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

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

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

Sunday, November 6, 2016

More Handwriting Evidence - Part 3

Some more dubious comparisons from Cina Wong's analysis:

The oversized "c" in "crash course" and "contenders" in S1 closely matches the oversized "c" of "carefully" in line 2 of the QD.







Where is THIS coming from? The words "Crash Course" and "Contenders" are not "oversized," they are capitalized. The "c" in "carefully is not oversized, but roughly the same size as the other letters. And looks nothing like any of Patsy's "C"s.


*The I'M" in S7 "Ilrp." closely matches the "M" in Line I of "Mr." in the QD. [B]oth "M's" have pointed tops, and a [cu]rved ending stroke.
Here again, I'm at a loss to understand what Wong's is getting at. The "m" in "I'm" is lower case, the "M" in "Mr." is upper case. I don't see any pointed top in the former, and the manner in which the ending strokes curve is completely different in the two exemplars. To me they look totally different.

The "W" with the larger opening to the left, and a smaller opening to the right in the "Wlsll found in Si, page 2 line 5 ("would') and in S5 the word "rainbow" matches the "WI' in "Well of Line 2 of the QD.







As there is no word "well" on line 2 of the ransom note, I'm assuming she's referring to the word "We." And yes, the openings on the left are larger in all three examples. And that's about it. I see no other resemblance among any of these three "w"s -- certainly no match. 

And while we're at it, let's take a more careful look at "Rainbow Fish Players":


In a recent comment, someone using the "hat" "HKH" writes: 
Seeing an enlarged and clearer version of the word "Rainbow" from the photo caption almost makes me wonder, if Patsy, or another adult, used little dots to form each letter, for one of the kids to trace. Maybe BR or JB wanted to help write the caption. I used to do this all the time for my son when we did his spelling homework in kindergarten.
Can you see the dots? I never noticed that before, but looking more closely at the blowup, yes, I can see them quite clearly. I've sometimes wondered why those last three letters are harder to make out than the rest, and, looking more closely, it seems as though they're made up exclusively of dots which were never connected like the others. What this tells us is that "Rainbow Fish Players" was not actually written in any usual sense, and therefore cannot be used as an example of anyone's handwriting. Yet, time and again it crops up in the comparisons offered by Darnay Hoffman's "experts." You'd think that a real handwriting expert might use a magnifying glass from time to time and thus notice the many dots in this text, but this set of "experts" apparently failed to do that. The "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar crops up in their comparisons time after time, whenever it provides a handy opportunity to cherry pick a "match" between "Patsy's" handwriting and the ransom note.

For those of you curious to learn more about the findings of Darnay's other "experts," I refer you to the following blog posts, where similarly dubious examples of cherry picking and confirmation bias are exposed:

https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-4.html

https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-6-david.html

See also my response to the analysis of an influential independent "expert," called Cherokee:

https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-7-cherokee.html

In sum: Thanks to the seriously flawed efforts of all the various "experts" eager to demonstrate that Patsy Ramsey "must have" written the ransom note, the notion that Patsy's hand strongly resembles that of the ransom note is now widespread among followers of this case. As close examination of their work reveals, there is little to nothing to support such claims. I myself see little resemblance between any of her exemplars and anything in that note, aside from the sort of purely fortuitous similarities one would find between any two people using "manuscript" style.

69 comments:

  1. Not relevant to your new topic, but it blows my mind that we and all the other countless websleuths wouldn't be discussing this case with all its complexities if John weren't allowed to go AWOL for an hour.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the dots in the ink are from the ink "skipping" on a less than entirely smooth surface, or a pen going dry. Which would also explain the fading words at the end of "players".

    I remember reading long ago that the reason the handwriting was difficult to analyze was because a felt tipped pen or marker does not leave the same readable patterns, direction of stroke, etc., that a ballpoint pen does.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I understand it, the caption was printed just under a Polaroid photo, which would be a smooth surface. And a pen going dry doesn't produce a series of dots. Looks very much to me like what HKH suggested, a dotted outline most likely made by an adult, filled in, most likely, by a child -- either Burke or JonBenet, I presume. Hardly an example of anyone's handwriting.

      Delete
  3. Just watched "Who Killed Jon Benet", a Lifetime movie that aired last night. It was horrible and I didn't even finish watching it. Besides an awful script (based loosely on some known facts), the acting was terrible. But, following this lame, made for TV movie, was a one-hour documentary called "JB's Mother: Victim or Killer?", which did hold my attention for the hour it lasted.

    One thing that was brought up in this documentary was the touch DNA and the exoneration letter from former DA Mary Lacy that followed. They talked about how the touch DNA retrieved from the waistband of JB's pants matched the DNA found in the blood stain in her underwear and how this match proves that the touch DNA was not placed on JB's pants by some random person involved in the manufacturing of those pants. And that's why so many people believe that this DNA belongs to the killer and not anyone in the family or anyone else whose DNA was tested.

    Doc, I know you've talked about this in your blog and if you can just direct me to the post(s) that talk about this, I would be very interested in reading your take on it. Right now I find this match of the touch DNA and the DNA in the panties very compelling.

    Thanks. Love your blog. It's better than the best mystery novel on the shelves!

    Emma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the very nice complement. It's not a mystery novel, but maybe it IS better, because it's interactive. Have we created a new genre?

      If you do a search here on "DNA," you'll find a series of posts that deal with the DNA evidence. It's also covered in some detail in an appendix of my book.

      Delete
  4. "On the other hand, let's suppose Burke actually DID say "what did you find?". Seems to me that if he already knew what happened, according to the theory of the CBS investigation team, he would not have had any reason to ask such a question. So that could be considered evidence he was innocent, no?" -----DocG


    AnonymousNovember 6, 2016 at 6:05 PM

    True. But the BDIers here have been arguing Burke was put to bed unaware of how serious the injuries he inflicted on his sister were. Which raises another interesting question I've been meaning to ask you.

    If John went to trial, BDI might be a better alterative theory defense than an IDI theory. Yet by Wood representing both John and Burke, he strips himself of possibly his greatest weapon. Do you agree? If not, why? If you do agree, of the following possibilities, which one would you predict?

    1) John's position with respect to Burke is "united we stand, united we fall". He insists Wood stay on as his attorney and deploy only an IDI defense.

    2) Wood stays on with John, but drops Burke as a client. This leaves open the option which, if deployed, by all appearances effectively throws Burke under the bus.

    3) Wood retains Burke as a client and tells John he will no longer represent him.

    4) Wood drops both Burke and John as clients.

    5) Some other possibility I'm missing?

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my response on the previous thread.

      Delete
  5. If Burke did actually say "what did you find" I thought he might have overheard something about the ransom note, given the context. I don't think it would be evidence he was innocent, just that he might be innocent in regards to the staging (which I think he is).
    I guess his words could be interpreted in so many different ways that they are probably not useful evidence of anything except that BR was up and about that morning.
    Establishing that is important because it casts doubt on the credibility of the Ramseys' accounts of that morning. Plus it throws the spotlight back on BR and what he might know.
    Ah well, they don't have to convince me. I'd want that evidence if I was on a jury, but for me there's already enough that reveals all three were talking rubbish about that morning.

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'd want that evidence if I was on a jury, but for me there's already enough that reveals all three were talking rubbish about that morning."

      All the more reason to get the only Ramsey for whom there is sufficient circumstantial evidence indicted. A public as divided as the posters on this site seem to be over who did it, will never exert enough public relations pressure on the BPD or D.A.'s office to arrest John and let the chips fall where they may. People seem to be more concerned about being "right" about their respective theories than in cooperating with each other for the sake of justice. This case is a microcosm of the very age we live in where 52 percent consensus on any topic constitutes a "super majority", albeit one incapable of breaking gridlocks, good or bad.

      And that's not good.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by, "cooperating with each other for the sake of justice?"

      Delete
    3. Since most of us agree that this was an inside job, regardless of who actually "pulled the trigger," and that John is guilty on some level, either as the murderer or an accomplice to covering for the murderer, then it makes sense for all of us to unite in an effort to see him put on trial. Now since the only way he can be put on trial is if he is accused of first degree murder, and as, I would insist, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to indict him on probable cause, then hopefully we can all agree that this would be an effective tactic in resolving this case, one way or another.

      If in fact Burke or Patsy killed JonBenet, then there would be considerable pressure placed on John to spill the beans and tell the world what he knows about what actually happened that night. If he does that, and his story is convincing, then he'd be let off the hook, but at least the mystery would be resolved and the guilty party identified.

      And if he is unable to do that convincingly then he must be held fully responsible for the crime and would justifiably be found guilty. For those of us convinced there was no intruder, this is a course of action that hopefully we could all agree on, no? The alternative would be for John to go free for the rest of his life with no obligation to explain what happened and take responsibility.

      Delete
    4. Burke was told to stay upstairs while the Ramseys staged the intruder situation and they did so very quietly so Burke didn't know what was going on.

      Patsy calls 911 and this is the first time she can now be loud, she must be loud, and Burke comes downstairs. The 911 call is all about finding the ransom note, over and over, so this is the first time Burke hears about it and asks "What did you find"?

      Tony

      Delete
    5. Oh, OK, Doc. That makes sense. However, how do we unite to see he is put on trial? Is public pressure, from people who aren't influential in Boulder politics, really enough to convince a DA to try someone?

      Delete
    6. No it isn't. Realistically there is nothing we can do -- unless maybe one of us has some connections with someone in the investigation or the media who could be induced to move this case along.

      Delete
  6. All of the "c"s begin with that downward stroke, the little straight line on the top, that is missing from a manuscript "c". Compare size of the "c" in "carefully" to the "e". The "c" is approximately twice the size of the "e". So yes, I would say a match in the way it was formed and written, beginning with a short downward stroke, instead of just half an "o".

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's impossible to tell whether the "c" in carefully begins with a downward stroke, as it abuts on the following "a". What you see as a downward stroke could also be seen as part of that manuscript "a". But even if it does begin with a downward stroke, how does that make it a "match," when it looks so different from Patsy's "C"s in just about every other way?

      And yes, that "C" is larger than the other letters, but only in its horizontal extent. Vertically it is roughly the same height as the others. Whereas Patsy's "C"s are all larger than the other letters in their vertical extent. Once again, there is no match.

      Delete
  7. Anon: "People seem to be more concerned about being "right" about their respective theories than in cooperating with each other for the sake of justice." My observation exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Michelle dresbold also found the same similarities in Patsy's handwriting to the note, although cina went to court saying she had stolen her analysis, (don't think it went anywhere). Cina actually said that patsy made a primitive attempt to disguise her hand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Doc,

    What's your opinion on John in interviews? I'm JDI, but must say he's an impressive and convincing actor. He comes across as very credible, believable, and authentic. He knows how to play the victim card quite well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. On the surface he certainly seems sincere, at least as far as I can tell, and also sympathetic. I'd be very relieved if I were proven wrong and it turns out this horrible murder had been the work of some intruder, as John does come across as an innocent victim. But from where I sit, all the evidence points away from an intruder and squarely toward John. Any doubts I may have had were dispelled by his lies regarding the basement window.

      Delete
  10. I agree with Docs post (a few above) regarding putting John on trial.

    We all agree that he is guilty in some way. In fact, even though I firmly believe BDI, I actually think John is still more guilty than Burke.

    So I would love to see him indicted on probable cause and then just see what happens from there!

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inq ...I'm interesting in hearing your thoughts. I'm pretty new to the case and have only been researching it for the past two months (a newbie). At first I couldn't believe that a family member could do this, and then I was leaning toward JDI, and now more toward BDI. I'm not 100% on who did what, but I think its undeniable the family was involved. I've read several books, and as much as I can find on the web. P.S. did you read Thomas Millers website...he talks about LHP -- http://www.tommillerlaw.com/jonbenet-ramsey/chapter-2-the-little-miss-jonbenet-murder-pageant/

      Danni

      Delete
  12. Doc, not sure how we all unite to see John go to trial. Interested in hearing your thoughts are on that.

    I just spent the day reading Thomas Miller's website on the JBR case, and OMG I thought the politics in Boulder were bad after reading Kolar and Thomas' books, but Miller really tells a story ...probably because he's an attorney (also was a PI and handwriting expert). As you know he firmly believes Patsy wrote the RN and there was no intruder. He had some pointers on analyzing handwriting that were helpful too (i.e. mirror image of letters when switching from right to left hand -- I actually tried this and it is true for me, especially for certain letters) (Doc, I know you go into great detail about his analysis elsewhere in this blog).

    Danni

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's an excerpt from my review of Miller's feeble attempt to tie Patsy to the ransom note, based on his "mirror image" theory:

      Get it? This entire paragraph is about the fact that "the first cup of [Patsy's] 'W' is squeezed and appears much narrower than in the second cup," while, "In the QD, the opposite occurs as the second cup is squeezed and is thus narrower than the first. This opposite squeezing of the cups occurs as the opposite hand reverses a tendency of the strong hand . . ."

      What, you may ask, is his point? Well, if you assume the note is written with the left hand (which he makes no effort to determine, but which might actually be the case), and Patsy's letter was written with the right hand; and if you assume Patsy wrote both documents (which is, of course, what Miller is trying to establish), then it makes sense to understand the reversal in the relative size of these two "cups" as due to her reversal of hands. But this makes sense only if we already presume ahead of time that Patsy wrote both documents.

      It tells us nothing whatever about whether that is actually the case, it only offers a theory regarding how certain spacings can get reversed when the opposite hand is used. Miller makes no effort to claim the two letters actually look alike, which obviously they don't. However, someone reading that paragraph casually and without much effort at critical thinking might get the impression that his observations regarding these two very different exemplars are actually telling us something of relevance. Clearly they are not.

      For my entire post, see https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-4.html

      Delete
    2. This post seems have gotten lost, so I'll post it here myself:

      Inq ...I'm interesting in hearing your thoughts. I'm pretty new to the case and have only been researching it for the past two months (a newbie). At first I couldn't believe that a family member could do this, and then I was leaning toward JDI, and now more toward BDI. I'm not 100% on who did what, but I think its undeniable the family was involved. I've read several books, and as much as I can find on the web. P.S. did you read Thomas Millers website...he talks about LHP -- http://www.tommillerlaw.com/jonbenet-ramsey/chapter-2-the-little-miss-jonbenet-murder-pageant/

      Danni

      Delete
    3. Inquisitive is newbie too, only been here since tv shows in Sept.

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

      Delete
  13. The investigators, LE and DAs have really done themselves and the public a disservice in the way they have presented this case. No wonder the public are confused. The divisions and conflicting theories have created such an advantage for the defence attorneys.

    The first day was a well-known debacle, but it didn't really get any better. I don't doubt that lots of excellent investigative work has gone on, but it has been undermined regularly by some of the people involved.

    You've got Det. Arndt in a video sharing her 'aha' moment during an intense moment of eye contact with JR when it suddenly all made sense, implying that that JR did it . You've got an emotional Steve Thomas, pushed to the edge in frustration, saying PR did it in a rage over bed-wetting. Kolar et al. reckon BR's the one, complete with TV show re-enactments. Lou Smit's doing videos of himself diving through basement windows to show it could easily be an intruder.

    DA Mary Lacy issues an exoneration based on the DNA evidence. Well, that settles that doesn't it... But wait! Current DA Stan Garnett says Lacy's decision is "legally insignificant" and has "no meaning".

    I think the public are often just reflecting back the conflicting theories that have been presented to them by those officially involved. It's been a mess and plays right into the defence's hands.

    The DNA is also a big obstacle for any prosecution of the Ramseys. I think Mark Beckner hits the nail on the head with this answer in his Reddit AMA (copied below). In sum, the DNA has to be explained first, or you will never get past reasonable doubt. Maybe in time this will happen. Here's Beckner's take on it:
    Question: Do you agree that this is not a DNA case?
    Answer: I certainly wish we could have gone to trial. However, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to overcome when you have some foreign DNA that cannot be explained. If we were to find the source of this trace DNA, we would have an explanation, regardless of which way it pointed. When you are talking about small traces of DNA, there can be several explanations and various ways it could have been transferred. Without identifying who it belongs to, we can only theorize the source of the DNA and how it got there. Without this trace DNA, I believe the prosecutors would have moved forward. It is interesting that apparently the grand jury jurors did not find the DNA reason enough not to find probable cause. Personally, I believe if the source is ever found, we will discover that there is an explanation other than belonging to the murderer. There are others, such as ex-DA Mary Lacy who believe the DNA has to be that of the murderer.
    Source: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10346-Mark-Beckner%92s-Q-amp-A-February-21-22-2015

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
  14. The handwriting of the ransom note was very sloppy and shaky and looked a lot like PRs left-handed sample I saw on another blog, and also like a side-by-side comparison shown on one of the TV shows. If you take PRs right handed sample, then imagine she wrote the note with her left hand, it seems the most likely. I'm not a handwriting expert, just an opinion based on the overall appearance, not the individual letters. Same size, slant, plus the bizarre text makes me think she wrote it. My individual letters are a little different every time I write something. Anyway, getting really irritated by all these so-called DNA experts still saying the DNA profile from the panties that matches a profile on the waistband on the long johns means that's the killer. These ridiculous shows don't even mention that there are also 5 other unknown DNA profiles on the panties, one a female. Since it seems JR was wearing a brand new pair of panties just out of the package ( way too big and purchased for someone else) isn't it possible this unknown DNA was transferred from the new panties to the old long johns when they were pulled on over the panties? Has anyone mentioned this? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Did they test every single inch of the panties and long johns? I don't think so, there could be 20 or 30 more DNA profiles on them that have nothing to do with the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't evaluate handwriting similarities based on something flashed briefly on a TV screen. I put together a comparison of my own, and to me her left hand sample looks completely different from the note. See https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html

      The only similarity I can see is that both are sloppy. Patsy's because she is obviously struggling with her left hand -- and the note writer's because he or she is either a sloppy writer or else trying to disguise his or her normal style.

      Delete
    2. You're right, just looks more like PR than JR to me. Could be either one.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it could be either one of them, so you have to ask yourself, "who had more to gain by writing the note?"
      As Patsy called 911, rendering the instructions contained in the note redundant - all of which, not incidentally, if followed would have bought *John* time along with a convenient alibi should he require one - that leaves John as the most logical author of the note. The analysis of the hand writing will not reveal the killer, for the reasons Doc has outlined many times before, but the *contents* of the note and the seemingly (on the surface, but not so when you dig a little deeper) bizarre instructions always lead us back to John - along with the fact that only an innocent party would make the call to 911, thus making the note an incriminating piece of physical evidence that wasn't even necessary to this particular plan (calling LE with body still in house)

      Delete
  15. Just sitting here wondering how many unknown DNA profiles are on the shirt I'm wearing after a day of normal activity. Touch DNA is a wonderful advance, but let's hope it not going to be used to exonerate criminals. It's all over us and our clothes, and has to be used in the context of common sense. It's not blood, saliva, sweat, semen, or any other bodily fluid-just skin cells. If you already have a suspect and other evidence, and you want to connect them with a victim, it's helpful. Other than that, not so much. I believe the Ramseys formed a pact not to take responsibility for this and that will never change. It seems they keep dropping hints as the years go by, because they know nothing will come of it (oh yeah, we did use the flashlight that night, oh yeah, I did go downstairs after everyone went to bed, I think I left the front door unlocked, I might have had some pineapple that night, not sure, etc etc) I think Fleet and Priscilla White are pretty sure what happened and they told the GJ--but we will never be privy to it. Being a BDI I hope he feels some remorse and is not just enjoying the game he's playing-most people weren't comfortable with his smiling, laughing and vacant, glassy eyes when talking about his sisters death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right about the DNA. But wrong about Burke. If he had killed his sister, accidentally or not, there is no way his parents would have covered for him in such an extreme and dangerous manner.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you about the cover up, which is why I have finally concluded that Burke hit, strangled and penetrated JBR with a stick. After that, the parents covered it up. To me, it's the only logical conclusion. I've done a lot of research and the so-called sophisticated garotte was nothing more than a broken stick with some cord made into a loop and a simple slip knot. I saw on one site that the maid said she had seen a similar object in the basement months before. You posted an excellent expert opinion that JBR had been sexually abused and I totally believed it-but I believe it was BR and JBR experimenting, probably consensually. I don't believe Patsy hit JBR in a fit of anger, since she had never even spanked her kids before, and I don't believe JR was a pedophile and covered his crime in such an "extreme and dangerous manner." There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that. I believe if we had the medical records of both Burke and JonBenet, the phone records, and the testimony the GJ heard we would know what happened, and I also believe that's why the Whites still won't say anything. You believe JR and BR that the golf club hit in the face was an accident, I believe the friend who said PR told her it was on purpose. You believe the feces on JBRs bed and Christmas candy could have been hers, I don't. You believe the pineapple in JBRs intestines and the bowl on the table with PRs and BRs fingerprints on it is insignificant, I don't. You believe that BR now admitting that he did go downstairs after everyone was in bed is insignificant, I don't. You believe a 9 year old boy isn't capable of this scenario, but you are the one who's wrong. Having said all that, I have no proof, just my opinion.

      Delete
    3. If BR did what you think he did, then he would certainly NOT have "admitted" going downstairs that night. A 9 year old is capable of accidentally (or deliberately) bashing his sister in the head, for sure. But only a psychopath would have penetrated her vagina and then constructed such a horrible device to strangle her with. If you don't see evidence of child abuse from John's record, then what do you see in Burke's record that's consistent with psychopathic behavior?

      Delete
    4. I find it very puzzling that many here have no problem with the idea of Burke being a sexual deviant/psychopath, but scoff at the notion that John could ever have possibly molested/murdered his daughter, even though we see fathers kill their children far more frequently than we see nine year olds cold bloodedly murder their siblings - using home made torture devices, no less!
      I cannot wrap my head around the idea that people actually believe a child is a more likely suspect than the murder victim's father, even with the evidence of sexual abuse along with a note clearly not penned by a nine year old. I suspect this is one of many reasons the case is still unsolved after twenty years - everyone insists on looking for the most convoluted explanations when the simple answer is right under their noses, but thanks to hand writing "experts", along with people who can't accept that wealthy, white men sometimes kill their children, the real culprit will probably never be held accountable. A damn tragedy.

      Go with the simplest explanation - the murderer wrote the ransom note, he did not write it as a means to cover up the actions of someone else. If Burke sexually abused, bashed, tortured and strangled his sister whilst his parents lay upstairs in bed, this is one SERIOUSLY MESSED UP kid.....I can't see the Ramseys covering for his psychopathic, homicidal behaviour (they did love their daughter, after all), and still being able to sleep at night knowing there is a psycho killer just feet away from their bedroom - yikes!
      I also cannot see how, at the tender age of nine years old, he never once cracked. Kids can't help but spill the beans, even if inadvertently - it's inevitable.

      Delete
  16. Since I brought up the subject of "cooperating with each other for the sake of justice" which Doc subsequently and, as always, eloquently elaborated upon, I have an idea. Perhaps Doc could write
    a letter petitioning the appropriate authority(s) in Colorado urging that John be arrested on the very grounds he outlined above.

    1) There is "more than enough circumstantial evidence to indict (John Ramsey) on probable cause for first (or second?) degree murder."

    2) "If in fact Burke or Patsy killed JonBenet, then there would be considerable pressure placed on John to spill the beans and tell the world what he knows about what actually happened that night."

    The letter would speak for Doc and for all of us signing as petitioners. It would have to be impressive, not from a numbers standpoint (unless I'm underestimating how many would sign it), but by virtue of the due diligence each signer took to become familiar with all the facts and evidence in the case, and how they all fit together to support theories, heretofore championed by the media, former investigaters, and notable crime authors, without success--success as measured by the number of indictments brought--zero.

    To that end, each petitioner could include a very small bio of themself and how he or she became interested in the case. Doc, of course, would have final and absolute authority to edit, embellish, or otherwise omit, each bio as sees fit.

    The letter would also introduce, and be attached to, "Ruled In", for two obvious reasons: 1) the JDI theory is most convincing when Doc's book is read in its entirety, and 2) it was developed by, and belongs to, Doc and Doc alone. If, by virtue of this project, he reaps additional financial profits from increased sales of his book, that should be of interest to no one.

    I hope this idea doesn't sound ludicrous, particularly to you Doc, but also to those of you familiar with the criminal justice system. Even if it sounds plausible, I'm sure it would require a mix of modications and much fine tuning by Doc and his inner circle before it could ever be implemented. If, on the other hand, it only serves to trigger discussions leading to a better idea that is ultimately implemented and successful, that's all that counts.

    Mike G.






    ReplyDelete
  17. You can start a petition at a site called change.org without involving Doc directly, Mike.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks CC. I'll look into it.

      Mike

      Delete
  18. CC - I like that idea. I just looked at the web site and did a quick search to see if anyone else started a petition for JB, and didn't see anything. I like the fact that journalists can access the site to pick up stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can start a petition if you like, but I can tell you in advance that it won't get anywhere. It takes some digging into the details of this case before John's role becomes evident. To most people following the case, John is off the radar because he was "ruled out" as writer of the note. And believe me it's not easy to convince all those Patsy lovers out there that he should be ruled back in. They've made up their minds, based on all the nonsense provided by Darnay's dubious team of "experts" and will not easily be swayed. And then of course you have all those convinced the Ramseys have been a victim of a witch hunt and the killer is still "out there" waiting for his next shot.

      Everyone associated with the investigation seems to have swallowed John's window breakin story with no reservations.

      So, unless you can induce the skeptics to actually do some reading, either her or in my book, you'll get nowhere.

      Delete
  19. Need to put pressure on Colorado State representatives in Washington, DC. -- Boulder officials won't do anything unless they start taking some heat from the top.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What makes this case particularly frustrating is the habit of so many to make decisions based on what they see on the surface, ignoring the complexities that might be lurking below. It's so easy to see "the Ramseys" staging a phony kidnapping with a phony ransom note and so hard, at least for most, to wonder what they thought they'd have to gain by writing such a note and then immediately calling the police on themselves.

      It's so easy to take "the Ramseys" at their word when they claim, as in their book, that calling 911 was John's idea. It's not so easy to dig into the evidence to find that interview with Patsy and John where she very clearly states that this was HER idea -- and he makes no attempt to correct her.

      It's easy to take John's word when he claims he broke that window months ago, but it takes a bit of digging to actually locate the transcript and find all the places where he literally has no idea what he did or how or why, can't recall how he lost his keys, whether he took a taxi home or not, why he couldn't have borrowed a key from his neighbor or even whether the window had ever been repaired.

      Hardly anyone has the patience to look that deeply into the reality beneath the surface and apply some very basic logic or even common sense to what they might find. Call it ineptness, call it laziness, but sadly it's all too common.

      Delete
    2. "So, unless you can induce the skeptics to actually do some reading, either here or in my book, you'll get nowhere."

      Forgive me Doc, but I sense from your frustration with this case, and from your certainty that starting a petition "won't get anywhere" that that which you would have us try,
      you have tried yourself many times over with no success.

      I can't help but believe at this point that this is somehow related to your desiring and/or needing to remain anonymous. I have been working , and will continue to work on, convincing the skeptics one at a time. But if by "skeptics" you mean select people with the power and authority to make things happen faster, you must understand that even Bob Woodward met face to face with, and knew the identity of, Deep Throat.

      Mike G.







      Delete
    3. I have in fact contacted several people with some degree of clout, Mike, and as you've guessed, I've had no success. It's not only that I haven't been able to convince them, but I haven't even been able to enter into a dialogue with them. In every case I've contacted them under my real name, however. They know who I am, but that doesn't seem to matter.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does look like stun gun marks but the company that manufactures the stun gun that Lou Smit said was used, said there is no way their product made those marks. Also, the points didn't match up from the pictures that I saw, but that doesn't mean there aren't other brands out there that might match. You would think the police would have checked that out.

      I believe PR or JR identified some scratches around the door as being there previously. There was some mention of some scratches around a window (I think in JR's transcript) and he said he didn't recognize those.

      I will agree with you that if it was an intruder, it was definitely someone that knew the Ramseys, didn't care much for John, and someone familiar with the house. But who would be so angry with John (or Patsy) that they would (brutally)kill an innocent child?

      A real kidnapper would have to be someone the child wouldn't be able to identify (assuming they were going to return the child after they got the money).

      Danni

      Delete
    2. IN MY OPINION , NO INTRUDER, looking at Photos of The Ramsey house (exterior) near a street , neighbours near by, , street lights? had been an intruder, burglar or killer must need a vehicle ? (getaway car)no other cars driving by ? no Police patrolling this area? a wealthy man with no alarm system in house or surveillance cameras ,to protect family , JR claims it to be "a safe community"apparently he didn't need any , protection ,a millionaire does not break into his house because he lost his key and again if so, he did not have alarm set , had he broken in his home the alarm would have activated and Police would have arrived in minutes , I am quite aware because we have an alarm system ,(unless it wasn't installed in basement, who knows? he is such a great liar , love the way he hesitates and awwuum while being asks questions , and interrupts Patsy hardly ever gave her a chance to answer questions , a photo at Patsy's funeral he was also SMILING. he is the "Devil in disguise "the Wolf In Sheep's clothing" no doubt about that ,

      Delete
    3. excuse me forgot to mention John claims Alarm systems are "too loud" that's the beauty of such a protection its suppose to be loud ! love reading his interrogation and watching him answering questions in his defamation "hum and haw" sweats , drinks water (dry mouth) from all the Paxil?

      Delete
  21. The stun gun theory is the absolutely most ridiculous part of this case IMO. It's so illogical. There's no way a stun gun would have subdued Jonbenet. It's already risky enough to do everything "they" did without being heard, but Jonbenet would scream bloody murder. Even if one of the phantom intruders covered her mouth it most certainly would have been a noisy scene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, we do not all agree that the investigation into possible intruders was "scant", not by a long shot.
      CC

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, but I also don't take Thomas's theory that seriously. This theory has been debunked by Kolar and company. The marks don't look similar to stun gun marks. Why didn't your phantom intruders actually take their target? Why didn't they remove their note when the kidnapping failed?

      Delete
    2. inquisitive: if you look again at basement Crime photo's you will notice many "Craft" items on walls , if Patsy was into crafts she would need a "Glue Gun" I have one, plug it in and in a short time becomes very hot..! jmo , I do NOT believe Patsy used it on JonBenet, if it was used ??? I believe it was discarded with rest of items used in the crime,

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

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Inq, this is from the Dr. Phil interview. You can click the link below, which includes a clip from the show. The video cuts from the Dr. Phil interview, to BR's childhood interview w/ Detective Schuler. Schuler asks him about the bat, but the video cuts back to the Dr. Phil interview before BR responds to Schuler's questions. BR does tell Dr. Phil that it was his baseball bat.

    From the Dr. Phil interview:

    Dr. Phil asks Burke, “There was a flashlight and a baseball bat both found at the house, and investigators thought one of those could have caused JonBenet’s head wound. Did they show you either of those items?”

    Burke responds, “They showed me a picture of the baseball bat, like, on the side of the house or something ... That was my baseball bat that I would normally like leave it out on the patio.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jonbenet-ramsey-brother-burke-interrogation-tapes-reveal_us_57d37c18e4b03d2d459ab08f

    ReplyDelete
  25. I thought the coroner said abrasions or contusions? If so, it could have been bruising from the murderer grabbing/pressing JBR while abusing her. JBR also had shoulder abrasion/contusion.

    Also, while determining the object used to hit JonBenet is significant, I think the use of the garrote is important. Jmo, but it seems like there is something symbolic/or/fetish about the use of garrote and JBR's neck. JBR seemed to wear a lot of chokers/scarves in pageant videos, so the use of garrote seems more significant than just method for murder/staging. Like a fetish for whoever murdered her. It's bizarre and disturbing regardless of reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It IS bizarre, whether IDI, JDI, RDI or BDI, and I'm sure - like the RN - it holds a lot of significance in regards to cracking the case.

      Delete
  26. If you believe JDI and accept that it was premeditated eight days in advance, everything falls into place. John read Mindhunter; Douglas made the point in the first chapter that a murder reflects the killer's personality, so John set out to create a foreign faction that was the antithesis of his cool CEO persona, through the suggestion of beheading in the RN and the use of a garrote. The sexual abuse at or near time of death was intended to cover up past abuse - unsuccessfully, as it happens.

    Not bizarre, but a clever attempt at misdirection.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. on the morning of the 26th while driving to Whites Burke expected to see JonBenet there as well , JR told him ... JonBenet is in heaven , how did he know that? he found her @1:30 pm. odd

      Delete
    2. I think you'll find that John told Burke that JonBenet was "in heaven" after he and Patsy went to The Whites directly after finding her body. John, as far as I know, never accompanied Burke to the Whites that morning, so couldn't have told him "while driving" there. Do you have a reliable source? There's a lot of misinformation regarding the details of the case, so take a lot of what you read with a grain of salt.

      Delete
    3. MsD: just searched JR's interrogation 1997 , JR: "well when the Whites came Burke was asleep we decided it was best to go away to Whites house and I don't know what time that was ,I got him up ,I think as I recall and Fl**t took him over, I think to their house" no mention if he said JonBenet was in heaven , sorry looks like my last comment was incorrect , lol

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's really quite simple:

    A kidnapper doesn't leave behind the victim they're asking a ransom for.
    A pedophile doesn't leave behind a phony ransom note. Nor does an intruder - known to the family or not - risk detection by hanging around for hours.

    Thus, one can say with almost absolute certainty that this crime was not a botched kidnapping, nor was it the act of a pedophile intruder.
    Look at the facts and avoid the temptation to create your own narrative based on bias, red herrings, unfounded theories and assumptions, Inquisitive.
    Stick with the note, along with the lies John told about the basement window, and the fact there is zero evidence an intruder ever entered the house, and you're left with only three possible suspects, two of which are relatively easy to eliminate based on logic alone.

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

    ReplyDelete