, an upstanding citizen with no history of wrongdoing of any kind.

      To me it makes no sense that:

      A 9 year old obsessed with video games, with no history of serious behavior problems and no known interest in little girls would be sexually abusing his 6 year old sister.

      A Cub Scout with some knowledge of knots would know how to construct a killing device such as a garrote, which involves much more than knowing how to tie a knot.

      A squabble between siblings of the sort that happens on a regular basis throughout the world on any given day would result in one slamming the other over the head so violently as to crack her skull from end to end.

      Parents with no history of insanity would both agree to cover up an incident that could have been reported as a squabble between children that got out of hand by staging BOTH a pedophile assault AND a failed kidnapping, and stick by their story for years, knowing full well that their son was too young to be prosecuted for his act, and at the same time being aware that a Grand Jury might well bring an indictment that could land both in jail for life.



      Delete
    2. Motive Motive Motive. I don't believe there ever was one to be honest. I have written this before, but if this was premeditated by John, he sure chose a super risky time to kill her when they had a scheduled trip the next morning. Not to mention, if she was being molested, I think in this case it's as likely that it was Burke as it was John. Too many odd things surrounding Burke...spreading his feces, anti-social personality, odd answers to police and therapist. I think the danger is looking at this case through the lens of statistics and other cases. This case is unlike any case we have ever seen. You and I aren't going to waiver on our theories and that is 100% ok with me.
      I will concede that 2 parents covering for their child in the way that it happened is heinous and hard to believe. But in order to have to cover something up, there had to be an initial act to start the ball rolling. The ball started rolling with the head blow. Brothers and sisters resent each other all the time, that isn't abnormal. In this case, Patsy was a former beauty queen and was now living vicariously through her daughter. Burke was already socially awkward and now had to go to pageants with his sister without much of a male outlet due to John's traveling. So, on that fateful night, something triggered Burke to momentarily lash out and that momentary lapse caused the death of his sister. Honestly Doc, I just don't find that part hard to believe. Some kids lash out with their hands or an object...Burke lashed out with a Maglite. After that I just don't know if Burke tied the garrote himself or not. I will also concede that there is no way he wrote the note, so I believe both parents helped concoct it.

      -J

      Delete
    3. What is hard to believe is that with the facts involved in this case that 1 parent could get away with anything without the other one knowing. For instance calling your pilot and trying to get out of dodge. PR knows about that and that would be an immediate giveaway as to JR's guilt. There is no way around that. It is fact. Period. If JR did it alone then that by itself would have given him away. Common sense.

      Delete
    4. If it didn't convince Lou Smit - a veteran detective - what makes you think it would convince Patsy?

      Delete
    5. Lou Smit was possibly in a beginning state of dementia when he got involved in this case. If you are going to try and validate any fact in this case, I am sorry but Lou Smit will not cut it. There are obvious behavioral signs on top of this that a spouse could not possibly get away with. Can a serial killer put on a good act and be a great liar through police interviews and a trial ? Sure, someone can and has pulled that off. It is not impossible. What would be would be impossible, would be to live with a serial killer and not know about it, especially after the fact. There are little things that we do not know about which involve body language, behavior and sequence of events that only a spouse or someone that you have lived with a long time would pick up on and that includes that night. That part is impossible. You show me any case in history where 1 spouse had killed a child in the house with the other spouse home and then was able to keep it hidden away for 10 plus years with the other spouse having not a clue. Had JR been molesting his daughter then apparently someone in the house knew about it since the dictionary was open to the word incest. We can safely say that BR did not know that JR was molesting JBR but that PR did not know. So immediately this puts an end to Doc's theory. If PR knew before JBR was killed that JR was molesting JBR then she would know who had killed her daughter immediately. Period.

      Delete
    6. "You show me any case in history where 1 spouse had killed a child in the house with the other spouse home and then was able to keep it hidden away for 10 plus years with the other spouse having not a clue."

      You show me one other case where an otherwise loving mother clobbers her daughter over the head, ties a garrote around her throat and twists it so tightly that the cord embeds itself in her neck, then has the composure to write a three page ransom note (which, coincidentally, contains instructions which all happen to benefit John had they have been followed), do some last minute staging, then sabotages it all by calling the police on HERSELF.....

      Delete
    7. Yes, and also show me any case where a philandering husband is able to hide an ongoing affair from his wife for any extended period. Oh wait -- actually that's what John was able to do with his first wife, no?

      If cheating husbands can hide ongoing love affairs from their wives for months or even years at a time, then I'd say it was certainly possible for John to hide this one-time event from his wife indefinitely. And as we know from the many reports of women who were abused by their fathers, NO ONE in the family ever suspected what was going on right under their noses.

      Delete
    8. Having an affair and killing your daughter should not even be mentioned in the same breathe. It is ridiculous and we do not even know the circumstances to begin with. Ms D, I never said PR did it herself, I simply said the facts show the she was, at some point involved and aware and helped cover up whatever did happen. At what point she became involved I do not know for sure. Plenty of women kill their children in many unbelievable ways, using a different weapon or way of killing than has been heard of before means nothing and is proof of zero. If it was a female it would sure make sense to make it look like a sexual assault, hence to make it look like a male right ?

      Delete
    9. "I simply said the facts show the she was, at some point involved and aware and helped cover up whatever did happen."

      And I say, those are not "facts", but "speculation" on your part. Please don't state opinion as fact. If it was such an obvious "fact", this blog would not even exist now, would it?

      Delete
    10. It is a fact as far as I am concerned, just as it is a fact that JR was involved at some level and is stated by you and everyone else on this blog as fact.

      Delete
    11. For the purpose of presenting my theory of this case I've come up with a very narrow definition of "fact." As far as this case is concerned, I define a "fact" as something known beyond doubt AND agreed to by all parties.

      I've found it necessary to come up with this very narrow definition precisely because so many, such as yourself, Keiser, tend to confuse assumptions with facts -- once we go down that path we are sure to get lost.

      It is NOT a fact that Patsy was involved and aware and helped in the coverup -- it's an assumption, i.e., little more than an opinion.

      And no, it is NOT a fact that John was involved at any level. The facts of the case are laid out in my first two posts and that is certainly not one of them. Neither is it an assumption, however, nor a speculation. It is something quite different: a logical inference. That does not mean it's necessarily a fact, because one can always challenge someone's logical process. But one can't challenge an inference on the basis of assumptions, one must challenge it on the basis of logic.

      Continually insisting that Patsy was involved and that this is a fact might win you some points among like-minded people, but her involvement is NOT a fact and any argument based on such a premise is no better than any other argument also based on assumption and opinion. There are all sorts of opinions and assumptions regarding this case and yours are no better than anyone else's.

      Delete
    12. "It is a fact as far as I am concerned, just as it is a fact that JR was involved at some level and is stated by you and everyone else on this blog as fact."

      Nope. I've never said it is a "fact" that JR murdered JB.
      I have said that, based on the *actual* facts of the case, all signs point towards John being the killer. I firmly believe this to be true and I will argue my position, which as Doc stated, is based on logical inference regarding what we know about the case.
      If it is only a fact "as far as (you're) concerned", then it is most certainly only an opinion, as a fact can be proven, and remains to be true whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with it or not. If it were an indisputable fact that Patsy had some part in writing the note and in covering for John, this discussion would not even be taking place.
      It is your "firm opinion".

      Delete
    13. No it would be a "firm" logical inference. Which I could base on many things but I will say only on her lies and "amnesia". PR was caught lying red handed by LE many times. Using Doc's theory it should be very easy to draw logical inferences off of these facts correct ? Instead of using logical inferences Doc makes excuses in this case. You sure claim logic about JR, when it is not even a fact that he lied about the window. So you are drawing logical inferences off of what is not even a fact. That is called speculation. Ms D, I never stated that you said JR committed this murder as fact , I stated that you said JR was involved at some level. As far as the facts that you claim I would love to hear what those are. Coming back with PR called 911 (and almost asked for an ambulance) as some kind of proof or even something you can draw any kind of logical inference from is laughable. The changing story about the window is not proof of anything, maybe over time JR forgot details about a meaningless event ? Doc claims PR forgets key pieces of evidence just weeks later and pushes nonexistant intruder evidence all out of "forgetfulness". So surely if logic says that people forget things like this in such short periods of time then surely JR should get the same logic applied and get a pass on a slightly changing story after years and years correct ?

      Delete
    14. Doc I am not even going to waste my time referencing cheating spouses but it happens, literally, probably millions of times per day. I would also like to point out that these cheating spouses do their deeds AWAY FROM THEIR SPOUSE AND HOME. This is one of the sillier logical inferences? that you keep posting. One could also say look JR obviously likes ADULT women and it would probably be a more valid point then whatever likeness you are trying to claim between an affair and sexaully assaulting and murdering your child.

      Delete
    15. Ms D, feel free to point out to me all these "signs" that point to JR being the killer ? Was it PR's fibers all over that crime scene or was it her wearing the same clothes the next day that point to JR ? Maybe it is her changing stories, lies and forgetfulness with LE that point to JDI ? Is it the writing in her own home that she humorously claims she can not recognize that point to JDI ? Possibly her fingerprints on that pineapple bowl must mean it was JR, or is that just more "meaningless" evidence with which JDI continue to make ridiculous excuses for because it does not point to JDI ? Possibly BR admitting being up late and downstairs point to JDI ? Someone looking up incest in the dictionary must be proof it was JR ?! Common sense and anything resembling use of "logic" are not used too much here anymore. Curiously, you sound a little too much like Doc. I think you and he are the same person.

      Delete
    16. That Patsy was going to ask for an ambulance is PURE speculation, Keiser, and that's the kind of assumption-presented-as-fact that Doc's talking about. You draw conclusions based on confirmation bias: you believe Patsy is guilty, thus you insert details - real or imaginary - in order to fit your narrative, thus making it appear the only "logical" conclusion could be "Patsy Did It". It's a dishonest way of arguing.
      Let's assume she was going to ask for an ambulance.....if she knew her daughter had been dead for some time, why would she be requiring an ambulance? Secondly, as I posted here once before, when my mother became ill one night, I dialed 000 (our emergency number here in Aus) and was in such a state of panic, I said I needed the police! I didn't even know I'd said it until my daughter corrected me. What conclusion do you draw from my faux pas? An innocent mistake due to panic, or a sinister slip of the tongue?

      Delete
    17. "One could also say look JR obviously likes ADULT women and it would probably be a more valid point then whatever likeness you are trying to claim between an affair and sexaully assaulting and murdering your child."

      You know very well that Doc was merely implying that, due to his being able to keep his affair secret, John has proven himself to be a master of deception.....no one ever suggested that because JR had an affair, it was a "logical inference" that he killed his daughter. This is just getting silly now.

      Delete
    18. You comparing your slip of the tongue to PRs is nonsense. You had a somewht of a reason to have a slip of the tongue. PR had NO reason to ask for an ambulance. The main point is that she did not know her daughter was dead for a long time and JBR very might well not have been dead for long. You can feel free to call it speculation if you would like but the fact of the matter is that PR asked for AN then paused. 1 does not need a giant leap of genius to know what she was going to say and why she paused. You pulled out the weakest point I made of PR's involvement. Try again. It is much more fact than making the leap that because PR called 911 then JDI when every other fact and clue point to both parents involvement at some point and that JR had "fingered" his daughter and thus had to kill her because of it.

      Delete
    19. "PR had NO reason to ask for an ambulance."

      Bingo. Thus - assuming she was even going to ask for one - it neither implies guilt nor innocence, does it?

      "It is much more fact than making the leap that because PR called 911 then JDI when every other fact and clue point to both parents involvement at some point and that JR had "fingered" his daughter and thus had to kill her because of it."

      How is it "much more fact"? Prove it to me.

      Delete
    20. "Is it the writing in her own home that she humorously claims she can not recognize that point to JDI ?"

      There is absolutely nothing to suggest the captions you're referring to WERE written by PR. They may have been written by Burke or John.

      "Possibly her fingerprints on that pineapple bowl must mean it was JR, or is that just more "meaningless" evidence with which JDI continue to make ridiculous excuses for because it does not point to JDI ?"

      Patsy's finger prints on the bowl means, at some point, she handled it. Period. The lack of John's prints suggest he probably never touched it - he didn't have to, as his guilt doesn't hinge on that bowl of pineapple. No one's does.

      "Possibly BR admitting being up late and downstairs point to JDI ? Someone looking up incest in the dictionary must be proof it was JR ?!"

      Who said that? I've never read here on this blog that the dictionary being opened to the word "incest" proves John killed his daughter. That Burke now admits to being up with JOHN who was using the FLASHLIGHT John said he didn't even recognize, is a huge piece of new information that can't be ignored. It makes John a liar (one of many) and it puts the alleged murder weapon right in his hand!

      "Common sense and anything resembling use of "logic" are not used too much here anymore. Curiously, you sound a little too much like Doc. I think you and he are the same person."

      That you don't agree with our logic does not mean our arguments are illogical.
      You think I sound like Doc? Thanks for the compliment :)

      Delete
    21. You are 100% correct, it does not sound like guilt or innocence !!!! It sounds like knowledge. Thus my point and thank you for reinforcing it.

      Delete
    22. Ms D, again I never said PR wrote the captions in the note. Are you reading a different blog and then commenting here ? I SAID, PR humorously denies being able to recognize her own family's handwriting in a scrapbook that is in her house. I can guarantee she knows about and most likely had a hand of some sort in the creation of that scrapbook, whether on that page or other pages. Is that conformation bias too ?! Unless of course we were to "speculate" that JR was the scrapbooker of the house and PR knew nothing of these secret scrapbooks nor does she know her own children's or family's handwriting 😂😂😂 Which is laughable but to give an answer like Doc usually does would be to come up with something along these lines- we do not know for sure that JR was not the scrapbooker of the house so thus we do not know PR lied about not knowing whose handwriting it was. Humor me Ms D. The ridiculousness will never end, the latest was Doc claiming that BR was a computer nerd who didnt like girls. I liked girls when I was 6 but it was never posted on a billboard to let the world know. BR played many sports but the manipulation of trying to point to JDI as the only possibility has grown to ridiculous reaching, to the point of only having an agenda. The "logical inference" Doc makes about BR not having known psychological problems is another laughable comment of proof of an agenda. A 9 year old smearing their own feces all over their walls is surely not an indicator of a possible psychological disorder. Nor is the fact that BR was in counseling for years prior to and after JBR's murder. That is the logical inference drawn off of these facts ???? Obviously their is no logic being used in the "logical inferencing".

      Delete
    23. "You are 100% correct, it does not sound like guilt or innocence !!!! It sounds like knowledge. Thus my point and thank you for reinforcing it."

      Really, I'm not going to argue semantics with you, Keiser. If Patsy had some degree of knowledge, then she's guilty in some capacity.....sheesh.

      "I SAID, PR humorously denies being able to recognize her own family's handwriting in a scrapbook that is in her house. I can guarantee she knows about and most likely had a hand of some sort in the creation of that scrapbook, whether on that page or other pages.....Unless of course we were to "speculate" that JR was the scrapbooker of the house and PR knew nothing of these secret scrapbooks nor does she know her own children's or family's handwriting."

      No, you can't "guarantee" it - not by a long shot!
      My daughter and her friends have compiled plenty of scrapbooks over the years and any one of them could have written the captions. While I'd like to think I could recognize my own daughter's hand writing - I have mistaken one of her friends writing for hers a couple of times in the past, I'm sorry to say. My daughter's handwriting is not terribly unique and looks rather generic to me.

      "The "logical inference" Doc makes about BR not having known psychological problems is another laughable comment of proof of an agenda. A 9 year old smearing their own feces all over their walls is surely not an indicator of a possible psychological disorder. Nor is the fact that BR was in counseling for years prior to and after JBR's murder. That is the logical inference drawn off of these facts ???? Obviously their is no logic being used in the "logical inferencing"."

      Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying.....the term "logical inference" doesn't apply to what you're trying to argue. Perhaps you should Google the term, because you're using it where it doesn't apply. It is not a "logical inference" that Burke is the killer because he was in therapy and had a fascination for fecies, nor is it one that Patsy must naturally be complicit in the murder because she claimed not to know who wrote the captions in the scrap book. I can't say anything else, as I really don't know what you're talking about..... a guess based on what you think you know does not equal a "logical inference".




      Delete
    24. I did not logical inference anything in that comment. I am referring to many statements by Doc (see above) saying that BR had no known psychological problems and was a nerdy child who was not interested in girls. MY POINT is that how would his ( or your) logical inference be that BR had no psychological issues ? Apparently having a 10 year old smearing feces on your walls at your house is completely normal ? My main point here is there is 0 logic in saying there are no known behavioral issues with this. It is the exact same backwards logic that you follow regularly and will swear upon.

      Delete
    25. If PR had any knowledge whatsoever that JDI then there is no such thing as JDI is my point. Unless you want to resort to PR covered up for her pedophile child killing evil husband.

      Delete
    26. Here's what I wrote, Keiser: "A 9 year old obsessed with video games, with no history of serious behavior problems and no known interest in little girls would be sexually abusing his 6 year old sister."

      From what I've heard, the feces on the bathroom wall dates from a time when he was five or six, and his mother was undergoing chemo therapy. If this was indeed a "psychological issue," it was certainly an understandable response by a very young child to the trauma induced by the prospect of losing his mother. As for the feces found in JBR's bedroom, I don't believe it was ever actually sourced to Burke -- that was merely an assumption. If you have more reliable info on that I'd love to see it.

      So I'm sorry, but I'll stand by what I wrote: Burke had "no history of serious behavior problems." And also "no known interest in little girls."

      And in this case logic doesn't enter in to it. I'm referring to evidence, which you prefer to ignore in favor of assumptions.

      Delete
    27. And no, I've never argued that Patsy had any knowledge of John's involvement. If she had I don't doubt for a moment that she'd have left immediately with Burke and then reported him. And if her child was a pedophile I think she'd have dealt with that just as any other responsible mother would have dealt with it. By giving him a good scolding, taking him in hand, and finding appropriate therapy. NOT risking a lifetime in prison by writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note to stage a "failed kidnapping" and then handing it to the police so it could be used as evidence against her.

      Delete
    28. Ms D, again you misread. I did not say PR MADE the scrapbook, altho she most likely did. I SAID if she did not make it she surely knows who did. Since there is only 4 people in the house and it is highly unlikely that JR scrapbooked "secretly" it is most likely that she did but for the point of not using logic we will say PR did not make it. Her being a stay at home mom, she knows her young children's and her husband's handwriting, especially since I am only claiming that she had, at the least seen it before and know whose it was, just as she she knows what clothes her children wears and buys most of theor clothes. Comimg up with scenarios to make excuses like maybe the neighbor bought Burkes shoes and PR never noticed them is NOT using logic. It is called backwards logic and it is what is used here whenever anything points away from JDI, perfext instance, PR must be innocenr because she wore the same clothes= backwards logic.

      Delete
    29. I think the problem here, Keiser, is that the term "logical inference" doesn't mean what you think it means.
      As a result, your later comments on this blog are not making a lot of sense, so it is difficult to respond.

      Delete
    30. Logical inference means exactly what I said it means and I am not sure which post or what exactly is not making "sense" to you. I think that possibly the cat suddenly has your tongue because I am still eagerly awaiting your response with which word PR was going to use in her 911 call instead of police. Lets compare our thinking philosophies for a moment, BR's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple = BR ate pineapple= logical inference. Scrapbook found in basement with with children's pictures in it= the mother in the house had a hand in its creation = another logical inference. Doc's logic that you follow so vocally = BR's fingerprints on bowl = JR must have served the pineapple but his fingerprints just didnt transfer onto the bowl. PR caught lying and saying that a stuffed animal was left in her house by the intruder who killed her daughter. My logic = she lied. Doc's logic= PR was not lying, she just could not remember anything about the bear from 10 days prior. Do you see the difference in logical or "illogical" referencing here ? Wait, let me guess, MY logic is based on "conformation bias" not the other way around ?

      Delete
    31. Doc, the feces smearing was reported to have happened more than 1 time. We have onky heard details about 1 incident. The hit to the face with the golf club when BR lost his temper with JBR was only 1 of 2 incidents in which BR hit JBR but again we have only gotten details about the one, probably more serious time. We have reports that BR was in counseling for years before and for years after JBR's death. We also have many other clues of a serious psychological issue reported by Kolar, not that we need any more. His medical records were denied release to LE, which is another good clue. If you could explain to me what type of "logical inferencing" you are using to come up with BR not having any psychological issues ? Did you suddenly change your methodology from taking long leaps to not taking short, obvious leaps ?

      Delete
    32. "I am still eagerly awaiting your response with which word PR was going to use in her 911 call instead of police."

      Well, you see, as I'm not a mind reader...I have no idea. I'm not convinced so she said "an", nor am I convinced that even if she said the word "ambulance" does it point towards Patsy having knowledge about the crime, so I'm not wasting time on what she "was going to say" - it's pure speculation and leads us nowhere anyway.

      "Lets compare our thinking philosophies for a moment, BR's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple = BR ate pineapple= logical inference."

      Absolutely. That *is* a logical inference. But as we don't know when Burke prepared the pineapple, what does it matter? He may have prepared it hours before JB took a piece from the bowl.

      "Scrapbook found in basement with with children's pictures in it= the mother in the house had a hand in its creation = another logical inference."

      No. That isn't. That is an assumption. I answered this one in another post.

      "PR caught lying and saying that a stuffed animal was left in her house by the intruder who killed her daughter. My logic = she lied."

      Again, this has nothing to do with "logic", it has to do with your opinion. One based on the fact you already believe Patsy to be a liar.

      "Doc's logic= PR was not lying, she just could not remember anything about the bear from 10 days prior. Do you see the difference in logical or "illogical" referencing here ?"

      There is no logical inference to be made here, lol. It's an assumption on both of your parts.

      "Wait, let me guess, MY logic is based on "conformation bias" not the other way around ?"

      If you've read all of Docs posts dating back to 2012 - particularly "Just the Facts Ma'am" - you would know that NONE of his theory stems from confirmation bias. That is why he is so careful to just state the facts, the rest of it is up to the reader.....you don't agree with his theory, and that's fine, you're entitled to your own opinion, you're just not entitled to your own "facts", and that's all we're arguing.

      Delete
    33. "PR must be innocenr because she wore the same clothes= backwards logic."

      What the hell? Who said that proves innocence? It is only when BDIs, RDIs and PDIs bring up the fact she was wearing the same clothes as a means to implicate her involvement that we use this only as a counter argument, but no JDI seriously believes it implies guilt OR innocence. Most JDIs state it doesn't really mean anything at all - Patsy put on the clothes from the night before because they were taking an early flight and she was tired. End of story. It is that she made the 911 call that indicates she had no knowledge of the crime - nothing more. That is the ONLY logical inference one can draw from her making that call, because there is no way the author/co-author of that note would have called the police on themselves, rendering the note absolutely redundant. If you don't accept that - fine, but that *you* don't agree with it doesn't make it illogical.
      Seriously - stop with the straw man arguments, we're wading through enough muddy water as it is!

      Delete
    34. Thanks again Ms. D. But let me add one additional point. A contrafactual statement is a lie only when there is a deliberate intention to deceive. Steve Thomas claimed that Patsy stopped using manuscript "a" after JBR's murder, but as I've demonstrated, that is clearly not the case. Is it therefore a lie? No, because there is no evidence of a deliberate intention to deceive. Looks a lot more like he saw what he wanted to see due to confirmation bias.

      When Patsy insisted that she'd never seen the Santa Bear before, she was wrong. It was a contrafactual statement. Again, due to confirmation bias, as she was eager to find any evidence of an intruder that she could find. I can't see it as a lie because I can't imagine that she'd make up a story like that deliberately, in a conscious effort to deceive. If she had known the truth when she made that statement, she would also have known that the truth would come out sooner or later -- so what would have been the point of her lie, except as an embarrassment. I think it clear she had a memory lapse, reinforced by her eagerness to find anything that might indicate the presence of an intruder.

      Delete
    35. To continue from the above --

      Similarly, when she claimed she couldn't recognize the handwriting in the photo captions, we have to ask what she expected to gain from lying. Surely the investigators were in a position to determine who actually wrote those captions, it's not exactly rocket science.

      So why would she want to lie, knowing full well that the investigators could easily determine the truth? As far as I know, the identity of that person (or persons) has never been revealed, probably because LE already had many historic exemplars from more reliable and useful sources, and had no need to use those very brief little tidbits. The one who needed to know was Darnay Hoffman, and he is the one who asked. And I've never seen any evidence that he went to any real trouble to confirm his suspicions that Patsy wrote any of those captions. As far as I can tell, that's always been nothing more than an assumption.

      Delete
  8. Yeah, I just mentioned the Casey Anthony disaster to illustrate what kind of people are coming up with the IDI theory. Unless they have a video of the suspect committing the crime, they can't believe it. But, If they have a miniscule amount of unknown touch DNA, along with 5 others on the same garment, that's proof to them IDI. I agree BDI makes more sense, others believe JDI or PDI, any one of those is possible. Also agree this case will never see a court room. It's just too botched at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even with a video evidence, they would be able to dismiss that too. They have audio recording of the 911 call and voices in the background, so it is indeed frustrating.

      Delete
    2. k1234, you're probably right about the video! Regarding the 911 call, I saw that on the CBS show, but have to admit I couldn't make out what they were saying, even though I wanted to. Not sure that would be great evidence unless it's much clearer in real life.

      Delete
    3. NOT risking a lifetime in prison by writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note to stage a "failed kidnapping" and then handing it to the police so it could be used as evidence against her. I dont think PR wrote the note, I think JR did. However, whoever wrote the note, I am sure, was very confident that their handwriting was disguised well enough that it would never be identified. To this day their handwriting has not been identified so you saying that the person who wrote it would not hand it over to LE is an invalid point.

      Delete
  9. "But, WF, they were counting on the Ramseys NOT calling the authorities, so how were they planning to break in a second time in order to collect JB, with the Ramseys moving about the house? No ransom would have been delivered without proof of life!"

    You need to examine the instructions of the ransom note again. In particular:

    "If we monitor you getting the money early we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence and earlier pickup of your daughter."

    This was not a direct exchange. The money was to be delivered and JonBenet to be picked up elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the Ramseys would not have had a problem with delivering the ransom money despite there being no proof that JonBenet was still alive. What choice did they have? - WF

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

      Delete
    2. So these three LE officers who didn't personally know The Ramseys, or the lay out of their "labyrinth" style house, decided to risk their careers, along with their freedom in order to brutally murder an innocent six year old child for less than $40K a piece? And despite John's considerable wealth, they chose this amount for no particular reason other than the release date of a movie entitled "Ransom"?
      They managed to find JB's room - and carry her down a couple of flights of stairs - in pitch blackness, then hung around in the house long enough to write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, rather than bringing their own note....departed the same way they came in (leaving no trace of forced entry) after bundling a mortally wounded JB in a corner of a remote room in the basement, then after Patsy "broke the rules" by calling 911, they rushed to the scene, went down to the basement, fashioned a garrote using Patsy's paintbrush, choked their tiny victim to death, digitally penetrated her vagina, then went back upstairs and pretended to resume their investigation of the crime?

      This sounds remotely logical to you?

      Delete
    3. Oh, and when did the kidnappers feed JB the pineapple?

      They would have had to incapacitate her before removing her from her bed, or else she would have screamed. Therefore, there was no chance to feed her pineapple before the head blow, and the autopsy shows she never regained consciousness after the blow to her head.....so, unless her kidnappers masticated the pineapple themselves and forced it into JB's gullet shortly before her strangulation - which you claim occurred between six and seven a.m, meaning she was fed the pineapple somewhere between three and five a.m - the coroner's report proves your whacky theory is wrong.

      Delete
    4. No, you are wrong again. I am not PDI, I follow facts not comformation bias. I never said Patsy did anything other than have knowledge. Anything past her knowledge would be speculation. I have only stated facts, other than my "speculation" about her slip of the tongue while on the phone with the 911 operator. It is very clear by her pause during the call that she was having some type of slip of the tongue. Since I claim that is a very logical inference and you humorously claim "conformation bias," I challenge you to then fill in the blank with a word that will be logical during that call other than ambulance. You are now PR and you ask the 911 operator for AN ....pause...Now go ahead and tell me what other word she was possibly going to use. I eagerly await your answer..

      Delete
    5. The bit about the "ambulance" is new to me. What I've heard in the past is that she was saying "we need 'em", not "we need a . . ." As for me, all I get are some garbled sounds that could mean all sorts of things. It's clear from your posts, Keiser, that you can't tell the difference between confirmation bias and logical inference.

      Delete
    6. I am sorry Doc but I do believe that you are hard of hearing. You could not hear BR saying he heard JR tell PR to call 911 during the ID channel show until months later, you claim you cant hear anything resembling voices on the 911 call and now you cant understand what PR was saying. She says we need AN (A and N) and then pauses and says police. Put some headphones on. Secondly it is not new to you because you posted about the ambulance back in 2012 in this here blog. As far as me being comformation bias I am not in the least. I do not care who did it nor am I invested in any way. I just do not come to ridiculous conclusions like you do and try and slant and manipulate evidence as you do. Such as PR and BR prints are on the bowl so that must mean JR served it to JBR or PR's teacher says she is ambidextrous so that means the teacher forgot amd was thinking of another student and then in turn claim to be "using logic".

      Delete
    7. "I just do not come to ridiculous conclusions like you do and try and slant and manipulate evidence as you do. Such as PR and BR prints are on the bowl so that must mean JR served it to JBR....."

      Wow. Just wow...your straw man arguments are really coming thick and fast now, aren't they?
      Doc...can you point us to the chapter where you made this claim?

      Delete
    8. I never made such a claim. What I've said is what anyone with LE experience will tell you: fingerprints are NOT date stamped, so their presence on any item tells us nothing about when it was touched; lack of prints means little because prints very often don't show up after an item has been handled.

      Keiser is seriously judgement-impaired as far as I can tell. He can't tell an assumption from a fact and has no idea what a logical inference is. And the more he keeps insisting the more repetitive and tiresome his arguments become.

      Delete
    9. Im humored. I pointed out above what is a fact and inference. It is FACT PR lied, you trying to excuse it away because you do not think it makes sense is conformation bias on your part. When PR has a history of telling lies exactly like this when she knows she could very well be caught,and does it anyways, (like the window), then your argument does not have any validity whatsoever. Your comment came in regards to the pineapple bowl,in which you implied that JR had served the pineapple to JBR, of which I rebutted and referenced what type of materials transfer fingerprints at very high statistical probability, with glass being the best, thus why LE uses it to take prints. At this point is when it changes to the pineapple means nothing, to serve your agenda. Sure it is possible JR served the pineapple to JBR and sure, it is possible that his fingerprints did not transfer. It is not the most logical, highest statistical probability though, which is what the most logical answer means. We do not know that JR did not have a sex change long ago and that he is lacking a penis, thus he would not have been molesting his daughter. Does that sound logical to you ? No it does not but it is not impossible. 0

      Delete
  10. Oh, and don't forget, the Holocaust never happened! That's one of my favorites.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I guess there's no point in even speculating, but do you guys think Lin Wood actually believes there was an intruder? I get that it's irrelevant and unimportant to his profession, but I still do wonder. If he doesn't believe in the intruder theory then he really is scum; exploiting a dead six-year-old for financial gain. He's still scummy to me nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lin Wood knows exactly what happened, and I bet Dr Phil does too.

      Delete
    2. I'm not well versed in law, but I'd like to think that The Ramsey's (or John if JDI is true) told his lawyers everything so they could work out the details to make their client appear "innocent."

      Delete
    3. I think that Lawyers are required to report crimes, so it's probably an unspoken language. The lawyer will say, If you tell me you committed murder I will have to report you, but still represent you. But if you deny it, I will support you and represent you as well.

      Delete
    4. Highly doubt the Ramsey's told their lawyers anything but that IDI, and the lawyers know that isn't true. Telling them the truth would put the lawyers in an awkward position, whereas everyone pretending IDI allows the lawyers to focus on that alone, which is what LW is doing-hammering on the touch DNA, the Ramsey's "exoneration" by DA Lacey, the police initially saying Burke was not a suspect, insisting the strangling was before the head blow (removes the staging theory of the strangling), and everything else the IDIs are throwing out there.

      Delete
    5. Lawyers are not required to report crimes. The client owns the attorney-client confidentiality privilege, and is the only one who may waive it.
      CC

      Delete
    6. Very much doubt Lin Wood, Hal Haddon, or anyone from their firms has ever been told anything but the intruder theory. Most attorneys prefer not to know, and tell their clients so from the jump.
      CC

      Delete
    7. ZACH...I wish I placed a bet in Vegas that you would be back within 24 hours :-)

      -J

      Delete
    8. Ha! Indeed! It's impossible to stay away - I've tried!

      Delete
  12. I see that WF is taking the ransom note at believable, face value. This is a huge problem with IDI believers. The ransom note is obviously misdirection nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But then, back on topic. We're all breathlessly awaiting the CBS lawsuit, what's going on? I too, have the popcorn ready to go. Will Werner Spitz settle out of court? If he doesn't maybe we'll get some info from that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No word as yet on the Spitz lawsuit either. Could Lin be backing down? I have a feeling John is the one pulling the strings and he might well be concerned about opening up the whole DNA-exoneration can of worms. Neither Spitz nor the CBS "supersleuths" can prove Burke had anything to do with JonBenet's death, but they probably CAN very effectively argue that the Ramseys should never have been exonerated. If Lin Wood actually goes through with either lawsuit, he'll be on very shaky grounds in that respect -- and John might be reigning him in.

      Delete
    2. It may be too soon to tell. The defendant to a lawsuit has twenty days to answer the Complaint filed therein, but Spitz's attorneys may have requested and been granted an extension of time - it's not unusual. I haven't seen an Answer as yet, and it's likely one would be ballyhooed in the press, so that's my assumption.
      CC

      Delete
    3. A Status Conference is scheduled for 01/05/2017 in the Spitz case: https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=3560138 You can read the 30 page complaint here: http://www.hopkinsway.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Complant-Burke-Ramsey-vs-Werner-Spitz.pdf

      Delete
    4. A status conference as early as January is good news. It means the preliminary pleadings, including Defendant's Answer, will be filed by then, and the judge will expect both sides to estimate the length and scope of their discovery. He may even set a tentative trial date at that time.
      CC

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. This sounds dumb, but isn't Burke the Ace up the Ramsey's sleeve? At the end of the day, IF charges were brought against John, Burke could confess to everything. There isn't direct evidence linking John. Burke couldn't ever be prosecuted. Patsy has already passed away and John would be hard to prosecute with a Burke confession. Sounds crazy, but maybe this is why the Ramsey's have had such a level of confidence over the years. If push came to shove and they were arrested, Burke could provide John's get out of jail free card.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke could say he did indeed hear an altercation that night - between his mother and sister.

      GS

      Delete
  16. Or, as I mentioned a long time ago, John could say Patsy hit JBR in anger, just like the police thought at first, then did the staging and the ransom note, and he just went along after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is just my thoughts, but I always felt that if JDI, surely Patsy would have suspected him at some point. Too many glaring holes in John's story. So, if JDI (which he didn't) but if he did, then I think on her death bed, Patsy would have had nothing to lose by ratting him out to LA. At that point Burke would have been older.

      It's all moot, because I 100% believe Patsy was involved, but in the hypothetical world where only JDI, I can't imagine Patsy a) not being suspicious and b) telling ANYBODY

      -J

      Delete
    2. Of course she would have suspected him. That would mean she covered for him for 10 years before she died. Those who think JR and PR could never have covered for BR in such a horrendous way for the head blow (assuming they did the garotte and penetration), have no problem believing PR would cover for JR for molesting and murdering her daughter on purpose. Or the alternative, that she truly believed IDI did it until she died. Really? She thought an intruder wrote the ransom note? That to me is as absurd as the IDI theories.

      Delete
    3. Totally agree!

      -J

      Delete
    4. I second that agreement amd have had that argument here since day 1. The fact that anyone thinks someone could totally hide this murder and case from another spouse for 10 years without her ever becoming suspicious enough to even tell someone she suspected her husband is more absurd than an intruder theory. On top of this and when put together with PR's slip of the tongue during her 911 call, her many many lies, her amnesia during questioning coupled with her statement analysis (distancing and alibi setting) and it becomes clear that she, at the least, covered up at some point. Which in this context, leads us to only one suspect.

      Delete
  17. JR and BR may still be under "an umbrella of suspicion" but they are also under an "umbrella of invincibility" as far as this crime is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The lawsuit will never go ahead. CBS wont back down because they know they are right. And John will want to avoid court at all costs so it will be dropped (which is them basically admitting CBS were right).

    If it does go to court I will be shocked and amazed, but bring that on if it happens.

    Its a win-win at least in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. History suggests you're wrong, Zed. The Ramseys have sued Time, Inc., The Star, The Globe, St. Martin's Press, The Fox News Channel, Court TV, American Media, Inc, and The New York Post for defamation. All settled prior to trial for big bucks. Why should CBS be any different?
      CC

      Delete
    2. CC, do you, or anyone, recall if all those lawsuits were done prior to the knowledge of the true bills by the grand jury, as well as all filed while Burke was still a minor? Or have others been filed since the true bills?

      Delete
    3. The Star, The Globe, Time,The New York Post and St. Martin's were all filed in 1999-2001, we'll before the release of the GJ information and while Burke was still a minor. I found these online, saw nothing further on the others, but seem to recall them being in roughly the same time period and before Patty's death.
      CC

      Delete
    4. Thank you CC for the info.

      Delete
  19. Since no else has taken a stab at answering your question Doc, I'll give it a try. If I'm not mistaken, Wood/Burke filed suit against CBS prior to the Boulder Police Departments October 27th release of its most recent DNA analysis. I went back and read that article. When I finished it, I wondered whether I had ever read it in the first place. It is hugely significant and gives me new hope JR just might be on the authorites radar screen more than I thought. Here is a segment of that article.

    "In 2008, Boulder DA publicly exonerated them and apologized. DNA evidence conclusive. End of story," Wood tweeted.

    And the same day, Wood tweeted, " This is a DNA case plain and simple."

    That contention is flatly refuted by the independent experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS.

    "No, it is not," Danielson said. "It's clearly not. We have a questioned profile that is very low level in terms of the amount of DNA. The quantity of DNA is very small, the profile is extremely complex. The one thing this case is not, it is not a 'DNA case pure and simple.'"

    Wood is desperate to keep this a "DNA case" because it keeps investigators focused on intruders. It's now clear to me he's losing the battle.

    Without an altenative intruder theory defense, the best defense left for Wood is each of his two clients creating reasonable doubt for the other. A lawsuit risks undermining that doubt. I predict the CBS suit will be dropped either on orders from Burk alone, Burke in conjunction with his father, or on Wood's recommendation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Touch DNA has been highly suspect and mostly disallowed in courts for years, Mary Lacy's loony exoneration notwithstanding. IDI remains viable because of the RN and the window, and it's highly unlikely the surviving Ramseys would use one another to raise doubt; their best bet is to present a united front.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fact: JBR was found outside of her room
    Fact: BR told Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs
    Fact? JR admitted to using a flashlight that night to help BR

    Where is this new info about JR and flashlight? I can't find anything when I search.

    If true, 3/4 people in the house were out of their rooms late that night? Was PR the only person who may have actually been sleeping?
    I wonder why BR said he went downstairs that night--even if he had why would he admit it now? I wonder what JR thought about this information being given.
    Kat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Starting to think none of them slept that night-PR was wearing her same outfit from the Xmas party! I saw JR saying he helped BR up to his room with the flashlight, can't remember where, thought it was Dr Phil. Like you, I also wonder why BR is now saying he went downstairs and also used the flashlight, why not just stick to the original story? Why weren't there any prints on the flashlight if they both used it?

      Delete
    2. John wouldn't have had any good reason to wipe his prints from the flashlight, as it belonged to the Ramseys, so the police would expect their prints to be on it. Unless, of course, he used it to strike the blow to JB's head and was worried that hair or skin fragments might be left behind, in which case he'd be sure to clean it thoroughly, which is more likely, in my opinion.
      As far as not sticking to the original story, this is bothering me also. I imagine that Burke does know more than he's willing to say, and he slipped up, so John had to go with it. But I don't believe for a second it was Burke who killed his sister.
      If Patsy was up all night staging a crime scene, she'd be SURE to shower and change before calling the police, don't you think?

      Delete
    3. PR wearing the same thing doesn't seem odd to me, if she had something to hide it seems like she would wash/scrub up and put on new clothing. I also thought that she and Jonbenet were going to match in outfits on trip to MI, and this is a reason she may have just decided to wear same thing to match with Jonbenet. I know parents who have their children sleep in the clothes they wear for next day too. Where was Jonbenet's red turtleneck and matching outfit to her mom found?

      BR may just have different recall than JR and caused discrepancies in stories/timeline. He may remember things differently than his parents, who knows?

      Delete
    4. If John used it to strike JonBenet, hair or skin fragments wouldn't be a problem, that would be evidence that an intruder wearing gloves had used it to kill JonBenet. Cleaning it thoroughly implied it had never been touched by any member of the family, which in fact was their original story--they didn't recognize it, and didn't know how it got on their kitchen table. That story has changed from OK, maybe it was ours, to yes, we used it that night. And yes, Burke slipped up on Dr Phil and John had to go with it. And yes, Patsy would have showered and changed before calling the police, but she was wearing the same clothes as the night before.

      Delete
    5. When you're in a state of total panic and trying to stage a crime scene, you don't think clearly.

      Delete
    6. I think the prints were wiped to make it look like they'd been wiped by the "intruder," who would certainly not have wanted his prints left on that item.

      As far as Burke's revelation is concerned, I think he was just telling the truth and neither John nor Lin was in a position to deny it. It probably never occurred to them that he'd spill that particular bean. If the flashlight were the murder weapon, which seems likely, and Burke used it to kill his sister, I can't imagine why he would have wanted anyone to know he'd been anywhere near it that night. Which returns us to John.

      I think that was an unexpected revelation that John couldn't deny without contradicting Burke, and he is now stuck with it. So we now know that the most likely murder weapon was in John's hands on the night of the crime, a little detail he failed to mention for 20 years.

      No matter, since for all practical purposes John is, as ever, off the radar as far as the investigation is concerned. I'm sure that doesn't worry him. The new evidence regarding the DNA would be much more of a concern.

      Delete
  22. CC-if one or both of these lawsuits goes to court, would the defendant have the right to subpoena all of the evidence that has not been released to the public? For example, BRs and JBRs medical records, whatever the GJ heard and saw, friends, neighbors, the housekeeper, and so on? It's clear to me that the Whites know something, but they won't talk for fear of being sued. But they would have to tell the truth if they were subpeonaed, and it's clear Fleet White has no love for JR. If BR was involved in any way, would that evidence still be off limits even though he's no longer 9 yrs old? Ref Mike G's comments on the touch DNA, I also read those articles, and I believe they're now saying the so-called match on the waistband and panties is totally erroneous, the DNA consists of at least two different people, maybe more, plus JBR's. So that's pretty worthless, it seems. Yes, they would have the broken window, but it doesn't look like that is valid as an entrance or exit (might be why Burke is now remembering he left the front door unlocked-Dr Phil show). Then we have the ransom note, which no one believes was written by an intruder, guess the judge would have to make that determination based on common sense. For sure CBS knew they were going to be sued, they must have had some sort of plan in place prior to airing the show--maybe millions set aside for a judgment, but force the evidence to come out?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I believe CBS took a calculated risk, factoring in the costs of a lawsuit. Their docuseries was shown during September Sweeps Week, and netted them multi millions of viewers and, therefore, multi millions of advertising dollars.

    Interesting question, Bgh. CBS would not be allowed to subpoena anything outside the scope of the lawsuit, but that leaves them plenty of latitude. The trier of fact would ultimately decide how broadly they can cast their net. Regardless, children's medical records and the findings of the GJ would remain off limits.

    I think the articles you and Mike are referring to in the Daily Camera are only big news in Boulder, and only because of Mary Lacy's ill-advised exoneration in 2008. Touch DNA was already known to be problematic at that time, at least to the rest of the country.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks CC. So no GJ evidence or medical reocords, can the defendants still subpoena any witnesses originally involved in the case? Are the witnesses who testified before the GJ a secret? If this did get to court, which I know you don't think will happen, what's your prediction on the outcome?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I don't think any such lawsuit will get to trial; CBS'S insurance carrier will likely force a settlement, as happened in the prior suits against media outlets.

      What will be interesting to us armchair sleuths is the discovery process. Discovery consists of depositions and interrogatories and the production of material that will be subpoenaed by CBS in furtherance of their affirmative defenses that they did indeed have information that led them to believe BDI. If, hopefully, it leaks, we may get to hear from the Whites and any number of interesting people.

      I believe Burke was grievously slandered by CBS, they cannot produce proof that he did it, and if it came to trial, Burke would prevail. How 'bout the rest of you? What are your predictions, and upon what are they based?
      CC

      Delete
    2. And yes, Bgh, all GJ proceedings are secret. In our case a judge was petitioned and released a few pages, which should not have happened.
      CC

      Delete
  25. Thanks CC. Let me pick your brain a little further regarding touch DNA. From the Daily Camera article:

    "One important step in the evolution of DNA testing, which was available in 2008 but has matured considerably since then, is known as Y-STR testing, which looks exclusively at male-inherited Y chromosome DNA.

    Testing in this manner on key pieces of evidence, such as JonBenet's underwear, long johns and perhaps the cord on the garotte used to strangle her or other items associated with the crime scene, would not pick up any of JonBenet's genetic markers. That would enable analysts to focus with greater accuracy on only male contributors to the mixed samples.

    "If you are able to ignore, completely, the female contribution, and can focus just on the male, you are able to then get much more robust results," McKee said. "I don't really see a reason why it hasn't been done, or why you couldn't do it."

    Danielson agreed, saying, "With the Y-STR testing, you eliminate all of the female DNA. So you can amplify male DNA, even if the male DNA is a fraction of 1 percent of the DNA of the females' on the samples. So that's, if I were going to do any additional testing, that's the additional testing that I would do. It would help to at least answer some of the questions."

    What "questions" might this more robust form of testing "at least answer"? Let's say they successfully separate out all the female DNA, so they are left with just small amount of male DNA to analyze. Is it possible the findings could result in establishing the DNA as POTENTIALLY belonging to John thereby overuling previous test results which categorically eliminated him as the potential donor?
    Even if the new results also "ruled in" millions of other men, that John could no longer be "ruled out", could be the smoking gun needed to get investigators to reconsider John as the writer of the ransom note, or better yet, Doc as the person who solved this case.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a feeling they must have already isolated the Y chromosomes in those samples, and discovered they were mixed from at least two different male sources. Seems to me that would have been basic. You're talking roughly 59 million base pairs, which should be more than enough to ID someone, assuming no mixing. Hard to imagine they'd have neglected that.

      Delete
    2. On that Y chromosome. I think I've posted this link before. The researchers say that crime scenes should not solely rely on this if the contributer had stem cell treatment. In other words, a female that had stem cell treatment can leave male markers.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578715/
      (scroll down to Conclusion for the crime reference)

      Delete
  26. "No one wants to accept my theory despite the evidence that supports it. I strongly believe that one or more police officers were involved in murdering JonBenet."

    The most asinine theory in history and even you don't believe it. Should've just posted it under your Inquisitive/Leigh Too names.

    "So many questions, WF, I hope you'll answer them all for me."

    I hope he doesn't. His pollution just clogs up the blog. I don't understand why people keep indulging this person. These Ramsey sites are really going down in quality.


    "While personal attacks have declined, inane hypotheticals, arguments, and theories have taken their place."

    Absolutely. What makes it even worse is the fact that the person typing that drivel doesn't even believe the theories himself.

    "It's my understanding he sent the demand letter to CBS in California. The statute of limitations there is one year for defamation suits, so Wood may leave us hanging for a while.
    CC"

    Thanks. I'm one of many people who don't post much here but look forward to reading your posts on these issues.

    "PR wearing the same thing doesn't seem odd to me"

    Me either. I've been with women who were either drinking or taking other substances who just crash wearing their clothes. While I do lean PDI, I certainly don't consider Patsy wearing the same clothing a smoking gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Patsy wearing the same outfit is not a smoking gun, I wear the same outfit 2 days in a row all the time. It just raises the possibility that she may have not gotten undressed at all that night.

      Delete
    2. James, hope you're associating with a better class of women these days lol!

      Delete
  27. Speculation... Here are my thoughts on the intruder theory.no security alarm system a welcome for an intruder, , forget about the Intruder , no such thing never happened, false false false , I have {google earth)it is amazing how it had taken me to the former {infamous house)as {google}named it}.
    It is an attractive neighbourhood a few cars on the street. because of many large tree's house is not visible like crime scene photo's here goes...
    Apparently no one seen the intruder enter even though he would have needed a vehicle or was being "dropped off".
    day time or evening ? for example evening,
    While family had gone to dinner@4:30pm-arrived home @ 9:30PM?
    I must have been dark,
    intruder , had to find a way in ? maybe I will use a broken window,or maybe I will use one of JRs extra keys, he then enters , stakes the house , in the dark.... oh right! he has a flashlight ,hides in basement , the dirty filthy molded mildew basement probably some spiders crawling and every thing he needed was in his reach , nylon cord knife , duct tape , a heavy device , paint brush
    back to the intruder.........he is in basement , waiting he has a chair , and a toilet , working? probably not , it would have been covered with the (killer)s DNA if it had been used by this person , (killer)
    The family does their thing , puts children to bed and the parents get ready for bed (according to JR).
    While family is fast asleep, what happens next?
    Do you believe Burke went down stairs then to basement played with his train?
    JB gets up follows him to basement ,? while a killer was hiding ?"I DONT THINK SO" he may have killed both children and how does the killer escape with -out being seen? and how does he rid of his evidence ? did he wear gloves? , did he use a shovel dig a hole in back yard to hide all his evidence? jeeze I sound like an investigator ,
    I could go on and on ,don't have the time.
    JR issued a new statement , when asked about JBR , he said ... "I don't dwell on it. it is not critical to my future"

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is in reference to a post above, but wanted to put it down here.

    Let's forget about all the changing stories told by Patsy. Let's forget Patsy going along with the phony window story.
    Let's forget each and all the inconsistent things Patsy has said on this case.
    Here is the million dollar question. IF Patsy Ramsey had no involvement AND John Ramsey was the sole killer, then it's safe to say John would have written the note, correct? So, how do you explain Patsy not recognizing John's handwriting? I have been married only 9 years and there is absolutely NO CHANCE that I wouldn't be able to recognize my wife's handwriting. You can say he "gaslighted" her all you want, there is no gaslighting his handwriting.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, quite obviously, J, John disguised his hand writing, or traced a font he downloaded on his computer, as Doc postulated. This has been answered several times already, as have many of your other questions above, but you insist on asking them every time Doc starts a new discussion, as though you're expecting our responses to change.
      You have no problem believing Patsy disguised her handwriting, so why wouldn't John?

      "It is an attractive neighbourhood a few cars on the street. because of many large tree's house is not visible like crime scene photo's here goes..."

      Whilst you're right about IDI being completely infeasible, Anonymous, those trees did not exist at the time of the murder. They were planted by the subsequent owners due to the constant barrage of curious onlookers.

      Delete
    2. Ms D - EVERYTHING has been said on this site so spare me the condescending pile you consistently write to my questions.

      Now to answer your question, similarities to John's writing has been talked about over and over on here. If a handwriting expert can spot similarities, you don't think Patsy could have? You can't have it both ways....either it LOOKS like John's handwriting as Doc has tried to prove a million times or it doesn't. You will argue that John wrote the note because of the way he writes a certain letter, but NOW because you also want to claim Patsy didn't recognize his handwriting because it was disguised. Pick a side

      -J

      Delete
    3. I don't know that Patsy disguised her handwriting. It wouldn't have mattered to John, because they were in on it together.

      -J

      Delete
    4. J....If I were a judge IN THIS CASE, I wouldn't allow testimony of ANY sort regarding handwriting anaysis, by which I mean how one "draws" their a,b,c's. Disgreement on this board has already established that an intruder, John, or Patsy could have used a mix of methods and motivations to disguise the "writers" handwriting, such as:

      1) Trying to copy fonts available in word processing programs.
      2) Trying to mimic the handwriting of your spouse, or someone else the perp was trying to implecate.
      3) Writing the note in your own handwriting, then going back and adding enough "curls", "loops", "stems", or whatevers' to your letters to fool investigators.
      4) Deliberately deploying from the very start a method of writing letters you KNOW you've never used before!

      For the life of me, I don't know why everyone, Doc included, continues to waste time on this issue. That's not to say all the other features of the ransom aren't fair game to argue about in a court of law. These include:

      1) The pad and pen used to write it.
      2) The letter's instructions.
      3) How suspects in the case reacted to the instructions.
      (i.e. Did they follow them or otherwise act in a way to render them moot or non-sensical?)
      4) The length of the letter.
      5) The person to whom the letter was addressed.
      6) The entire content of the letter as it relates to whether it might have been written by someone known, close to, or part of the family.
      7) Whether it was likely penned by a man, women, or child.
      8) Whether the letter was written before or after the murder.
      9) Whether it was deliberatly or accidentally left behind.

      All of these questions can be addressed without reference to
      the writer's handwriting "style". Evidence which is superfluous has no benefit and therefore risks being prejudicial.

      I am not a lawyer, but from what I've read on-line, judges are not required to permit testimony from expert witnesses. And if I were appeals court judge asking myself if, by admitting handwriting evidence IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, it could potentially, and without prejudice, alter a lower court's finding, I'd answer unequivocally, 'no!'

      Mike G.






      Delete
    5. Mike - I agree.

      Where I get frustrated is arguments have been made from bloggers and webslueths on here claiming that there are similarities in John's handwriting to the handwriting in the RN. So, if bloggers who like to write on this blog can see a similarity then how do you explain his WIFE not seeing a similarity?
      Due to the length of the note and the handwriting having similar characteristics of both Patsy and John it leads me to believe the author of the note felt comfortable enough to make it so long without fear of being caught because all 3 Ramsey's who were alive were aware of what was taking place.

      -J

      Delete
    6. If expert testimony on handwriting is not permitted at trial, then all non-expert testimony must be subject to cross examination. Patsy can't testify because she is deceased. The length of the note has no more to do with it having similiar handwriting charcteristics of both John and Patsy than it does with it having similar handwriting characteristics of you and me. And there is no evidence to suggest that the author of note felt "comfortable" while he or she was writing it. Even if comfort level was established, how would it have any bearing on who wrote the note?

      An attempt by either side to solicit opinions from witnesses on the stand regarding whose writing the ransom note does or does not resemble would be met with by a judge instructing the witness not to answer. If, later on in chambers, the jury asks for exemplars, they could be provided.

      I look forward to hearing from anyone, regardless of who you believe killed JonBenet, the reasons you would object this pre-trial ruling. I can't speak for Doc, but I doubt, if he was the DA, he would drop his indictment of John if he was not permitted to question anyone about the handwriting. Am I wrong Doc?

      Mike

      Delete
    7. All testimony by witnesses, expert or non, is subject to cross, contingent upon nothing. Your grasp of "prejudice" and "prejudicial" is feeble, at best, and your notion of judicial instructions, pre trial procedure, and expert testimony misguided. Why do you feel compelled to persist in posting legal misinformation?
      CC

      Delete
    8. All assertions..nothing to support them CC. And the fact mine make you angry, tells me something about you. Are you an attorney? I am not, and I always preface everything I say with that disclaimer. Why do you feel compelled to rudely rebuke me rather than take the opportunity to teach me and others, assuming you are an attorney, a little more about the legal process as it pertains to this case, and perhaps as it pertains to Colorado Law? God knows every other piece of evidence and theory has been so thoroughly covered we're all blue in the face.

      If you and other "attorneys" and "investigators" purportedly on this site, notwithstanding Doc, have actual connections to either the REAL investigators in Colorado, the REAL attorney's working for the Ramsey's, or the REAL attorny's in the D.A.'s office, then I'm only too glad to say things that might provoke you. Is posting "legal misinformation" any more damaging to the case than posting absurd theories about who murdered JonBenet?

      Is so, why? If not, buzz off.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    9. I personally know no one involved in this case. Alex Hunter spoke at CU Law several times, but we are not acquainted.

      In my view the law is already too confusing and too inaccessible to most people, and posting misinformation only further compounds the problem; it is that which causes my disgruntlement, not any personal animus or fit of pique.

      You clearly have an interest - why not take some basic legal classes at a local community college, or read some of the available texts for the layman? At the very least, perhaps do some online research of your premise before posting it as a fact.

      I do not believe that someone with your degree of enthusiasm for this case and the law wants or intends to mislead, but too often that seems to be the unintended result.
      CC

      Delete
    10. Exactly J, Ms D answers everything addressed or replied to Doc. Then she answers with the exact se answers Doc does, it is almost as if she IS Doc.

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

      Delete
    12. Oh for God's sake......I'm NOT Doc.
      Doc has both disagreed with me and corrected me, so clearly we're not always in total agreement.....why the hell would he bother with a fake account anyway? What purpose could it possibly serve? The very notion is nuts, and even entertaining such an idea smacks of a paranoid mind. I just happen to agree with the author of this blog's theory, so of course I'm going to sound like him sometimes (though, personally, I can't see similarities in our writing styles - I'm not an author, so I think you're slighting Doc!) As far as answering "everything" addressed to him - don't I do the same thing with you, Keiser? Maybe I'm actually YOU.....is your mind blown?! :)

      Delete
  29. J, My intention is not to be condescending. My point was simply that you already have the answers to the majority of your questions (Patsy wearing the same clothes, your insistence that she had to have known John was the killer, the pineapple proving Burke's guilt etc.) so, naturally, it perplexes me when you bring them up again as though you just uncovered definitive proof of Patsy's involvement, when it's previously been explained ad nauseam as to why it's not. The answers you wish to hear will not be forthcoming, no matter how many times you ask the question. I think we're all guilty of being a little condescending to those who oppose our theory, truth be told, and it is because we're all very passionate regarding our beliefs. At the end of the day though, we're all after the same thing - the truth to come out and JB's killer to be bought to justice.

    "I don't know that Patsy disguised her handwriting. It wouldn't have mattered to John, because they were in on it together."

    Yes, but you insist that Patsy wrote the note with the plan of calling the police all along, therefore it would have been important for her to disguise her hand writing to fool LE, if not John. The JDI theory has him writing the note with the sole purpose of fooling Patsy and buying time. The RDI/BDI theory has the two of them writing the note solely to fool the police. Two, entirely different scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "At the end of the day though, we're all after the same thing - the truth to come out and JB's killer to be bought to justice."

      I wish that were true Ms. D.

      Mike

      Delete
    2. Ms D - I have NEVER ever discussed Patsy wearing the same outfit the next morning. Is it odd? Yea probably a little, but I don't think it proves anything.

      My point is actually very simple. You CANNOT claim that the RN looks like John's handwriting but then also make the claim that Patsy wouldn't have been able to tell because it was disguised. I don't care what questions of mine you deem important enough to answer......to be honest you seem quite busy wasting your time arguing against IDI which is your your choice.

      -J

      Delete
    3. When I first saw the example of John's writing that we've all seen by now, I was struck by the resemblance in overall style to the ransom note, yes. But the resemblance is very impressionistic and there are also many differences. I've never claimed that the similarities I found could be taken as evidence John wrote it. But they are certainly very good reason to reject the verdict that ruled him out.

      While it's theoretically possible to surmise that Patsy might have noticed the same resemblances, we have to understand her reaction in context. She finds a ransom note and when she starts reading it she sees the statement "we have your daughter." What would have been on her mind at that moment would be her daughter's whereabouts and her safety, NOT some effort to puzzle out the handwriting.

      After she calls 911, the police arrive, she is surrounded by friends and the note has been handed to the police. Why on earth would it have occurred to her that this note was written by her husband? In her mind there would have been no possible reason for him to have written it. And she would not have had much opportunity to study it anyhow.

      From that moment until the body is found, Patsy would have been preoccupied with the kidnapping, not the note per se. And after the body is found, she becomes a medicated basket case and remains such for weeks afterward. John very quickly hired two handwriting experts to go over the note, and they very quickly (too quickly) decide that he could not have written it. So by the time Patsy awakens from her stupor, she is informed of this finding and has no reason to doubt it.

      As I said, there are resemblances with John's hand, but there are also many differences -- she is not a handwriting expert, she has no reason to challenge the experts, and she has no reason to suspect her husband. So no, I can't accept your assumption that she would have recognized his hand. He obviously went to a lot of trouble to disguise it and she would certainly not have been in a position to ferret out the similarities from the differences and challenge the verdict of the professionals.

      Delete
    4. Doc - here is the problem. Nobody in the world knew John Ramsey better at that point in time then his wife Patsy. If there are enough similarities that a guy who started a blog can see (thats not means to rip you, just pointing out that if an internet blogger can spot it), then how can you with s straight face say that his wife wouldn't have seen those same similarities? We don't need to go in circles on this, but for me, I just don't think its a plausible explanation.

      I am willing to concede that calling the police was something that most people would do under those circumstances. The reason I think Patsy is full of crap is because of the call to the friends. Again, imo I think a normal person would speak with the police FIRST to see what DANGER the family is in, THEN call friends. She gets off the phone with the police and immediately calls friends. The reason...............to create confusion and chaos in the house! By bringing friends over to the house, the Ramsey's created a barrier from them to the police. Detectives at the scene have said this.

      Oh and in reference to Ms D's comment, I am not claiming Patsy wrote the note. My contention all along has been that regardless of John being the author, it's irrelevant because I believe Patsy helped come up with the context.

      -J

      Delete
    5. "If there are enough similarities that a guy who started a blog can see (thats not means to rip you, just pointing out that if an internet blogger can spot it), then how can you with s straight face say that his wife wouldn't have seen those same similarities?"

      For the reasons Doc stated. Doc has spent God knows how many hours analyzing the similarities of the writing in the note, comparing it to the (very small) public sample of John's hand writing - something Patsy wouldn't have done. If you're not looking for something, how can you ever expect to find it? It is certainly not readily apparent John wrote the note.

      "I don't care what questions of mine you deem important enough to answer......to be honest you seem quite busy wasting your time arguing against IDI which is your your choice."

      The truth is, I'm arguing with any argument I see as illogical. And as I've said many times, it's nothing personal - I enjoy debating with you, J.

      Delete
    6. "If there are enough similarities that a guy who started a blog can see (thats not means to rip you, just pointing out that if an internet blogger can spot it), then how can you with s straight face say that his wife wouldn't have seen those same similarities?"

      Because Doc's perceptions were retrospective. The murder and claims about who did it and who wrote the note heightened his senses in a way Patsy's senses were not heightened. Doc would be the first to admit that the epiphany he experienced may have had some element of "confirmation bias". So what did he do? He spent hours and hours examing John's handwriting vis a vis Patsy's to eliminate any doubts HE may have had about his own bias potentially clouding his judgement. My guess is Doc has done more handwriting analysis of the ransom note than all the other so-called handwriting "experts" combined!

      Patsy wasn't "looking for differences or similarities" when she read the note. She was looking for what the note had to SAY!

      " Oh my God....John wrote this!!!!"
      (screaming) John John....what the hell did you do with our daughter!" talk about an implausible epiphany

      Delete
    7. The truth is, I'm arguing with any argument I see as illogical. And as I've said many times, it's nothing personal - I enjoy debating with you, J.

      Likewise! :-)

      Again, I understand Doc has spent hours and hours analyzing it. I'm not trying to make this rocket science....my point is simply that this was John's wife...not just some random person. I understand that spouses are all the time choosing to be blind in murder cases, but with this specific case it's a leap for me to say Patsy wouldn't have known whether or not that was John's handwriting. Using words like "hence" or the movie references could have all been tells for her that pointed right back at John.

      I know we will never see eye to eye on this, but Patsy's pile of odd behavior keeps getting bigger and bigger. It's getting harder to ignore it and I just with you could see it :-)

      -J

      Delete
    8. Patsy mentioned in the police interview that she didn't even know about the bonus. Sounds to me like she didn't know everything about her husband.

      Delete
    9. Phew, if Patsy said so, it must be true :-)

      -J

      Delete
  30. OK , but it's clear the note wasn't written by an intruder- it would have been even more clear to Patsy, who was there, and was married to the man who supposedly wrote it. So who does that leave? Patsy was not a stupid woman, she had a degree in journalism and was quite articulate. None of us believe an intruder wrote the note, why would she? And why would she then go on to lie repeatedly, forget, dodge LE, etc etc- to protect the intruder? As a previous poster stated, believing she died thinking an intruder killed JBR is even more absurd than IDI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LE publicly ruled out JR as the writer, so if PR didn't write the note then she may be thought it was impossible that JR wrote the note. Maybe she thought it was another family/friend who murdered/molested Jonbenet. Also, possibly dissonance reduction or cognitive dissonance. Hypothetically, PR also may have had suspicions but because she was gravely ill (limited time left due to cancer), she didn't want her son to live with stigma of a murderous incestuous pedophile father/husband combined with his sister's brutal death, so she didn't press it.

      Delete
    2. "OK , but (if) it's clear the note wasn't written by an intruder- it would have been even more clear to Patsy, who was there, and was married to the man who supposedly wrote it."

      Clarity that an intruder didn't write the note couldn't have been established until sometime after the body. By that time, Patsy has started down a path from which it would have been difficult to depart. John's fatal mistake, where the police are concerned, may turn out to be the unstaging of the window he had intended to finish staging had Patsy not called the police. On the other hand, making things hard on himself with police, by reporting no signs of a forced entrance or unlocked doors, would have helped arrest, soften, or suspend suspicions Patsy might have the instant the body was discovered. That John took the opportunity to be the one who just happened to find the body further suggests he was more interested, AT THAT MOMENT, in fooling Patsy than the police, recognizing that while she was extremely intelligent, she was also vulnerable to gaslighting.

      As for your use of the word "supposedly", nothing has to be "supposed" to logically infer from the evidence that John is, by default, the only one who could have killed his daughter.

      Mike G.

      Delete
  31. Note to all:

    I appologize for frequently posting poorly edited comments. I am used to commenting on internet sites that permit you to edit your comments even after they are posted. It's a bad habit I'm trying to break, not because I'm afraid to "go on the record" for having said something, but because I deplore poor editing and poor grammar in myself and others.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only way I know of to edit a comment on this blog is to copy it, delete it, and then repost it with your corrections.

      Delete
    2. I hate it when - even after proof reading - I still sometimes ending up posting a badly edited comment (and it usually occurs after one too many glass of wine, when I'm more inclined to get on this blog!) ;)

      I do wish we could edit our comments, but as we can't, I often end up deleting them altogether because they were so poorly executed. Thus, there is always that annoying little "the author has deleted her comment", which may make it look like I'm trying to back peddle...most annoying! But, I guess we're all in the same boat there :)

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

      Delete
  32. If Patsy believed the note was real she wouldn't have called the police-unless you believe her story that she only read the first line. What parent whose child has been kidnapped doesn't read the whole ransom note? Beyond that, it was only a few hours later that the body was found, and during that time she and JR had had hardly any interaction with each other according to all the witnesses. She hadn't gone down any path at that time. She also didn't have any reaction at all when the time for the ransom call came and went. Then, for 10 years, she and JR appeared to be a loving team, united in their efforts to cover up responsibility for this crime. And all this time she believed IDI, even though we all consider that absurd. By the way, I used "supposedly" for those who aren't sure who wrote the ransom note, including myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your mistake is precisely the same mistake made by the authorities and just about everyone else following this case for all these years. From my perspective the fatal assumption that the two of them had to be in on it together is what has made it literally impossible for the case to ever be resolved. That and the decision to rule John out.

      As I believe I've demonstrated, both the assumption that they were in it together and the opinion that John could not have written the note, represent serious blunders, NOT insights. However, in order to understand this, it's necessary to review certain aspects of the case in some detail, which is what I've attempted to do. Unfortunately, however, going over the case in the necessary detail takes considerable time and effort, so I can understand your skepticism.

      Delete
  33. I think most of us (except the IDIs) think either JR or PR wrote the RN. If JR wrote it, that doesn't automatically mean he's the killer, case closed. But it he is, this leaves us with 2 choices regarding Patsy: she was gaslighted for 10 years and died thinking IDI, or she was so blinded by love, wanting to protect Burke, etc, etc that she stayed married to JR and helped him cover it up. Possible? Yes. About as possible as IDI, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So she was protecting BR by leaving him in a house, to be raised (or killed) by a demonic father who already sexually assaulted, garotted and killed his daughter ? Sorry but if anyone lived with someone who had done that to another of their family members than their insticts would be to get themself and their child away from him asap, as either of them could be next.

      Delete
  34. I wonder if John Ramsey has ever discovered this blog. I really hope so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not? To prove that someone figured him out, and his whole victimized act isn't believable.

      Delete
  35. Even though I believe BDI I did think of another scenario where JDI and Patsy went along with the cover-up: JR convinced her that BDI, and she believed it and never questioned BR or even mentioned it to him. That's definitely more possible than the previous 2 options, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You find it believable that she would never question a scenario where the daughter she clearly loved was violently murdered? No matter the circumstances that seems extremely far-fetched.

      Delete
    2. Well it's even crossed my mind before. When all you have is beliefs of involvement of patsy, maybe whatever did happen could turn out to be far fetched. All I know is that I agree with j, Patsy's actions prove to me that for whatever reasons patsy was in on it.

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

      Delete
  36. I'm not sure what you mean. Fact--JBR was violently murdered, and JR and PR covered it up. I think it was more likely she would cover it up if BDI (or she thought BDI) than if JDI. Or if she did it. If BDI, she and JR bent over backwards to protect BR and convince him he hadn't done anything wrong, that an intruder had killed JBR. If BR was completely innocent and she questioned him, he would simply say he didn't do it-the same thing he would say if he did do it. I'm just trying to be open-minded and come up with a believable reason PR would help JR cover it up if JDI. The 10 year "gaslighting" , or she just loved JR too much, didn't want to disrupt the family, etc, doesn't do it for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm not sure what you mean. Fact--JBR was violently murdered, and JR and PR covered it up."

      Here we go again......that word "fact".
      The word doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean.

      Fact: "A thing that is known or proved to be true."

      If it is indeed "a fact" that Patsy had a part in the cover up, you will have no problem proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, this is true. So instead of making claims, just post said proof - not speculations from like minded people - but incontrovertible proof from a neutral source.
      If it turns out it *is* a fact, then regardless of anyone's personal theories or beliefs here, we will have to concede we were wrong, and if it is indeed a certainty, as claimed, you shouldn't have any trouble citing numerous sources proving the veracity of your claim.

      Delete
    2. Well said D....Game, set, and match!

      Mike

      Delete
    3. You're right, I shouldn't have used the word fact. I had no idea there are so many people who think IDI is ridiculous, but don't think Patsy would think it ridiculous and go on believing it for 10 years. Her behavior and JRs behavior after the crime leave no doubt in my mind they were both covering up; not sure about PRs involvement in the staging, but sure she was not thinking IDI after JBRs body was found. Apparently, they wrote a book together before she died, and several people mentioned it sounded in some places like she was gloating about their ability to fool LE and others. Haven't read the book, am going to get it and check it out.

      Delete
    4. Who was the primary author JR or PR Ramsey? Just because they authored book together doesn't mean that PR wrote large portion of the book. Who was the driving force to write a book and what portions did PR/JR write together and separately?

      Delete
    5. How many times do I need to repeat this: if literally everyone investigating the case accepted without question the verdict that John could not have written the note, why would you expect Patsy to believe otherwise? She bought it, just as everyone else bought it. And assuming she didn't write it herself (she didn't), the only possible culprit would be an intruder. No need to gaslight her on THAT issue -- she simply accepted the verdict of the "experts," just as everyone else did.

      Delete
  37. I agree with Doc on the point that more than one person did not have to be "in on this". That really is the most simple scenario. If no one confesses, no one knows for sure, except the guilty party. The more people involved, the more likely someone breaks and spills the beans.

    Doc also points out that there are many fine points of information on this case.

    Once upon a time, these little innuendos seemed boring and unimportant. In hindsight, they are the most important.

    I have been reading the 1998 interview of Patsy by Trip Demuth et al, where they show her pictures taken on the day of the murder, and ask her to identify them. She is also asked to mark out the route through the house she and John made that day.

    Lengthy document, but filled with details. Posted on Forums for Justice:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9945-Patsy-Ramsey-BDA-interview-June-23-1998

    GS


    ReplyDelete
  38. I just re-read the interview you referenced, and don't know what you're trying to say. It sounds like a bunch of rambling lies to me. She admitted the ransom note talked about not calling the police a couple of times, "blah, blah, blah" (her words), she stumbled and fumbled on every answer, it doesn't sound genuine at all to me. Yes, she admitted she took some medication, does that mean she thought IDI? And I don't agree that one person being involved is the simplest answer, quite the contrary. With the number of people in the house being up and about that night, one person being involved is almost impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 16 PATSY RAMSEY: That's the bathroom
    17 to my bedroom.
    18 THOMAS HANEY: Is that normally
    19 used by anybody?
    20 PATSY RAMSEY: Not on a day-to-day
    21 basis, not really. I don't know why the drawers
    22 would have been out, but...
    23 THOMAS HANEY: What's normally
    24 stored in those?
    25 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that's usually
    0285
    1 where I kept my supplies for my -- when I was
    2 taking chemo, when I had my shots and my little
    3 alcohol wipes, thermometers, and all that kind
    4 of stuff. And I could have been looking
    5 through, looking for a thermometer to take on
    6 vacation.
    7 TRIP DeMUTH: What's in the draw
    8 below that one? There are two drawers open?
    9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know, I
    10 don't know. I just hadn't used it, all that
    11 area, that much.
    12 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. Number 33.
    13 PATSY RAMSEY: This is the shot of
    14 the bedroom, looking out through the door to her
    15 door.
    16 THOMAS HANEY: Anything unusual or
    17 out of place or --
    18 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
    19 THOMAS HANEY: 34?
    20 PATSY RAMSEY: I just can't imagine
    21 why I would leave those open if I had done --
    22 THOMAS HANEY: The drawers that you
    23 were talking about earlier?
    24 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
    25 VOICE: That's 34?
    0286
    1 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
    2 TRIP DeMUTH: Did you have syringes
    3 in there?
    4 PATSY RAMSEY: I would have at one
    5 time. Now, whether I had any in there now, I
    6 don't remember. Seems like I got rid of all
    7 that stuff. With kids around. I don't know. I
    8 just wasn't in there that much. I can't tell
    9 you.
    10 TRIP DeMUTH: Could the kids get in
    11 there? Play in this room?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not really. It was
    13 kind of a -- they didn't do it too much.
    14 THOMAS HANEY: They kind of
    15 consider it --
    16 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
    17 THOMAS HANEY: -- off-limits?
    18 PATSY RAMSEY: It was just kind of
    19 back out of the way and nobody really --
    20 TRIP DeMUTH: How about John?
    21 PATSY RAMSEY: Big John?
    22 TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-hum.
    23 PATSY RAMSEY: I must have just
    24 used it for folding clothes and packing and, you
    25 know.
    0287

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9945-Patsy-Ramsey-BDA-interview-June-23-1998

    ***
    Did LE ever determine what was in the drawers discussed or why/who they were opened in picture (or test for fingerprints, fibers etc)? Or did PR ever remember/discuss more? It may be nothing, but LE did take photos of area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe that's where she kept her "little John" for when "Big John" was out of town? Just sayin....Lol

      Mike G.

      Delete
    2. Hahahaha! That DID make me LOL, Mike! XD

      Delete
    3. The interesting part of PR's response to investigator is not big/little John. PR could have answered she don't know if JR had access/used area. Instead she answered that it must have been her, but why? I don't think it was her that opened the drawers given the full discussion with LE. Was she backtracking, denial or that her mind didn't want to go there that JR could have opened drawers, Idk.

      Hypo - What if Jonbenet was wiped down with alcohol wipes? What if LE could trace the alcohol wipes to the same items in JAR/PR bathroom drawers that was in corner of house? Or what if there were traces of rope fiber, fingerprints or other relevant evidence to Jonbenet's murder in those drawers. I interpret PR's discussion of the drawers as her not opening the drawers, but thinking it was odd the drawers were opened. It's unlikely an unfamiliar intruder would know contents of drawers or location, so if opened drawers/contents tied to crimes against Jonbenet, then it would certainly limit the suspect list to individuals familiar with room, drawers and content of drawers. Wasn't there also a brown paper bag with rope found in JAR's room? Were there fibers from bag or tied to bag tied to Jonbenet's murder? It just makes me wonder if something happened in Jonbenet's room and JAR room significant for clean up.

      Delete
    4. Edit- I meant, PR could have answered she didn't know if JR had access/used area (drawers/bathroom).

      Delete
    5. I too was thinking along the lines that the killer was looking through the drawers for the alcohol wipes to wipe down JB's body. And Patsy did seem perplexed on finding out they'd been opened. Burke wouldn't know enough about DNA to think to wipe down JB, and if Patsy had opened the drawers, I think she would have no reason to deny knowledge of it.....which, again, brings us back to John.

      Delete
  40. So I clearly have too much time on my hands at the moment because I have been viewing The Daily Beast video of the broken basement window in minute detail.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

    If you are interested, pause the video around the 2:50 time mark and look at the glass on the left hand side of the pane. The lowest point of glass looks to me like a small triangular piece that is broken away from the glass above it and could easily fall out. The interesting thing is that triangle of glass seems (to me anyway!) to have been displaced towards the side nearest the camera - the outside of the window.

    Pause again around the 2:53 mark. Follow the left vertical line of the intact glass. I think that if you use the frame as a reference, it looks as if the pane is slightly out of alignment. The lower portion of that glass seems pushed out further than the upper part - the pane seems to be bulging OUTWARDS, away from the room and towards the camera. The 2:33 mark gives a view from further back.

    Anyway, I'd be interested to see if anyone sees it too or whether I'm perhaps seeing what I want to see!

    I've been reading a bit about glass fracture analysis, and it sounds like it should have been quite easy for forensics to determine the direction of force. Radial fractures - the spoke-type ones that radiate out from the point of impact - will appear on the side OPPOSITE the force. In the video, it looks like you can determine the point of impact from the radial fractures.

    I don't know if forensic analysis was ever done on the window. It seems strange if it wasn't, yet I can't seem to find any info on it. Possibly it was done but never released to the the public, or it was done and just turned out to be consistent with JR's story of his earlier break-in, so maybe a non-issue.

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link to the video -- interesting. It also looks as thought the caulking is pushed out (towards the outside). Also, why would someone breakout the top of the window -- maybe they weren't sure where the lock was :), but they definitely would have cut their arm on the jagged pieces jutting out on the right side of the pane while trying to reach inside for the lock. -- No way Ramsey broke in through that window without knocking out those pieces jutting out on the right.

      Delete
  41. Here is a link to an interesting article on the DNA. It's quite lenghty but particularly interesting is the Y-STR testing mentioned near the laat few paragraphs. I really hope they are able to do some of these new tests, and as the article states "I don't know why they haven't done this already. It would answer a lot of questions."

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

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.12news.com/news/a-closer-look-at-the-dna-in-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/343745330

    Another article on the recent DNA findings. Nothing new, but it is evidence that word is spreading the Ramsey's never should have been exonerated.

    Also interesting is a link that takes you to "theories on the case", where the author begins by stating there are two general theories; 1) a member of the family did it or 2) an intruder did it.

    But then , as always, a "member" of the family is broken down into either:

    a) John AND Patsy or
    b) Burke

    Never just John.

    sigh....

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
  43. For what it's worth, from what I was able to find, the new revelation that JR used the flashlight to take BR up to bed, came from a statement made by Dr. Phil. It didn't come directly from JR. Admittedly, I didn't watch all 3 parts of BR's interview in their entirety, so if I am mistaken, someone please correct me. Here is a link to part of the Dr. Phil interview:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eagUvTdkCM

    Around the 5:25 mark, Dr. Phil says, "I think your dad had said he used the flashlight that night to put you to bed..." BR neither confirms or denies this. Also, when asked if BR used the flashlight when he went back downstairs to play with his toy, BR says he doesn't remember.

    In the complaint filed against Spitz, it is stated that BR agreed to the Dr. Phil interview because he was aware that the investigators in CBS docuseries planned to accuse him. (I'm paraphrasing what is actually stated in the complaint, but that's the gist.)

    It makes me wonder if the new flashlight information was introduced to muddy the waters about the use of the flashlight that night. I'm assuming that neither BR, JR or LW knew exactly what evidence the docuseries planned to reveal, so maybe the flashlight revelation was kind of a preemptive strike to cover BR.

    It's interesting, to me, that Dr. Phil is the one who makes the statement. It's also interesting that BR doesn't confirm nor deny it. Also, I would think that Lin Wood would have pre-negotiated the power to veto any inaccurate statements, before the show was finalized and shown to the public. This is just speculation on my part, but wouldn't any decent attorney protect his clients by doing so? I just find it curious that Dr. Phil is "allowed" to make that statement, but it doesn't come directly from JR or BR. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you could be right, HKH.

      Delete
    2. Possibly JR did say it, it was edited out at Wood's insistence but Dr Phil was "allowed" to say it as some sort of compromise or, as you suggest, to muddy the waters. In any event, interesting, H. Good catch.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Thanks, HKH. I've gone over that excerpt recently myself and you're right. The flashlight is introduced by Dr. Phil, not Burke. Whose idea it was to mention that bit of possibly significant evidence is not at all clear. But to my knowledge this is a first.

      I think it possible that Burke could have brought this up very innocently, during preliminary discussions, and once the cat was out of the bag, there was little John or Lin could do to shove it back in. As I've said before, John is so totally off the radar that he need not worry regarding the implications of this direct connection between him and what is very likely the murder weapon. There is all sorts of evidence pointing to John, but ever since he was "ruled out" he's been immune to suspicion.

      Delete
    4. Doc please notice and address the Daily Beast video mentioned by a poster above as to the broken window on the morning of the 26th and notice please the old cobwebs appearing to dangle from the jagged broken edges of the window, and not just dangling in the corner of the window frame. That indicates an "old break" does it not? If so, then John perhaps was not lying about having broken into the basement before (i.e. the previous summer), yet (since I totally agree with your JDI scenario) his "un-staging" of the window was his simply not mentioning the supposed "open window" that fateful morning, yet later saying that he closed the window, in order to at least try, after he was "cleared" of the ransom note's authorship, to create a possibility of an intruder coming through that window given Lou Smit's entering the fray and pushing that theory? So that leaves no need to have cleaned up glass that morning (indicated also by the fact that Fleet White actually found a shard or two and picked one up and put it on the window sill), such that John's frantic activities in the basement after the 911 call were more focused on the rest of the murderous mess down there? Can you expound in more detail and pick apart my view of this observation if I'm seeing the window breakage correctly? I know your theory is that it was probably a fresh break given the lengthy questioning of John and Patsy about the "lost key last summer break-in" of the basement by John, but if I'm seeing the video correctly, it throws me a bit. Thank you. This is only my second post on your blog.

      Delete
    5. I thought I remembered John telling Dr. Phil in a separate interview that he had used that flashlight that night. I'm searching you tube as I write this to see if I can find it.

      While it is speculative, if John used the flashlight to take Burke to bed, it had to be returned by someone to the kitchen by the time the police arrived the next day. After John put Burke to bed, it seems unlikely he'd use it to return to the kitchen, have a quick snack, then leave it there to go upstairs in the dark. Then again, I find it unusual to hear of anyone using flashlights at night to walk around their own house, unless there's a power outage.

      In any case, if the flashlight was the murder weapon (it did seem to fit perfectly into depression in the cranium caused by the initial blow), John would be identifying himelf as the last person having possession of it. It DOES make sense to parade about your own home using a flashlight
      if, soon after putting your son to bed you:

      1) enter your daughter's room without having to turn on hallway lights which might alert a half-asleep Patsy or Burke that someone is up and about.

      2) use it to sneak downstairs with your daughter allowing her a quick few bites of pineapple on the way to the basement.

      3) use it to go from the basement back to upstairs to fetch a pair of the cleanest pair of panties you can find which, much to your pleasant surprise, happen to be brand new and in an unopened package.

      4) sneak into your own bedroom while your wife is sleeping
      to retreive sterile towlettes (and latex gloves?).

      5) quickly turn off the flashlight after finding what you want in your wife's dresser drawers because she suddenly stirs as if she might be waking up.

      6) leave your bedroom without closing sqeaky dresser drawers that further risk waking up your wife.

      7) return downstairs to begin staging a kidnapping, leaving some room perhaps, for unstaging a "staging a kidnapping" attempt gone wrong. (This may sound far-fetched even to Doc, but I'm beginning to believe John's immediate fear was his wife, not the police. Afterall, smashing that basement window too much and too obviously might compel Patsy to further snoop around the basement and find JonBenet. If I were him, I'd rather have Patsy believe the intruder was someone aquainted with the family who had gotten a hold of
      a key to enter the house.)

      8) wipe off the flashlight using your last towlette which, along with the gloves and/or other incriminating evidence, you dispose of the next day during a mysterious hour long abscence from the home.

      After leaving the flashlight on the counter in the kitchen,
      if I were John, I'd take 30 minutes if needed to blindly yet quietly navigate myself back upstairs to sneak back into bed next to Patsy.

      "Get some rest, John. You're going to need it.... Victory! SBTC."

      More like, saved by the flashlight you used to kill your daughter?

      Mike G.

      Delete
    6. I think PR's chemo, syringes, wipes etc. were in JAR's bathroom because PR was using that bathroom when she previously recovered from cancer/treatment, not her bathroom on 3rd floor. But not sure.

      Also, jmo but breaking glass sound might be mistaken for metal hitting ground so late at night.

      Delete
    7. I was only outlining a possible JDI scenario. God knows how many we've heard from people who believe PDI or BDI or, if JDI, how Patsy and Burke were necessarily part of a "coverup".

      Where PR kept her stuff, is a minor point relative to the overall theory. (What is JAR's bathroom anyway?) The "sound" of the glass hitting the ground supports any JDI theory so I don't know why you even bring that up? Sound could wake up Patsy; a blasted out window all over the floor could also cause her to instinctively check out the rest of the basement, or even pick up what might have been at the time an unusually "heavy" (body-containing?) suitcase. If sound was John's only concern, there were other ways around that....put a blanket on the floor.

      Mike G

      Delete
    8. My post was just for clarification purposes: John Andrew's bedroom/bathroom (JAR) was adjacent/next to Jonbenet's room, and PR's chemo items (I think) were located in JAR's bathroom on 2nd floor, not her 3rd floor. I wasn't responding/disputing/addressing your JDI theory, just pointing out that I think PR's chemo items were not on the 3rd floor bathroom. Same goes for broken glass and sound(s) neighbors allegedly heard that night.

      Delete
  44. I am currently on the fence about which Ramsey did it. I have changed my mind several times and can't seem to stop reading every bit of evidence/documentation i can find. The newest item of confusion is a photo that clearly shows that Patsy's side of the bed looks untouched. Any thoughts or comments anyone ??? Doc ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My question is, how does anyone know which side of the bed was Patsy's? The only information I've found about whose side of the bed was whose, came from JR's 1997 BPD interview. He says:

      JR: The alarm is a clock radio which is on my side of the bed, which is the north side, left as you face the bed.

      http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

      Looking at the online photo of the Ramsey's bed, the left side appears to still be made. According to JR, the left side was his side. I don't know why people claim that Patsy's side that was still made, or how they even know which side was hers.

      Delete
    2. That photo sent me on a similar hunt about a year ago, and I found that same quote and came to the same conclusion - yet periodically someone continues to insist it was Patsy's side that was made - a good example of Doc's oft-repeated confirmation bias.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Hi HKH - would you give be able to give me a link to the photo you are looking at please? I think I might be looking at a different one maybe? http://www.acandyrose.com/047parentsbedroom.jpg The south side has the fireplace, and the north side is nearest the stairs. I can't really tell if PR's side is made or unmade, but JR's side does look more messed up to me in this one. The police or others might have mucked it up before this photo though I suppose.

      AMD

      Delete
  45. For those who believe PDI, consider again the segment between the 15 and 21 minute markers of the September JonBenet documentary. The "context"from which it is taken again relies on binding John and Patsy as strongly as two hydrogen atoms are bonded to oxygen in a molecule of water. That John just couldn't possibly have been molesting his daughter or have written the ransom note cannot logically be inferred from the evidence. But they can be emotionally inferred.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sorry...the link...

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNnvp5xPy6w

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  47. I found the following in my email but can't find it online, so I'm posting it here:

    Doc please notice and address the Daily Beast video mentioned by a poster above as to the broken window on the morning of the 26th and notice please the old cobwebs appearing to dangle from the jagged broken edges of the window, and not just dangling in the corner of the window frame. That indicates an "old break" does it not? If so, then John perhaps was not lying about having broken into the basement before (i.e. the previous summer), yet (since I totally agree with your JDI scenario) his "un-staging" of the window was his simply not mentioning the supposed "open window" that fateful morning, yet later saying that he closed the window, in order to at least try, after he was "cleared" of the ransom note's authorship, to create a possibility of an intruder coming through that window given Lou Smit's entering the fray and pushing that theory? So that leaves no need to have cleaned up glass that morning (indicated also by the fact that Fleet White actually found a shard or two and picked one up and put it on the window sill), such that John's frantic activities in the basement after the 911 call were more focused on the rest of the murderous mess down there? Can you expound in more detail and pick apart my view of this observation if I'm seeing the window breakage correctly? I know your theory is that it was probably a fresh break given the lengthy questioning of John and Patsy about the "lost key last summer break-in" of the basement by John, but if I'm seeing the video correctly, it throws me a bit. Thank you. This is only my second post on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those wisps of spider web can easily be misinterpreted, since we have a tendency to associate a spider web with something old. But spiders do not weave broken webs, they weave complete ones. If a complete or nearly complete web was found connecting pieces of broken glass in that window pane, then we'd have good reason to conclude it was an old break. But what we actually see are the remnants of a web that's been destroyed. Which tells me that a complete web was probably attached to that window when it was intact -- and was destroyed when it was broken. The remnants tell us nothing about when the window -- and the web -- were broken. But their presence is NOT evidence of an old break.

      I posted a still from that video, showing the condition of the broken window, on an earlier blog post, here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-scene-at-window.html

      The same post contains a discussion of the broken web and what it means.

      Delete
    2. Also, it's important to note that a shard of glass was found on top of the suitcase, and as the suitcase was out of place that morning, according to John, I can't see how a piece of glass from an old break can make it's way to the suitcase which had only recently been placed there.....

      Delete
    3. It does appear there are cobwebs emanating from those shards of glass. Still, someone had to clean up the shards of glass left on the floor whenever the window was broken. The maid didn't even recall it having been broken, and Patsy said she was rarely in that part of the basement. Also, an intruder-through-that-window theory, real or staged, still has to account for cobwebs remaining in areas where they would have likely been dislodged by an intruder climbing down and in, then later up and out, of the basement. Then, there's the difficulty of reaching through the broken portions of the glass to find the latch, unhinge it, and push the window open. Though DNA was still in its infancy, an intruder surely would not have wanted to leave traces of his or her own blood behind.

      I think the more John could lead first Patsy, and then later the police, into believing an intruder had entered by way of a key, the better chance he stood of keeping the body undiscovered until he had a chance to get rid of it. After eight long hours later, when Arndt asked him and Fleet to search the house again, he probably felt he had no choice but to find the body himself. It was obvious all the police, and all their friends, and even the media weren't going away. There would be no opportunity for him to be "alone" to finish his plan.

      The thing that bothers me about the window break being old is that we probably have to go back and reconsider Johns story about taking off his clothes to get into the house months earlier as being true. Does that bother you Doc?

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. We don't need to reconsider anything. The cobwebs are remnants from an old web that was destroyed when the glass was broken. There is no reason to see those remnants as evidence of an old break. If it was a complete web, that would be a different story, but it's not.

      Delete
  48. Doc and Ms. D:

    Points taken. That puts John's disrobing story back into its proper perspective.

    That brings us back to the flashlight. I couldn't find any transcripts or videos of interviews where John talks about using a flashlight to take his son to bed, either before or after Burke alledgedly snuck downstairs to play with his toy. Could Dr. Phil have been testing Burke on his own or do you think he (Dr. Phil) really was part of some "muddy-the-waters" scheme?

    Mike G

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

      Delete
    2. Phil McGraw has degrees in clinical, and forensic psychology, so I'd like to believe that even though John's lies might have fooled LE, along with the majority of the general public, Dr Phil doesn't buy any of them. In which case he was maybe testing Burke in order to elicit some information from him in the hope of putting the heat on John, and as Doc said, once Burke had "let the cat out of the bag", John had no choice but to go with it.....but this wasn't a mere snippet of inconsequential information - this puts the probable MURDER WEAPON in JOHN'S hands! An object he had denied having knowledge of for twenty years! If the implications of this are so glaringly obvious to arm chair detectives like us, surely anyone still working on the case has to look into this further.....I mean, isn't this *the* smoking gun? If that flashlight had no part in the events that took place that night and was genuinely used only to walk Burke back to bed, there is no logical reason whatsoever for John to have lied about it, and certainly no reason for him to have wiped it down, which appears to be the case.

      Delete
    3. I, too would like to think Dr Phil is not just an entertainment hack, Ms D, and that when he said to Burke "your father said . . ." he meant it literally. I think HKH'S earlier suggestion that perhaps Lin Wood insisted on some editorial control has merit, and John really did say something about using the flashlight but that was edited out, and Dr Phil's remark was some sort of compromise. And I agree it's a bombshell.
      CC

      Delete
    4. The flashlight in John's hands means something to us, but not to anyone else, I'm afraid. John is simply off the radar and no one involved in the investigation is considering the possibility of his direct involvement in this crime.

      Delete
    5. Totally agree Ms D and CC. Everyone was criticizing Dr Phil "covering for the Ramsey's" in the interviews, but when I gave it a second thought that flashlight comment by Dr Phil was a deliberate attempt to trip Burke up. He for sure doesn't believe IDI. I guess I could have been dreaming (this case can mess with your mind for sure) but I saw JR in an interview saying he used the flashlight to take BR to bed. I didn't watch all of Dr Phil, so it would have been in a clip, or somewhere else. Weird.

      Delete
    6. Just a side note-I've had the exact same maglite for years (the one with the black rubber coating) and that thing is a lethal weapon. Extremely heavy but easy to grip because of the rubber coating. Even a tap with it would cause a headache and a bump on the head!

      Delete
  49. Doc,

    The train room window is such a weird aspect of this crime. I agree that a complete cobweb would be on the outside of the window, but wouldn't the intruder break it when sticking his hand through the hole that John "broke?" Let's just entertain the fact that this foreign faction acrobat didn't disturb the dirt. Is this a possible explanation for the spiderweb? Sorry if I'm missing a very easy explanation, or my points are unintelligible, I'm typing this before going to sleep haha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I'm saying is that the remnants of cobweb seen in that video are not evidence of an old break. How they got that way is a different story, but it seems likely they got that way when the window was broken. There is no reason to assume an intruder reached through that break to open the window, as there was NO trace of intruder evidence found, either at that point or anywhere else.

      Delete
  50. But how do we know it is the SAME flashlight?? Even PR says in one of her LE interviews that BR alone had a few.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm the one who posted the query to Doc about the cobwebs on the jagged edges of the basement window. I agree completely with Doc's response and retract my postulation that the old web pieces hanging from the jagged edges indicate an old break. They don't. Frankly, a fresh break would leave a web on the outside of the window hanging in just the manner shown in the video, whether a hand went through to unlatch the window or not (in response to Zachary above). Red herring. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete