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 9, 2016

More Handwriting Evidence -- Part 4:Tom Miller

Thanks to a link provided by an alert commenter calling herself "Danni," I recently came across an extensive document by attorney slash handwriting "expert" Tom Miller, outlining his view of the Ramsey case. For someone interested in learning more about what transpired among the various members of the investigation team, the Ramsey legal team and the media, Miller's document provides some fascinating information and insights. Much of his text is taken up by the story of how he became implicated in an attempt by an editor of The Globe to illegally purchase a copy of the ransom note. Interesting, but beside the point as far as I'm concerned. More relevant is the story about how he got hold of some handwriting exemplars attributed to Patsy. These had originally been acquired, according to him, by the same Globe editor, under mysterious circumstances. Apparently, Miller is the one who passed them on to Darnay Hoffman, who sent them to his team of handwriting "experts" with the express purpose of "proving" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. In no uncertain terms, Miller makes clear his conviction that Patsy did indeed write that note. On what basis?

To learn more, let's proceed to the report Miller sent to Darnay, as posted at the Acandyrose website. I've already produced an evaluation of Miller's report on this blog, but at this point I find it necessary to go into more detail.


He begins with this "Synopsis":
Based upon available exemplars compared to the purported "ransom" note in the JonBenét Ramsey murder, the handwriting is probably that of Patsy Ramsey.
The "available exemplars," with links appearing at the end of the report, are a subset of those used by Cina Wong: Patsy's "letter to Miss Kit," a badge containing the text "Hello, I'm Marilyn Monroe," a photo caption reading "This is me when I was first born. That's my mom and the doctor," two other photo captions not reproduced, a poster reading "RAMSEY XMAS," and the "Rainbow Fish Players" caption discussed in my previous post. NB: Patsy's letter to Miss Kit is in cursive, thus not really comparable to the note, printed in manuscript; the Marilyn Monroe badge is an example of Patsy's calligraphy, not her writing; the text of the photo caption implies that it was written by Burke, though his mother might have taken on that role for the purpose -- did anyone ever bother to check?; the other two captions might also have been penned by Burke; the RAMSEY XMAS poster, like the badge, is drawn, not written; and the Rainbow Fish Players caption looks like it was formed originally with dots, and filled in, most likely, by Burke or JonBenet (see previous post). Taken as a whole, this is an extremely questionable assortment of odds and ends, hardly representative of anyone's writing, even if we assume it was all actually produced by Patsy.

Yet, according to Miller:
Fortunately, The Globe had given me “nothing but the best” in terms of handwriting specimens with which to compare Patsy’s handwriting to the cryptic letters their lawyers had released.
Returning to the Synopsis, note the phrase "probably that of Patsy Ramsey." On his website, he writes of his "conviction" that she wrote it, referring to "a truth I had been certain of for months: that, yes, Patsy had written the ransom note." I'm wondering when his conclusion morphed from "probably" to "certain."

Miller begins the analysis proper with a discussion of "Disguised Writing," noting that,
In this analysis, the writer did not successfully identify her own traits for elimination and the unconscious, strongly formed habits of the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey remain evident.
A disguised writing typically contains evidence of the conflicting and persistent habits of the natural handwriting and the effort to suppress those habits while trying to letter with the opposite hand. Irregularities and inconsistencies will appear in the form of hesitations, possible variations of slant, grotesque letter formations, patching up of letters and slowly drawn strokes. All of these elements are found in the ransom note.
Well, yes, I'd agree, more or less, though I'm not sure about the "opposite hand," as there is no way to be certain on that score. We do seem to find at least most of these elements in the ransom note. But what does this have to do with Patsy?

The next section is titled "Shape."
In this examination, shape provides numerous examples of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting in the ransom note. Take, for example, the "R" in Ramsey in the salutation of the note. The note's horizontal loop at the top of the "R" begins with an overhang to the left of the down stroke that forms the vertical stroke at the left. This same overhang is found in E-6 in the second "Ramsey." 
Miller's E-6 is the same RAMSEY XMAS poster already discussed in my critique of Cina Wong's analysis. What he calls the "second Ramsey" is the small "Ramsey" seen in the lower right of the poster, the only one with overhang:


And here, once again, is the "Ramsey" from the ransom note:

And, as I've already pointed out with reference to Cina Wong's claim, the two overhangs were formed in a completely different manner, the first as an extension of the left vertical, the second as an extension of the loop on the upper right. Nor do the two letters resemble one another in any other respect.

Continuing:
Further on in the letter on page two, the word "Speaking" contains a capital "S". That letter could virtually be superimposed over the capital "S" in "RAMSEY" in E-6. Here, the established habit of a non-curved initiation of the "S" which is then slightly retraced as it moves downward to complete the lower curve and the completion of the letter is obvious.
Let's take a look:


I can see that the upper portion of the "S" in "Speaking" looks like a straight line, and it does look a bit as though there is some slight overlap as the writer's hand continues downward to complete the letter. And if you look really closely you might see some evidence of a similar overlap in the word "RAMSEY" on the right, though that's not at all clear from the reproduction provided at the website. But the latter was drawn in block lettering or possibly painted, while the former was written in manuscript style. And the letters are nowhere near identical, so the superimposition suggested by Miller would not be as impressive as he seems to think, as the similarity is far from "obvious." Moreover, the "S" in XMAS from the same poster was formed as one continuous curve, with no straight segment. And I don't see similar "s"s in the other exemplars attributed to Patsy, so it's hard to see this as an "established habit."

Compare Miller's example with the "s" in "Ramsey" from John's court document:


Looks to me like the upper segment of this "s" is also a straight line. We see similar examples in other "s"s from the same document, in the words "installer," discrepancy," "separate," "occassions" (sic), "settle," and "is":

We also see many examples of "s"s in the ransom note that have rounded tops. So, if you simply must have a match, then, one way or the other, you'll be sure to find one.

What follows is one of the most notorious examples of confirmation bias I've ever come across. Since I covered this segment of Miller's "analysis" in a previous post, I hope everyone will forgive me if I repeat myself here:

Miller's following paragraph is a masterpiece of presumption, confusion and obfuscation: 
The effort to disguise the writing and the failure to do so occurs in the upper case "W" at the beginning of the QD in the word "We" in the sentence "We are a group of individuals . . . " when compared to E- 1 in the upper case "W" in the word "Wednesday." In Patsy Ramsey's strong hand, the first cup of the "W" is squeezed and appears much narrower than in the second cup. 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 much like a person making a check mark with the strong hand will reverse that same mark if made with the opposite hand. It creates a mirroring, or a reversal, of the direction of the checkmark. It represents a failure of the writer to recognize her own handwriting characteristics and to avoid those characteristics while using the opposite hand. 
Where to begin? Well, first of all, Miller is already, on the basis of no analysis whatsoever, presuming the ransom note is written with the "opposite hand," which would, in Patsy's case, be the left hand. So when he refers, in the fourth line, to Patsy's "strong hand," he is referring to her right hand, and the "W" in question is from the "Wednesday" on the upper right in the letter to Miss Kit: 


He is comparing this letter to the "W" in "We are a group of individuals" from the first page of the ransom note:


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. 

The following paragraph merely enumerates various instances of similar tendencies, found in both Patsy's exemplars and the note, to squeeze one or the other "cups" of the letter "w." Again, such observations are meaningful only if we already know ahead of time that Patsy wrote both the exemplars and the note. If it tells us anything more than that, Miller doesn't say. Nevertheless, he proceeds as though he has somehow presented evidence implicating Patsy -- as though the mere fact that the first "cup" of her "w"s tends to be narrower than the second proves she must have written the note with her opposite hand. He doesn't even seem to notice that this entire analysis is premised on the prior assumption that Patsy must have written the ransom note. Yet the only evidence he provides is the relative cup size of certain letters. He doesn't even attempt to match them. Not surprising, because there are no matches. Not even the relative sizes of the cups match -- unless one conveniently assumes that some sort of mirror image reversal is at work, which, again, remains to be proven. 

Miller's next segment relates to "Size." And as should be clear, it's impossible to estimate letter size based on xerox copies, so his conclusion is a bit of a fudge:
Size therefore matches in the QD and the exemplars, but must be qualified due to the degree of estimation required to determine the natural size of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting.
Next comes "Slant":
As discussed earlier, variations of slant occur in a disguised writing. In the QD these variations are noted more consistently as the note begins, for instance in the "ll" of "carefully" in the sentence, "Listen carefully." The printed slant for Patsy Ramsey in E-2 through E-7 is vertical, known as an A slant. That is the general slant found in the QD, especially as the writing continues onto pages two and three. It represents, again, another category for comparison where Patsy Ramsey is probably the author of the QD.
What exactly is he saying here? According to Miller, most of Patsy's exemplars are "vertical," i.e. lacking in slant. Sorry, Tom, but that's not how it looks to me. We see a very clear right slant in the Letter to Miss Kit, as well as the Marilyn Monroe badge, and the inscription "This [is] me when I was first born," though the letters in "Rainbow Fish Players" look vertical. The ransom note contains letters that are back slanted and right slanted, though most are, in fact, vertical. 

Regardless. Even if we agree that his description is accurate, in what universe does the fact that two documents exhibit the same slant tell us that both were written by the same person? Yes, "it represents a valid category for comparison," but by no stretch of the imagination does it even suggest that "Patsy Ramsey is probably the author of the QD."

In his discussion of "Baseline," Miller notes a tendency in the ransom note "to often place some letters above the printed rule. This occurs in the word "withdraw" on page one in the sentence, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 . . . " It occurs naturally without a printed rule in E-7 in the word "Fish."

Ah, yes. Once again the "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar. And yes, unlike anything we find anywhere else in any of the exemplars attributed to Patsy, we see an erratic layout, where certain letters hover above the baseline. As I've already made clear, this examplar is completely different from any of the others and was probably traced by a child from a series of dots produced by an adult. We've already seen Patsy's version of the ransom note, so let's take a look at her London Letter:


See any letters hovering above the printed rule? Neither do I. Oh, what the heck, let's take another look at her "ransom note" just to be sure:


And no, sorry, but no cigar. Not one letter written "above the printed rule."

Under "Continuity," Miller notes the unusually wide spacing between words in the ransom note. This is indeed a very interesting, and unusual, feature of this document.
In the case of the QD, spacing of greater than a letter is noted between most words. This is also the case in E-1, E-3, E-4 and E-5.
We have no copies of E-4 and E-5, but E-3 ("This [is] me when I was first born") does indeed exhibit wide spacing between words. E-1, the letter to Miss Kit, is a mixed bag in this respect, with some wide and some normal spacings. If we look above, however, to the London Letter and Patsy's version of the ransom note, the spacings look normal. Were they deliberately altered to look different from those in the note? Let's check with the following historic exemplar:

And yes, the spacings in the lower portion do look a bit on the wide side. Could this be significant? It's hard to say without examining additional historic exemplars, but here at least we can, for the first time, concede that Miller could have a point.
As to connecting strokes between letters, the QD frequently squeezes letters together to a point at which they abut each other. This trait is minimally observed in E-2, but is seen more extensively [as] found in E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, and E-7.
And yes, we can see certain letters that abut one another in the exemplars referred to -- but so what? In order for such a trait to be meaningful we would need statistics regarding the frequency with which letters abut in a large random sample of writings in a similar style from an array of different sources. In itself, such an observation means little, especially, as I'd assume, this is an extremely common trait.

In Miller's last two categories, "Arrangement" and "Speed and Pressure," his comments are brief and his comparisons vague. He sees some evidence that the ransom note was written slowly and suggets that this could be due to use of the opposite hand. But for all his emphasis on this factor, nowhere does he offer any real evidence that the ransom note was written in that manner.

Under OPINION, Miller summarizes the results of his findings:
Based upon the exemplars available, the handwriting of the "ransom" note and that of Patsy Ramsey have numerous and significant areas of comparison. Shape of letters is one of the more telling areas of comparison, but this category would not substantiate an opinion on its own. The additional categories of size, slant, baseline, continuity and arrangement add significantly to the opinion that Patsy Ramsey wrote the "ransom" note.
I must say I'm more than a little outraged that anyone could come to such a conclusion based on the very feeble and unconvincing comparisons provided in Miller's report, as demonstrated above. Aside from his observations regarding word to word spacing, which might possibly have some significance, literally nothing else in this lengthy report reflects anything other than confirmation bias. If you doubt me, then by all means go back to the beginning of this post and read it again.

169 comments:

  1. Curious of everyone's thoughts on Lifetime's Jonbenet movie?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doc, I agree with your point that highlighting a similarity is not enough. How common is that particular trait in the population? Ok, so they find twenty similarities or forty or whatever, how common is that? Is it unusual? We need to be given some context by the analysts. And it is just as important that they point out the differences.

    I would be more impressed with handwriting analysts if they went into it "blind" as to the sample sources, i.e., eliminate the bias. Computer analysis would be best, but I'm not sure where technology is up to on this.

    If it has to be done manually, get 50 or a 100 or whatever number of people to provide printed handwriting samples. Throw in printed samples from JR and PR. The analyst doesn't know who wrote what. Their task is to pick out the one sample that is the closest match to the ransom note. Does the analyst pick out a Ramsey sample?...or my elderly aunt lol?!

    I would be a bit more convinced that there is a solid methodology underlying their approach, and that they are not just picking all the similarities and ignoring the differences.

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, well said, and I completely agree. But what makes Miller's analysis especially disturbing are the "similarities" he claims to have found, which are, in almost all cases, totally unconvincing or, as in the "opposite hand" case, irrelevant.

      Delete
  3. The ransom note had the letter a written like you see it in the type of this sentence, with a loop at the top. All of the Patsy examples that I have seen up until this showing of the London Letter had a normal letter a. If Patsy wrote the London Letter, then clearly she occasionally uses a very non-standard letter a.

    The London Letter points to Patsy.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your evaluation is the exact opposite of Steve Thomas's. He claimed that use of "manuscript a" (with the loop at the top) was a common feature of Patsy's writing until after the murder, at which time she stopped using it -- supposedly because it was such a common feature of the ransom note. As the London Letter demonstrates, however, he was wrong. There are 9 instances of manuscript a in that letter, proving that she continued to use it even after JBR's murder. It was a common feature of her writing style both before and after the crime.

      Now if you look carefully at the ransom note you'll see that most of the manuscript a's were written originally as cursive, with the loop added later -- suggesting that this was NOT a common feature of the writer's hand, but added as part of the deception.

      So no, the London Letter most definitely does not point to Patsy. And if you look carefully you'll see that Patsy's writing style looks nothing like that of the ransom note. This doesn't mean she could not have written it. But it does demonstrate that her writing style is very different from that of the note.

      Delete
    2. I'll add that, between you and Steve Thomas, Patsy can do no right. If the London Letter contained no manuscript a's, then his claim that she omitted them deliberately because she wrote the note might be true. But since such letters do appear in that document, then according to you, this is proof she wrote the note after all.

      Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

      Delete
  4. November 9, 2016 at 4:36 PM said "Doc, I agree with your point that highlighting a similarity is not enough. How common is that particular trait in the population? Ok, so they find twenty similarities or forty or whatever, how common is that? Is it unusual? We need to be given some context by the analysts. And it is just as important that they point out the differences"

    Some younger readers might not realize, but back in the 1950s and 60s, and prior, handwriting/penmanship was a gradable subject at school. The entire class, indeed in a state funded public school, the entire school, was taught the same method, and encouraged to make your writing look exactly like the textbook examples.

    So it is no surprise that I can state very truthfully that the examples of Patsy's handwriting look remarkably like my own, since we are close in age, and the same method of handwriting was taught nationwide.

    We used what was called The Palmer method. Later, my younger child was taught what was called the D'Nealian method.

    My youngest, who cares? They did not dwell on handwriting, only keyboarding.

    My point - the approximate age and sex of the writer can be relatively closely determined by the style, in this day and age where handwriting is no longer taught in public schools. And unless there were 50 or 100 people in that house that JonBenet was found in, the number of people who write that way, or how common the method, is not relevant. Only the style of the people in that house, because there was no intruder.

    Examples:
    http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/202352-what-handwriting-did-you-learn-in-school/page-3

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we learned the Palmer method also. But the Palmer method was cursive, i.e., long hand. We see this in Patsy's letter to Miss Kit. But Patsy also wrote in "manuscript" style, which is closer to printing. John also writes in both cursive and manuscript.

      Delete
  5. And Doc, the Ramsey Xmas poster proves what? since every other example shows an "R" made by Patsy virtually identical to the ransom note. And danged those pesky manuscript "a"s that pop up indiscriminately in her writing examples. Now that is something distinctive, and not taught in any handwriting method that I know of.

    My intuition/guess - the "R" in Ramsey Xmas was meant to look like a candy cane.

    And in my estimation, Miller is correct. The "W"s are mirror images. I thought it was known that Patsy claimed to be ambidextrous, which would lead one to suspect that the left hand may have been used in the ransom note.

    That said, this is a "soft" science. But the ransom note is the most important piece of evidence, so deserves meticulous analysis.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point regarding the Xmas poster related to Miller's interpretation, demonstrating how eager he was to implicate Patsy, regardless of the fact that those two letters were formed in a completely different manner.

      Otherwise, you are correct, because Patsy's capital "R"s, as seen in her other exemplars, are not formed as they were in that poster. But there is also very little resemblance between any of her capital R's and the capital R in the ransom note.

      As far as the manuscript a's are concerned, see my previous comment, above.

      And yes, Miller is correct in that Patsy's w's tend to be mirror images of those in the note -- but so what? There is nothing in Miller's analysis that links Patsy's hand to that of the note, and also nothing that proves it was written with the left hand -- that's just a theory.

      So yes, IF the note was written with the left hand, and IF Patsy wrote the note, then Miller's analysis would help us see the relation between her left and right hand writing styles. But nothing Miller says actually demonstrates any of that. And in fact, Patsy's W's look completely different from those in the note. So how is this evidence that she wrote it?

      Delete
  6. The substance of the ransom note along with behaviors of individuals that morning or even during interviews/depositions may be telling too. Not sure how far experts can get in fully identifying writer if the handwriting disguised. I would think analyzing ransom note should be combined with the actual behaviors of individuals the morning of 12/26 and specifics of ransom note. That morning I don't think PR moved about the house and she did follow LE direction; PR did not find JBR's body; PR made call to LE. PR made call to friends and I think indicated in Larry King interview she was scared or needed support from friends? She even paused/fumbled a bit talking about it. Did Burke also say he was scared and didn't get out of bed that morning? Linda Arndt also indicated she was uneasy after JBR's body was found. Did any one ever really dig deeper into why PR, BR, Arndt or any one else expressed fear? It could be generally anxiety because child missing/killer loose. But I think it could be a primal response to actual threat in the home even if it's on a subconscious level. If a household member/close friend had murdered a child in the home, I think there would be something "off" about the person right after the murder. I wonder if any one who expressed fear that morning was able to articulate it more to LE etc. I wonder how a brutal child killer/molester would behave hours after murder if in the same house as LE and family/friends. Behaviorally wouldn't they seem off? Idk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was touched upon in the Lifetime movie.

      And this is something that I wish everyone would pay closer attention to.

      In a true psychotic breakdown, dissociation takes place. I would describe this as almost a "trance" state, almost another personality taking over.

      The cops could not get close to Patsy. She managed to make JonBenet's kidnapping "all about Patsy", and what it was doing "to her".

      Of interest, too, the prize she won for the dramatic reading where she played all the characters in a multi-character reading. Won a prize for her acting ability.

      I don't think that is confirmation bias on my part.

      What about the complete control and domination she exercised over JonBenet's life with the pageant stuff?

      My opinion, but I know I'm not alone on this - the pageant thing was an indicator that Patsy was abusive toward JonBenet.

      GS



      Delete
    2. Doc, how do you know that the hooks on the manuscript "a"s were added later?

      I think you're implying someone was trying to imitate Patsy's writing. With a little practice, its very easy to write an "a" like that in one stroke. Faster, too. You think John did that to make it look like Patsy's?

      But see, John never won any "acting" prizes.

      GS

      Delete
    3. Correction- Not sure if it was Larry King interview or other interview/transcript like D.Hoffman? when Patsy discussed calling her friends morning of 12/26.

      Delete
    4. Not sure what interview this is from Darnay Hoffman/Patsy Ramsey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl5Ll3sLFs8 @14:38; PR indicates it was instinctive to call her friends because it was a stressful, note she didn't look to her husband for support. Jmo, but I think PR instinctively called LE as well and I think she was instinctively fearful. Of what/who specifically not sure. I didn't watch the Lifetime movie, so can't speak to what was presented.

      Delete
    5. Well, I think she instinctively would have followed the instructions in the ransom note, if she didn't already know that JonBenet was dead.

      GS

      Delete
    6. The added loops on the a's are not difficult to spot if you look carefully. That has been noted by others, not just me. But no, I don't think he was trying to make it look like Patsy wrote it. I think he did that purely as a means of disguising his own hand. Or else to confuse the examiners with some game playing. We have no way of knowing.

      You say she would have followed the instructions in the note if she were innocent. I say she would have followed the instructions in the note if she'd been the one to write it. Why go to all that trouble to over and over warn against calling the police and then call them anyhow? Makes no sense.

      And yes, innocent people do often call the police in kidnap situations, regardless of the warnings. As I recall, that's what the experts recommend.

      Delete
    7. "The cops could not get close to Patsy."

      Where did you get that information. It's not the impression I had. John was the one who went missing for over an hour.

      "She managed to make JonBenet's kidnapping "all about Patsy", and what it was doing "to her"."

      Sorry, but I somehow missed that. Do you have some specific examples of her doing that?

      Delete
    8. "I think she was instinctively fearful."

      Very possibly. John may have been acting strangely, and at that point she might have been afraid of him. And if she'd called 911 against his wishes, he might well have been extremely angry with her.

      Delete
    9. In the wee hrs of the 26th he wrote and disguised PR's penmanship? NO WAY! it would have taken hour's to compose disguise such a letter I believe this had to be written in the privacy of his office or at another location , he loved Burke and JBR was annoying and she was in the way, had to do something to get rid of her , but ( I cant get caught) , he had this well planned , the Ransom-Note(letter) is what saved him and he thinks he had accomplished a (perfect crime' he allowed PR to call 911 because he knew where the body was located ,IMO he tried to pin it on her , she fooled him by calling nine ,one one, he tried "pin" it on her he is the "Devil in disguised " OH well... we will put all this behind us when it is proven who committed this heinous crime , and DNA will prove it , wait and see....... odd, on the r-note "we have your Daughter" and according to R Note JBR was not in house she had been abducted (kidnapped )so no reason to search house, was JR imagining he could smell decomposition , and that is why he complied with Linda A's suggestion to search the basement ? had I been innocent , I would have said NO! I am not going to the basement , this child may have been beheaded, you'd need to be strong to come across your dead child's body ,it didn't affect JR because he knew she was there in wine cellar he (unlatched ) the door, he carried her remains up stairs and appeared to be "cordial"

      Delete
    10. Wait a second, are you saying that JR loved BR, but he (JR) thought that JBR was annoying and in the way, so he killed her?

      Delete
    11. absolutely not !! Theory ,speculation and opinions , who knows who and why this beautiful innocent child was murdered ,hopefully DNA will give us the answer ,

      Delete
    12. ".....he loved Burke and JBR was annoying and she was in the way, had to do something to get rid of her , but ( I cant get caught) , he had this well planned...."

      Actually, yes that's exactly what you're saying, Anonymous.....why back pedal when it's there in black and white?

      Delete
    13. "Well, I think she instinctively would have followed the instructions in the ransom note, if she didn't already know that JonBenet was dead."

      I wonder many times we've gone over this now? :)

      Patsy said that she did not read past the first few lines. Shockingly - she panicked once she read that unknown persons were holding her daughter for ransom -
      thus she called 911 before getting to the more gruesome details. Perhaps John should have cut to the chase immediately, and this whole case would have played out differently.....

      Delete
  7. DocG, I'm not a handwriting expert, but I've been an elementary school teacher for over 30 years. I've seen many different styles of writing and letter formation during that time. I haven't seen any posts mentioning the way John forms his lowercase letter "b" and the way the ransom note "b" is formed. I've only been able to find one small sample of John's writing, but in it the "b " is formed with the stem coming down and the circular section coming up from the bottom to circle back around and connect to the stem. The RN "b" is formed the same way. Patsy's "b" is formed in the more "correct" method of drawing the stem down, then tracing back up the stem about a third of the way and then branching out to the right to make the "ball" section. This seems very significant to me, since I would certainly use such a "tell" to help identify no-name papers from students. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting. That's a subtle distinction, but it could be meaningful. Not all the b's in the ransom note are formed that way but at a first glance it looks like most are. And yes, I'd think that's a fairly unusual way of forming that letter. Could definitely be a "tell." Thanks.

      Delete
  8. Doc, the fact that Patsy was surrounded by her friends when the police arrived was brought out in the documentary following the Lifetime movie. Part of the time curled into a fetal position on the couch, running to the bathroom, flushing the toilet. And that the police felt that she had erected a barrier of people around her.

    I'm not a handwriting expert, either; but I do have some art background, and to me, its impossible to say that the hooks on the "a"s were added later. Especially using a "Sharpie" pen.

    As I said, that type of an "a" is easy to do, and naturally you will have a place where the pen will hit twice, at the start and at the finish of the letter - where the downward stroke of the "a" is initially made will be met by the pen again as the final tail of the "a" is made.

    The pen will rest there twice, making a heavier ink blot right there. Could be taken as the hook being added as a second thought. But not necessarily. It would look the same if made the way I would do it without ever lifting the pen.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police are trained to be aggressive in such situations. If they had trouble getting to Patsy, that was their fault, not hers. And if she were such a great actress why would she be reluctant to talk with the police?

      To see what I mean about the a's you'll need a copy of the note clear enough so you can zoom in without producing pixillated distortions. You can begin with the a in "carefully" right at the start. Note how the hook at the top isn't a continuation of any of the other lines, but looks stuck on. Same with the a in "faction." Also in the word "have." The a in "account" is very odd, with a small vertical line at the top rather than a loop. And the loop in "adequate" (actually a short line) also looks stuck on. It's especially clear in the a in "anyone," on the second page, where you can very clearly see that it was originally formed as a cursive, with the loop tacked on later. Same with the a in "stray dog."

      You don't see anything remotely like that in any of Patsy's manuscript a's, where the loop is a continuation of the original line. Patsy's a's are typically formed in a single curved stroke, while many of the ransom note a's are formed in two strokes or more.

      And, regardless of whether or not the a's in the note are "authentic," it's hard to see how you could identify Patsy simply because both she and the note writer use manuscript "a." And that's doubly true because we are dealing with a note intended to deceive. So anything odd could either be something typical of the writer's style OR something atypical used to put us off the track.

      Delete
  9. The documentary also showed a clip of Patsy as Miss West Virginia and said that the police felt that Patsy's experience in "acting" played a part in the scene at the house. And again with the CNN interview.

    The Bonita Papers verify the scenario:

    " Arriving almost immediately after the first officers on scene were John and Barbara Fernie, close friends of both John and Patsy. They were soon joined by Fleet and Priscilla White, with whom the Ramsey family had spent the evening of Christmas day just hours before the disappearance of their daughter. Patsy confirmed that she had called both the Whites and the Ferniest after notifying the police. Bill and Heather Cox, guests staying at the Whites’ home, also appeared. Barbara Fernie called the Ramsey’s pastor, Rev. Rol Haberstock from St. John’s Presbyterian Church, and asked him to come.

    According to the family friends, the hysterical Patsy was alternating between noncoherent praying to God and Jesus and screaming, " They have my baby.” At one point Patsy screamed at John, “You have to give them the money and get out baby back.” John, attempting to comfort his wife, responded, “We’ll get her back. She'll be okay.''

    Victim advocates also sat with Patsy, mentioned elsewhere.

    Her behavior is described as "hysterical". And there is your "research" term.

    http://www.re-newsit.com/p/the-bonita-papers-are-unedited-notes-of.html

    GS

    ReplyDelete
  10. Quite a few commenters thought that the Lifetime documentary on Patsy exonerated her. I took it as presenting all sides and not just one. It also verified to me that I am not alone in thinking that Patsy exhibited behavior typical of "dissociation".

    There are other personality traits of Patsy's mentioned in the Bonita Papers that point to how she climbed the social ladder, cutting off previous friends, if you had one little conflict with her, she cut you off without explanation, after supposedly being a close friend. She seemed to follow the money. Was up to her eyebrows in projects at school, the pageants, the holidays. Always heading something up. Always in the middle of it. Had had cancer and chemotherapy, which could physically effect brain function.

    She is the one who fits a "profile". Burke, an eye-witness, described her as "psycho" that morning.

    This is my opinion in answer to the question "I wonder how a brutal child killer/molester would behave hours after murder if in the same house as LE and family/friends. Behaviorally wouldn't they seem off? Idk"

    And what I thought of the Lifetime movie. Poor acting, yes. Ronnie Cox was better as John in "Perfect Murder Perfect Town". But brought out some important points for reconsideration.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke did not describe PR as "psycho" that morning. He said, "I just heard mom, like, going psycho." You're taking his statement out of context.

      Delete
    2. "According to the family friends, the hysterical Patsy was alternating between noncoherent praying to God and Jesus and screaming, " They have my baby.” At one point Patsy screamed at John, “You have to give them the money and get out baby back.” John, attempting to comfort his wife, responded, “We’ll get her back. She'll be okay.''

      Victim advocates also sat with Patsy, mentioned elsewhere.

      Her behavior is described as "hysterical"."

      How many other mothers whose children have been kidnapped would be hysterical, do you think? I know I certainly would be. If I was innocent, and my child had genuinely been kidnapped with the threat of being beheaded, I too would be "curled up in the fetal position" and be demanding my husband pay the ransom money. If I had something to do with the phony kidnapping, however, I very much doubt I would bother with asking my husband to pay a kidnapper that doesn't exist.

      Delete
    3. Again I ask you, GS, how would you expect a mother to react knowing her child has been abducted by people willing to behead her? If she was less than hysterical, you'd say it was obvious evidence of her guilt. I agree with Doc - to those of you who have made up your minds in regards to Patsy's involvement - she's "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't"! If anyone's behaviour should be viewed as suspicious, it is John's. He allegedly made jokes with LE when they were instructing him on what to say when the "kidnapper's" call came through, he disappeared for an hour and a half after explicitly being told to stay put, he disturbed JB's body after being told "not to touch anything", he didn't feel that an open basement window was important enough to tell LE about, even though he had been asked about possible points of entry (!), he tries to organize a flight out of Colorado within twenty minutes of learning of his daughter's murder, he denies any knowledge of a flashlight he now admits to using that night (one wonders why a flashlight would be necessary at all when the house lights were working just fine......unless, of course, you're doing something that requires a veil of darkness).

      Instead of resorting to theories that only work with a heavy dose of confirmation bias, why not just look at the facts instead? Start with them, then work your way to the answer - not the other way around.

      Delete
  11. The Bonita Papers are highly suspect. They are, allegedly, notes taken by a legal secretary, Bonita Sauer, in meetings her boss held with members of the BPD. Her intention was to eventually write a book, but the notes were stolen by her nephew and sold to a tabloid. Sauer herself has subsequently disavowed the accuracy of their contents, as have others, and they usually appear with a cautionary caveat.


    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure the Bonita Papers were highly suspect when first published, but I notice that the timeline pretty much follows what is today an established timeline.

      Every thing first published about this case was at first deemed "highly suspect", but as time has gone by, lots of early information was proven to be fairly accurate.

      I thought the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town had quite a bit of this same information, though it has been years since I read it.

      Delete
  12. "You say she would have followed the instructions in the note if she were innocent. I say she would have followed the instructions in the note if she'd been the one to write it. Why go to all that trouble to over and over warn against calling the police and then call them anyhow? Makes no sense."

    She wrote the note to look like a botched kidnapping. And to throw the spotlight onto John. It was addressed to him.

    John known for making up stories? No, but Patsy was, with her Journalism degree.

    In your theory, John sits right down and writes a letter to himself. If you have ever tried that, its both funny and difficult.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Larry King Live
      The Ramseys Discuss `The Death of Innocence'
      Aired March 28, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET

      THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

      LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, John and Patsy Ramsey return live, taking your calls, next here on LARRY KING LIVE.

      The Ramseys return. They're with us the full hour. Joining us in about 20 minutes will be Greta Van Susteren, our CNN legal analyst and the co-host of "BURDEN OF PROOF," and Lin Wood. He is John and Patsy Ramsey's civil attorney, retained in the early part of last year, and he was involved in the successful settlement suit against "The Star."

      Today, guys, in an interview aired this morning, Alex Hunter, the DA, said he would encourage both of you to knock on the front door of the police station, answer all questions, completely cooperate.

      JOHN RAMSEY, AUTHOR, "THE DEATH OF INNOCENCE": I think he also said...

      KING: He also said he's not going to run for re-election.

      J. RAMSEY: Well yes, I knew that. And I think he also said that, as far as he knew, we have answered all the questions.

      KING: Why would he say that?

      J. RAMSEY: Well, I don't know. What we need to know is, what do they want? They can't just say we haven't cooperated and not tell us what they want. Cooperation is a two-way street. We've done everything they've asked. We want to continue to do everything that they need to find the killer of our daughter, but it's a two-way street. We, a couple of months ago, asked to meet with the police and the district attorney's staff. We had a number of experts that had looked at this case for several months. We wanted to present their findings, their opinions, discuss it, bring information to the solution of the crime, and it was refused.

      Michael Kane, the...

      KING: Did he tell you why?

      J. RAMSEY: We don't know. Michael Kane, the special prosecution brought in by the governor, said they had enough experts in Colorado, didn't need to hear from us. It's got to be a two-way street. We can't have that kind of arrogance and get anywhere. Egos have got to be put in the drawer. KING: And last night, you said you'd be happily willing to submit to a lie detector test. There is a national association of experts -- members of the association. Would you agree if they picked out someone to come and represent...

      J. RAMSEY: All we said is we want it to be fair and independent, and we want the results to be made public.

      KING: So not someone chosen by you, not someone chosen by the police, someone independent of that, from whenever they find it, and you want the results public?

      J. RAMSEY: Absolutely.

      PATSY RAMSEY, AUTHOR, "DEATH OF INNOCENCE": Absolutely.

      J. RAMSEY: And if the police have confidence in the lie detector test, it seems to me that if we pass it, they ought to say we're cleared.

      KING: Some notes I want to follow-up on. You said last night that the police did not call the FBI, and you were very unhappy that they weren't called in, with the kidnapping note before she was even found.

      Why didn't you call the FBI?

      J. RAMSEY: It didn't occur to me. I wish I had. I wish I had called the FBI first. But we were in such a state of panic, the best we could do is to call 911. That's instinctive, I guess.

      P. RAMSEY: You've been brought up your entire life to dial 911.

      J. RAMSEY: Absolutely. Absolutely I should have done that.

      KING: Patsy, what do you make of a ransom note? Why would a kidnapper write a ransom note when they've killed someone and left that someone in the house? What would be the point of a ransom note, do you think?

      P. RAMSEY: I don't know, but I hope to ask the killer one of these days.

      KING: Can you guess?

      P. RAMSEY: I think it was a ruse to throw us off.

      http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/28/lkl.00.html

      Delete
    2. "John known for making up stories? No, but Patsy was, with her Journalism degree.

      In your theory, John sits right down and writes a letter to himself. If you have ever tried that, its both funny and difficult."

      So essentially, you're saying that John couldn't be the author of the note based on the fact he was not much of a story teller, and because the ransom note was addressed to himself.....is that the crux of your statement?

      Delete
    3. No. I'm just saying not logical. It was not John who was "known" for these talents, or had experience with them. It was Patsy who had writing ability. It was Patsy who could play three different characters in one dramatic reading.

      Write a letter to yourself. You have to be able to "split off".

      GS

      Delete
    4. What "talents" are you referring to?
      The author of the note appears to be so unimaginative that he resorts to using worn out cliches and quotes from well known movies.....along with using the same word four times in the space of one sentence (which, anyone with experience in journalism would be very unlikely to do).
      I don't see the writer of the note possessing any extraordinary writing talents, quite the contrary in fact.

      As far as your notion of it being difficult to write a letter to yourself is concerned, if John killed his daughter and wanted to stage a phony kidnapping, what choice did he have? There had to be a ransom note, he had to write it, and it had to be addressed to him - or he and Patsy, at the very least - and as he required total control over the situation, it makes sense he would address the note only to himself (further proof it was John who wrote the letter, in my opinion, because if Patsy wrote it, she'd be damn sure she addressed it to both of them, or else she looks as guilty as hell). The very fact that the note started out with "Mr Ramsey", then became "John" actually may prove your point that he *wasn't* able to "split off" (I'm not familiar with the term in this context, but I think I know what you mean), further indicating it was he alone who wrote the note.

      Delete
  13. Relevant portion from above link:

    KING: Patsy, what do you make of a ransom note? Why would a kidnapper write a ransom note when they've killed someone and left that someone in the house? What would be the point of a ransom note, do you think?

    P. RAMSEY: I don't know, but I hope to ask the killer one of these days.

    KING: Can you guess?

    P. RAMSEY: I think it was a ruse to throw us off.

    ***
    I don't think PR would opine that the ransom note was a ruse if she was in on the murder, but jmo/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the ransom note was a ruse, wasn't it? She just stated a fact.

      GS

      Delete
    2. PR stated in her opinion the ransom note was a ruse. Did JR hold that position? I don't know, but I thought JR indicated he thought it was a botched kidnapping and the writer of the ransom note did not disguise their writing because they had misspelled words, etc. I would say the murder hasn't been solved yet and there has been no confession yet. So unless PR was making the statement as an admission and knew it was a ruse because she wrote it or was part of writing it, then it was her opinion that the ransom note was a ruse.

      Delete
    3. Well, obviously it wasn't a confession, that's absurd. In any case, she said the purpose was "to throw us off."

      She may have suspected that the intention was not to kidnap, but to assault JonBenet and that the intruder was a pedophile and not a kidnapper. If that were the case, then the note would have been a ruse to make it look like a kidnap attempt and misdirect the police away from any pedophiles they might have suspected. Only problem is that such a person would have prepared his note in advance, just as a real kidnapper would; and prepared a printed rather than a hand written note; and kept his note short and simple.

      Of course, Patsy wasn't a sleuth so such things probably never occurred to her.

      Delete
  14. GS, you said...

    "What about the complete control and domination she exercised over JonBenet's life with the pageant stuff?"

    "My opinion, but I know I'm not alone on this - the pageant thing was an indicator that Patsy was abusive toward JonBenet."

    I'm sorry, but I think you're reaching here. Most parents/mothers exercise complete control over their six year old childrens' lives. Pageants were just one aspect of JB's life. While pageants are not something that I would have any interest in for my own child, when my daughter was younger, I enrolled her in activities (ballet, gymnastics, etc.) that I thought she might enjoy. Granted, my goal was to find something fun for her to do, not to explore future career options. However, plenty of parents start grooming their children at a young age for a chance in the spotlight--child actors, models, musicians, future Olympic hopefuls. Pursuing any of these such things seriously is pretty intense, and often starts at a young age due to parental influence or pressure. It's not something I would choose for my child, but I wouldn't automatically label it abusive either.

    When you say the pageants were an indicator that PR was abusive, do you mean because PR may have forced JB to participate, even though JB might have not necessarily wanted to? Or do you mean the pageants indicate PR was physically, sexually, emotionally abusive towards JB?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean that it seems that Patsy did not think of JonBenet as an individual, but an extension of herself. I have heard psychologists say that living vicariously through one's child, to the point that their every move is critiqued, hovering over them, bleaching her hair, the provocative clothing, is a form of abuse. Instead of allowing JonBenet to be a normal little girl with free time to do what she wanted to do. The effect has worn off now, but people were shocked when the first videos of the pageants were aired. Like you, I would never do this to my children, and didn't. No, not "automatically abusive". But the expression is taken in a different context when the child is found dead the way she was.

      GS

      Delete
    2. And to elaborate, you have surely seen atleast one of the many programs concerning child actors. Rarely do they not suffer some kind of damage, if not actual physical abuse.

      There are notable exceptions. I think of Ron Howard as one. But he is an exception. Many, many child actors suffered, and to this day suffer from memories of their childhood.

      GS

      Delete
    3. "But the expression is taken in a different context when the child is found dead the way she was."

      Indeed.....and the way she was found suggests her murderer may have had a fetish for erotic asphyxiation, which points to an adult male, certainly not mommy.

      JonBenet was not a child actor, so moot point right there.....and she had only been on the pageant circuit for a relatively short time, and from all accounts, she loved doing them, so I don't see the pageants as "abuse" at all.

      Delete
    4. Merely responding to HKH's comment -"However, plenty of parents start grooming their children at a young age for a chance in the spotlight--child actors, models, musicians, future Olympic hopefuls".

      Doesn't matter in what role, my point is valid. And being a stage mother has been brought up multiple times by experts examining this case, of potentially abusive behavior.

      GS

      Delete
  15. People would rather believe Patsy killed the daughter she doted on, rather than believe John abused and killed his daughter. Millions just voted for Trump, a man known for misogyny and abusing a 13-year-old girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proof of the abuse? Did you attend the alleged parties? Do you know the woman? There has yet to be a trial, so it is not "known".

      Delete
    2. There is no evidence whatsoever that Patsy ever abused her daughter, physically or emotionally. Burke maintains she was loving, by all accounts. As JB's body was found with evidence of chronic, sexual abuse, logic tells us to look at the adult male of the house rather than his wife. Committing murder to silence a victim of sexual abuse is far more common than beating/garroting/penetrating your daughter because she wet the bed, then having the wherewithal to compose a two and a half page ransom note........Logic 101.

      Delete
    3. Fact one: JonBenet received a new bicycle for Christmas. Remember being sore from that first bike? Remember maybe hurting yourself on the bar? I do.

      Fact two: JonBenet's vaginitis. Treatment could have necessitated medicine inserted vaginally.

      Number three in reply to your comment: "Committing murder to silence a victim of sexual abuse is far more common than beating/garroting/penetrating your daughter because she wet the bed"

      Toileting issues and chronic crying are the two most common reasons given for battering a child.

      GS


      Delete
    4. "Toileting issues and chronic crying are the two most common reasons given for battering a child."

      Please cite one other case where a mother has cracked her daughter's skull from ear to ear, then garroted her and staged a phony kidnapping, complete with three page ransom note due to a bed wetting incident, GS, then you might have something....

      JB's injuries were chronic, they were not from her new bike.
      (Cyril Wecht, along with 4 other doctors concurred that the injury to hymen "dated from an old injury," including Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of CO Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital); Dr. John McCann (see below); and Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois (Schiller 1999:437 according to Internet poster The Punisher). Forensic pathologist Robert Kirschner also said that the injuries to JonBenet were consistent with long-term sexual abuse. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida said she believed JonBenet had been sexually abused over time)

      Nor were they from any kind of medication that had to be inserted vaginally
      ("According to John McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet. There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia")

      As someone who suffered from several U.T infections in the past, I can tell you that the apparatus used to insert the medicine does *not* cause any injury to the vagina.

      You are really reaching now in order to make everything "fit" with your PDI theory. Why do you feel the need to complicate matters? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!

      Delete
    5. A new bike for Christmas may be a way someone who was trying to excuse JBR's chronic vaginal abuse too. Possibly shows premeditation if Santa murdered Jonbenet...if someone asked about JBR's chronic injuries, well she did get a bike for Christmas and JBR wanted to ride it that Christmas morning too. Was it Jonbenet's first bike? PR got a bike too, was that something that Jonbenet really wanted for Christmas? Did she write a Christmas list to Santa of what she wanted or did someone decide good time to get JBR new bike? I am not saying there is anything wrong with getting a 6 yr old child a bicycle for Christmas, but as Ms. D pointed out Jonbenet did not get her chronic injuries from riding a new bike.

      Delete
    6. When you say "Santa", Anonymous, are you referring to Bill McReynolds? If so, he is not the one who bought JB the bike, it was given to her by her parents, and as much as I believe John Ramsey killed his daughter, I cannot see the bike as being part of any premeditated plan - I don't think anyone would buy that the injuries she sustained could ever have been caused by a petite, girl's bike with training wheels. Besides, if it were "part of the plan", I'm sure John would have mentioned this to LE, and I can't find any record of him, or Patsy, ever mentioning it.

      Delete
    7. Chronic only means that it did not occur at the time of the murder. It could be as fresh as one day old. The allegation of chronic sexual abuse is not agreed on by all the experts. It was said digital penetration, and you yourself admitted there is an applicator used in medication for vaginitis that would work just like digital penetration.

      Not "reaching" at all here.

      GS

      Delete
    8. "Please cite one other case where a mother has cracked her daughter's skull from ear to ear, then garroted her and staged a phony kidnapping, complete with three page ransom note due to a bed wetting incident, GS, then you might have something...."

      Conversely, do we have another case where the father was abusing the daughter and garroted her, then cracked her skull?

      Lame source perhaps, but this is where I heard that incessant crying and loss of bowel or bladder control are the two most common reasons cited in incidents of child battering, from the recent Lifetime documentary - which does not overtly focus on any one suspect. Its near the 39 minute mark.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xatHxHUvy8

      GS


      Delete
    9. "It was said digital penetration, and you yourself admitted there is an applicator used in medication for vaginitis that would work just like digital penetration."

      I said the applicator would NOT cause any injury, GS, and that it's use most certainly wouldn't mimic digital penetration...you're making that part up all by yourself so you can stick with your narrative that Patsy did it, because once you admit the sexual abuse is real, it will lead you to John as the only logical culprit. And you, like many, *need* Patsy to be the guilty party because you don't agree with the choices she made as a mother - your comments are evident of this. Like most PDIs, who appear to care more about convincing the world of Patsy's guilt than they do about justice for JB.

      Back to the infections: they are all treated differently - I've had experience with urinary tract infections, which means treatment required an applicator, but as far as I know, vaginitis is usually only treated with a topical cream. I merely pointed out the fact that *if* an applicator was used, it is narrow and smooth, therefore there is no reason it would have caused any injury to the surrounding tissue at all.

      Delete
  16. Is this true ? it was a shocker to me! I found this in the "Bonita Papers" , quote , (while with the FBI, Douglas had help start behavioral sciences Sections of the psychological profiling unit in Quantico Virginia ,the same unit with which the "MIND HUNTER"... one of the chapters of which details familiar murders including staging aspects such as the care taken with disposal of the victim and personal cause homicide involving manual strangling.. and so on, This is the book found in John Ramsey's bedroom on the morning of Dec, 26th ,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought this one was interesting, too. Also from the Bonita Papers:

      "The Ramseys' first choice for the criminal profiling expert for their team was Gregg McCrary. McCrary, a 25 year veteran as an FBI special agent, turned down their offer of employment.

      According to McCrary, "On a ratio of 2 to 1, child murders are committed by the parents or a family member. In this case, you also have an elaborate staging. . . I have never in my career
      seen or heard about a staging where it was not a family murder or someone very close to the family."

      So McGrary had the moral fortitude to turn down Ramsey money because he thought they most likely were implicated. Admirable.

      GS

      Delete
  17. Doc:

    I just sent a twitter message to Bill O'Reilly imploring him to read your book and to consider doing a segment on it. Maybe if others out there do the same, we can get his attention and get someone, if not yourself, invited to appear on his show. Dec 25th is coming up fast, and he'll be looking for non-political topics as a change of pace now that the election is over.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mike. But unless you have some personal or professional connection with him I doubt he'd even read it.

      Delete
    2. Doc: I just sent him this e-mail too.

      Bill: I recently read a book called Ruled In: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case. I have followed this case for years and read dozens of "theories" as to what happened that night. After reading the book a couple months ago, I joined its author's blog cite and have been in correpondance with him since. I am convinced, and others are too, that John Ramsey alone murdered his daughter, and there is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence available to indict him. BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP! Why?

      1) Despite the "dozens" of theories on the case in circulation, that John Ramsey acted alone in murdering his daughter has NEVER been one of them. John was incorrectly "ruled out" by investigators early on as the writer of the ransome note. After reading the book "Ruled In", you will be convinced John wrote it by himself that night, and that neither Patsy, nor Burke, nor some unknown "intruder", ever knew he did. From there, all the rest falls in place.

      2) Investigators, like the general public, can't get past the idea that "The Ramsey's" or some unknown "intruder" are the only two possibilities. No matter WHAT else you read on this case, it ALWAYS involves either Patsy or Burke committing the crime, and John ASSISTING in the cover-up. John is NEVER considered, nor conjectured to be, the sole perpetrator.

      3) The author is close enough to investigators in the case to know that intruder theories have all but been discarded, and that their current focus is on Burke.

      4) Despite this focus on Burke, very recent findings on DNA evidence may mislead investigators to start looking again at "intruders" instead of getting them to focus on the only person who could have committed this crime--John Ramsey. This will only further delay justice for JonBenet and potentially make a cold case go colder. That John's time on earth is short and that justice is rarely served posthumously is why we need your help.

      You have ways of penetrating political obstacles others don't by virtue of your reputation to stop at nothing to get to the truth. You have contacts. You know what and whose buttons to push. I understand, that, before you would agree to help, you must be convinced that a) the theory is at the VERY LEAST worthy of more attention than it has received and b) your venturing into unchartered waters has no downside risk, only upside potential. This Christmas marks the 20th anniversary of JonBenet's death. Because of that, much attention of late has been given it by the media in the form of documentaries, made for TV movies, and interviews of Burke. They all point in the wrong direction and YOU alone could be the one to set them and investigators straight.

      To that end, I ask that you please read the book and, if you find it sufficiently compelling, consider doing a segment on your show discussing it with, if not the author himself, someone who is equally familiar with it. Below I provide the link to where you can purchase the book on kindle and read reviews about it. I also provide a link to the authors blog that contains up-to date information on the case and the authors e-mail address so that the two of you can correspond directly. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

      Most Sincerely Yours etc...

      Mike G.

      Delete
    3. Mike, the letter you sent turned up in my email but not on the blog, for some reason. I can post it here if you like. It's very well written and makes an eloquent case for, at the very least, looking into the fact-based logic that's been developed here.

      I have no idea whether this will make a difference, but I do very much appreciate your excellent effort. Many thanks.

      Delete
  18. King is an excellent interviewer, but not interrogater.

    KING: Any thoughts as to why. I think you mentioned last night $118,000 -- that's the bonus you got for the year?

    J. RAMSEY: Well, it happened to be very close to my annual bonus that I'd received in February I think it was of '96. I don't know if that's significant or not or, if that's a clue. It means something to the killer, 118, $118,000 means something to the killer.

    P. RAMSEY: It's an unusual number.

    NOTE: King should have pressed him here. How close was it John to the actual bonus you recieved? Instead, he allows Patsy to deflect.

    KING: Kidnappers aren't necessarily pedophiles. They usually have a motive and their purpose is to get some money. This obviously was some sort of strange, demonic act, so I mean, it doesn't jibe.

    NOTE: King completely blows it here by opening the door to "strange, demonic acts." And, of course, John accepts the invitation and walks through.

    J. RAMSEY: No. This person is not a logical, normal person. That is mad man. This is a monster. They don't think logically. They don't think...

    Someone just the opposite of you, huh John?

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
  19. J. RAMSEY: They haven't found it. We heard one of the special prosecutors say the DNA is a problem. The DNA is a huge clue, we believe. It's not a problem. It's a wonderful clue.

    KING: It's a problem in convicting you.

    J. RAMSEY: It's a problem in convicting the parents.


    Yes, John...the parents. Keep everyone thinking it's either both of you or neither of you, you snake!

    Mike G.

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

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

      Delete
    2. If it was a bungled kidnapping, the kidnappers would have been sure to take the note with them when they left the scene, rather than leave it behind as possible incriminating evidence. If their plan was to frame the Ramseys, as you suggest, I would argue John and Patsy would have looked a helluva lot more guilty had the Police simply have found a dead JonBenet in her basement with no evidence of an intruder. Your scenario also doesn't explain why John lied about the basement window or why he lied - for twenty years - about the flashlight, if he has nothing to hide. If her kidnappers did not want to carry her outside in the middle of the night, what then was their original plan in order to collect the ransom money? And why not choose a more opportune time to abduct her instead, if carrying from her house was too risky?

      Delete
    3. Your theory an intruder did it comes first. Then, you backtrack to "create" a scenario that makes it sound sensible. Here are the statements you make which are unsupported assertions or speculations.

      1) Neither Patsy nor John Ramsey penned the ransom note.
      Where's your proof? What birdseye view of all the established "facts" of the case transforms your arbitrary assertion into a logical inference? I put facts in quotations to be clear about what I mean. That 'the intruder entered by way of a key' is just another arbitrary assertion; that 'they POSSIBLY had a key' is sheer speculation. In light of this, you don't support your assertion with "facts", you support it with other arbitrary assertions or speculations.

      2) The note does not resemble Patsy or John's handwriting--real or fake--,speaking, or phraseology.
      It doesn't? Why not? And what makes it "clear" that it doesn't? What "facts" refute previously proffered resemblences "we all (discerned) at one time or another"?

      3) the note merely needed to have come from...speculation
      4) the note was practiced and written...assertion
      5) the note was either hid or brought in...assertion
      6) the note did not have to be folded...speculation
      7) the note could have been kept in the pad....speculation
      8) Patsy would not have noticed....speculation
      9) a new pad was put in its place.. assertion
      10) This is a kidnapping gone wrong....assertion
      11) the intent was to kidnap and hold...assertion
      12) the kidnappers were surprised by something...assertion
      13) they had to kill her... assertion
      14) they had to hide her in a room known only to them and
      the family.
      This is a particularly interesting and curious assertion. For John to be ruled out as the writer of the ransom note, the fact that the amount the intruder selected for the ransom matched the amount of John's bonus that year has to be regarded as a sheer coincidence. Otherwise, why would a murderer help investigators by considerably narrowing the pool suspects who could possibly have committed the crime?
      And why would they reinforce their ties to John by hiding JBR in a room known only to the family and family aquaintences?
      15) JBR was downstairs just prior to or while the kidnappers were entering the house....arbitrary assertion
      Why is this important to an intruder theory? You don't like having to have your kidnapper go upstairs to retrieve JB? I don't blame you..it only makes the rabbitt hole deeper.
      16) John had nothing to do with the pineapple...arbitrary assertion
      Again, who cares? Why is this important to any theory?
      17) I don't believe Burke was eating pineapple with JB when the kidnappers entered the house.
      Of course not, because Burke would be dead too.
      18) In all liklihood, she came down alone.
      Who cares? Burke, Patsy, or John could have slipped upstairs
      in that brief moment "prior" to the kidnappers entering the kitchen, right?
      19) She possibly could have changed into her Wednesday panties.
      By opening a new package of panties intended for her friend that were too large for her?
      20) The note could have been written after the fact.
      What fact? After they decided to deviate from their plan and molest Jon Benet keeping her shiny white new panties looking shiny white and new afterwards? Or after they banged her on the head? Are you suggesting they banged her on the head or choked her to keep her quiet while they wrote the ransom note only to discover afterwards she was dead or so close to it, they decided to just finish her off? NOW I see why you wanted her downstairs. They needed to keep an eye on her while they wrote the note!

      continued on next post Mike G

      Delete
    4. 21) So once JB was most assuredly dead, they MAY have gone back to modify the ransom note.
      Why would that have been necessary? What parts were modified? Frankly, at this point, I think it's safe to say, nothing is clear whatsoever about any "writing on the wall" where any intruder theory is concerned. But just in case your not convinced let's finish things up.
      23) JBR knew her kidnapper.
      No big deal. Your theory already depends on someone familiar to the family.
      24) They did not want to carry her outside in the middle of the night.
      Why. Because people watching might have been able to tell the difference between someone carrying an asleep JB who
      was being kidnapped and a dead JB who was being disposed of?


      Mike G

      Delete
    5. Mike G, you said everything I wanted to say. Thank you. Your last point - #24 - is the one that has been perplexing me the most, and I am trying to get Inquisitive to help me understand. According to her theory, from what I can gather, is that JB was going to be removed from the house, until "something went wrong", at which point her kidnappers decided to kill her, thus having no choice but to leave her dead body behind. Why, though? I would argue that it would, in fact, be easier to remove a dead JB from the house than a live one, so I would very much like Inq to explain why the intruders had to abort their original plan of abducting her once they killed her.....after all, she opines that their plan all along was to kill her anyway because she could identify them.

      Delete
    6. I doubt you'll get an answer. Inquisitive has no interest on here other than to troll and be a nuisance. She has no "theory" on the case. She creates "puzzles" for others to solve not knowing the answers herself. Her latest puzzle is
      "something went wrong" that forced the kidnappers to:

      a) kill JonBenet,
      b) modify or recopy the ransom note,
      c) begin staging,
      c) and leave a body behind that will appear to have been
      sexually molested.

      Even if someone was foolish enough to fall into her trap by
      proffering "something" logically explaining all these odd behaviors, she'd find grounds to dispute it. And if we pressed her to provide that "something" herself, she'd insist that it's forever unknowable until the intruder is caught and confesses. She knows that will never happen which is why she is a troll and/or someone who is protecting, or thinks she is protecting, the man who committed the murder---John Ramsey.


      Delete
    7. Sorry...Ms. D that's my comment above, Mike G.

      By the way, how do you know Inquisitive is a she?

      Delete
    8. She has mentioned it a couple of times over the months :)

      Delete
  21. Sorry, Inquisitive, but I have to disagree. I think the RN is filled with phrases typical of a middle-aged man's movie and book preferences (action movies, Dirty Harry-type, spy novels, etc.) I imagine the only time Patsy watched movies of that type was when she watched with John. As for the handwriting used in the RN, we have to remember that the author was attempting to disguise his/her handwriting. That's why we see the "hooks" added to the tops of the letter "a" over and over. Some of them are nice, neat hooks, while others are sloppy slashes. Still others seem to have been formed with the "hook" originally. (Disception/Disguising) It seems obvious that John should never have been ruled out on the basis of his handwriting. (And how in the world is it possible that there are so few examples of John's handwriting in the public domain for us to examine? The National Enquirer was able to publish Patsy's handwriting sample of the RN, for heaven's sake! But from John.....almost nothing!)

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But we do have Steve Thomas and Kolar who wanted to get justice for Jonbenet, not tabloid hacks exploiting the case. The Ramsey's wouldn't watch these movies? Excuse me? How the hell would you know that? They sure as shit wouldn't be so deceptive, deflective, and unhelpful if they really wanted to find their daughters killer. What a better time to stay in the whole house waiting for their target. What if they never came home and stayed in a hotel that night? Not very smart kidnappers, especially since they were hanging around for hours and didn't actually kidnap their target! Maybe because they were imaginary.

      Delete
    2. It's been claimed that the Ramseys never went to the movies, and that all their movie rentals were for kiddie fare. What's been left out of this picture is the fact that John was away from home much of the time, off on various "business trips," during which time he'd have had many opportunities to view all sorts of movies, on airplanes and in hotels.

      And Zachary makes an excellent point regarding the Ramsey's resistance to police questioning -- which can be attributed to John, since he was clearly the one directing their legal team, while she was under heavy medication.

      Intruders entering the house while the Ramseys were gone would have had ample opportunity to steal all sorts of valuable items. I wouldn't be surprised if Patsy's jewelry alone had been worth more than $118,000. And what would have been the point of stealing a notepad and then returning it unless there had been some attempt at forgery? The fact that the note had been written on that same pad was not obvious at first and they'd have had no way of knowing for sure that anyone would bother looking for a match.

      Delete
    3. "As for John lying about the window and the flashlight you only perceive what he said as a lie to fit in with a scenario of a father gone bad. People forget things, people contradict things they have said previously, people struggle to remember and piece together what may have happened on a tragic night. John said the flashlight looked out of place."
      He denied knowledge of it until very recently when he admitted to not only knowing about it - he used it the very night of the murder! Are you saying it took him twenty years to "remember" such an integral piece of information? His "omission" would indicate either a. he was deceitfully trying to point towards an intruder having used it, or b. he did not want the police to know he was using it as they may want to know why he required a flashlight to move about in his own house. Or it may well have been the object he used to strike the blow - one he was planning to get rid of later in the day had Patsy not have thrown a spanner in the works. And, if the explanation is as innocent as you say - why did he make sure to remove his finger prints? No prints suggest John was either wearing gloves when he used the flashlight or that he wiped it clean...why would he do that if he only used it to walk Burke back to bed as claimed?

      "And what more opportune time then a time to come in to the house and wait on a night they knew the Ramsey's would be gone - from 4:30 until late, what better time than right at the holidays when the whole town is either gone or understaffed, what better time than before the Ramseys would be leaving for vacation. The timing has to do with the perpetrator's time line and reasons, not our own."

      Inquisitive, it is you who suggested the kidnappers decided it might have been too risky to carry JB from the house in the middle of the night, thus it certainly wasn't an ideal time to abduct her, as one usually requires taking the victim from the house in order to collect the ransom. Tell me, what was their initial plan regarding collecting the ransom if they never intended to take JonBenet? On one hand you say "something went wrong", so they killed her and left her body there, on the other hand you say they were always intending to kill her as she knew them.....I'm finding it difficult to follow your reasoning.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not, because if it was, Docs theory makes sense. And it doesn't make sense to you others that Doc's theory makes sense? Why?

      Delete
  24. The funny thing about IDI and especially Inquisitive/Leigh Too's version of IDI is that it conveniently ignores the fact that John was down in the basement between 6 am-1 pm rearranging items in the basement. He admits items have been moved in the basement in the transcripts but only does so because there's photographic proof of this. Even incompetent Smit acknowledges this in their exchange in the transcript but Smit fails to realize that only John could be the one doing it. John quickly changes the subject too because he doesn't want them focusing on this.

    While I am not IDI I am open to its possibility but any realistic scenario would have to explain John covering for this intruder(s).

    If any IDIs say its not John, this means they believe the intruder came back to the house when it was full of people and starting moving things around. They choose to ignore it completely though because even they aren't dumb enough to believe an intruder would do that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "On one hand you say "something went wrong", so they killed her and left her body there, on the other hand you say they were always intending to kill her as she knew them.....I'm finding it difficult to follow your reasoning. "

    The reason you find it difficult to follow his reasoning is because its a trollish game of devil's advocate and making crap up as he goes along.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What facts do you have Mike G that John Ramsey was sexually abusing his daughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did I say he was and in what context? Please copy and paste what I wrote that so I can understand why you're asking that question. Thanks. Mike

      Delete
    2. The overwhelming evidence that points towards this being an inside job means we're left with only three suspects: John, Patsy and Burke. We know Burke wasn't capable of writing the note, unlikely to have been sexually molesting her, and it's ludicrous to presume his parents would cover up a crime he committed in such an unnecessarily, brutal, manner....so that virtually rules him out as a suspect, and that is why he was never seriously considered as one. So we're left with only John and Patsy. As we know, the author of the note would not undermine an entire night's careful staging by calling 911, so that rules her out. So, we're left with John - along with a body that shows signs of prior sexual abuse, the chronic lies he told LE, the fact he was missing for an hour and a half when he was supposed to be waiting for a call from the kidnappers. I think the only logical inference one can draw from all this is that it was John who was abusing her and it was John who murdered her as a direct result of the abuse - whether accidentally or intentionally. Going by the force of the blow, along with the garrote being tied so tightly around her neck, I'm going with the latter. One of the coroners or investigators made a remark saying that whoever killed her "really hated her." Love and hate are closely intertwined.....I don't believe an intruder had any reason to "hate" JonBenet with such passion - they only needed to dispose of her as a means to an end, so why the overkill? Someone molesting her who maybe feels he has been rebuffed, or in fear of being exposed, would perhaps feel such violence is justified, as he sees himself as a victim too. We know that abusers often blame their victims.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Ms. D.-- I think you have the basics down pretty well. Only John would not have been so foolish as to disappear while everyone (but him) was expecting the "kidnapper's" call. He went AWOL on Arndt some time after 10 AM, not before. Doesn't really matter all that much since he should have been with Arndt and all the others during that time, instead of wandering around the house doing God knows what.

      Delete
  27. Doc, the motive wasn't to steal. It was to kidnap for ransom. That is why the note was brought in to the house, already written. However she was hit over the head. And she was strangled. Why I don't know. Someone in here said they weren't criminal masterminds. Got that right. And no James Lofton, I'm not a troll. When I started blogging here I read the posts first, and i believed the John Did It theory of Doc's because it seemed believable, at first. But then Doc, are you saying John could have watched kidnapping types of movies on some business trip and then cleverly thought to bring quotes from them into a ransom note, that he wrote after murdering his daughter? There is absolutely no shred of evidence to that. More logical that the Pugh family watched movies with child abduction themes than a family man or his religious wife, who quite frankly wouldn't have had the time to do so with all her many activities and child rearing. So I guess you get around that by suggesting John watched them on business trips. Probably putting a quarter in the vibrating bed and some soft porn as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In yet you don't have any proof of Pugh guilt.

      Delete
    2. "Doc, are you saying John could have watched kidnapping types of movies on some business trip and then cleverly thought to bring quotes from them into a ransom note, that he wrote after murdering his daughter? There is absolutely no shred of evidence to that."

      Yet you absolutely believed this was the case just a couple of months ago, Inquisitive!

      Delete
    3. I thought JR/PR had mystery/crime books in their home, so if family member wrote the ransom note it wouldn't need to come from movies. Didn't JR/Ramsey's also author books? Who was the main/primary author JR or PR? Regardless, authoring books would indicate they have storytelling writing abilities.

      Jonbenet ransom note reminds me a little bit of Leopold and Loeb ransom letter, so may be author of the note is a history buff.

      Delete
  28. And yet they removed three rolls of black duct tape from the Pugh residence, one opened, white nylon cord, white nylon cord wrapped around a stick, 3 pads of white lined paper one Linda admitted was Patsy's, 3 black sharpie pens. The Pugh's had no alibi for that night, Linda said she was asleep in her bed, Merv was asleep on the couch. When asked for a handwriting sample that night she was too "upset" to give one so Thomas said he'd come back in few days. They ultimately did get a sample so I for one would like to see what it looks like, wouldn't you? I would also like to see all of the other handwriting samples they collected. Investigators said they had other people of interest but never said why they ruled them out. They said they had at least six others of interest. And why would it/should it be someone with a key? Because that little cracked window did not show signs of entry or exit due to the undisturbed cobwebs. Also it would have to be someone very familiar with that house as it was a "rabbit warren" of passageways, doors, hallways, not to mention the wine cellar hidden away in the basement. That was the very wine cellar where Linda, her son in law and husband removed the Christmas trees around Thanksgiving. And why would I have proof Zach? I am not an investigator, I am not privy to the files, I'm just like everyone else in here, speculating and wondering why only the Ramsey's were the primary focus, especially since they got nowhere proving either one of them had anything to do with it. We already can see how the handwriting resembles neither of them. Unless you are just seeing what you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You are trolling but I'm not gonna bog down Doc's blog discussing that fact. The proof is in the pudding.

    Another funny thing is the subject of those movies. They were mainstream movies watched by families....two of which(Ransom and Speed) I saw in theaters packed with people of all ages. You act like these various films are too risque for a family to watch. One of the movies(Ruthless People) was a comedy! All of these films would've been on cable channels at the time. If they wanted to watch them at a specific time, a trip to their local video store would've provided that.

    Something else that's been pointed out to you multiple times is the fact this family had movie posters on their walls yet you act like them watching a movie is out of the question.

    Its an asinine merry go round that keeps spinning.

    NO intruder was watching "child abduction theme" movies. Every movie referenced in the note was a blockbuster hit that contained catchphrases watched by all demographics....especially families that love movies so much they buy movie posters.

    THis will go through one ear and out the other though. In a few days you'll start in again about how there's no way John and Patsy could've watched movies that millions of Americans watched.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Here's the section of the John/Smit interview where its pointed out things have been moved around in the basement while BPD is there taking photographs...

    LOU SMIT: By the way, that's photograph number 374. And that photograph was taken during
    the crime scene investigation after the search warrant was obtained. So that was after. Now I have photographs 72 and 71. And these are photographs taken during what we can describe as the kidnapping phase, when the crime scene techs were there. And that's before the body was found And I wanted to show you this. This was taken earlier that morning. And I want you to take a look at these photos and do you see anything out of place and anything which would draw your attention, or if anything is missing that you can remember?

    JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it's obviously been moved around some. This bag has been moved, looks like.

    MIKE KANE: Which one are you referring to?

    JOHN RAMSEY: A purple bag with my name on it.

    MIKE KANE: From where to where?

    JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it looks like it's been moved down off the pile, because it's usually here. This laundry basket doesn't show in here.

    LOU SMIT: So it looks like something has been moved between the time this picture was taken and this picture was taken?

    JOHN RAMSEY: It looks like this cane has been moved.

    Like I said, any IDI theory that wishes to be anything but laughable will have to take that into account.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry Inquisitive, I admire you sticking to your guns (as it seems after a few theory changes you are now settled on intruder) but the evidence says otherwise. There was no intruder. Im happy to call that a fact.

    As for the rest, well there is a lot different opinions and theories, all which have their pros and cons. JDI just has too many cons for me and Patsy being in the darkness also has too many cons.

    One thing 98% of us can settle on (and something I've been saying all along) is that John WAS involved. For me that should be enough for John to be indicted with some kind of charge (interfering with a corpse, obstruction of justice...or something along those lines). I recall CC saying that wasnt possible but I refuse to believe there isn't something that can be done. Justice must be achieved for poor little JBR.

    ReplyDelete

  32. "One thing 98% of us can settle on (and something I've been saying all along) is that John WAS involved."

    Agreed and while the exchange between John, Smit, and Kane posted above doesn't prove John killed her, it does prove he was involved in the staging that morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that was a good find...I hadn't read that one before.

      Basically this case isn't going to be solved on evidence because whether you believe BDI, PDI or JDI, it's speculation for all three. What can be ruled out is IDI and then John was involved. It may mean you won't get John for murder, but surely something like Obstruction of Justice is achievable. Something is better than nothing!

      Delete
  33. Doc: You're welcome to post my letter. I'm glad you didn't mind my taking the liberty to contact O'reilly. My public campaigning is done for a while! You're right; it's hard to get people to listen.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, Mike. Here it is:

      Doc: I just sent him this e-mail too.

      Bill: I recently read a book called Ruled In: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case. I have followed this case for years and read dozens of "theories" as to what happened that night. After reading the book a couple months ago, I joined its author's blog cite and have been in correpondance with him since. I am convinced, and others are too, that John Ramsey alone murdered his daughter, and there is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence available to indict him. BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP! Why?

      1) Despite the "dozens" of theories on the case in circulation, that John Ramsey acted alone in murdering his daughter has NEVER been one of them. John was incorrectly "ruled out" by investigators early on as the writer of the ransome note. After reading the book "Ruled In", you will be convinced John wrote it by himself that night, and that neither Patsy, nor Burke, nor some unknown "intruder", ever knew he did. From there, all the rest falls in place.

      2) Investigators, like the general public, can't get past the idea that "The Ramsey's" or some unknown "intruder" are the only two possibilities. No matter WHAT else you read on this case, it ALWAYS involves either Patsy or Burke committing the crime, and John ASSISTING in the cover-up. John is NEVER considered, nor conjectured to be, the sole perpetrator.

      3) The author is close enough to investigators in the case to know that intruder theories have all but been discarded, and that their current focus is on Burke.

      4) Despite this focus on Burke, very recent findings on DNA evidence may mislead investigators to start looking again at "intruders" instead of getting them to focus on the only person who could have committed this crime--John Ramsey. This will only further delay justice for JonBenet and potentially make a cold case go colder. That John's time on earth is short and that justice is rarely served posthumously is why we need your help.

      You have ways of penetrating political obstacles others don't by virtue of your reputation to stop at nothing to get to the truth. You have contacts. You know what and whose buttons to push. I understand, that, before you would agree to help, you must be convinced that a) the theory is at the VERY LEAST worthy of more attention than it has received and b) your venturing into unchartered waters has no downside risk, only upside potential. This Christmas marks the 20th anniversary of JonBenet's death. Because of that, much attention of late has been given it by the media in the form of documentaries, made for TV movies, and interviews of Burke. They all point in the wrong direction and YOU alone could be the one to set them and investigators straight.

      To that end, I ask that you please read the book and, if you find it sufficiently compelling, consider doing a segment on your show discussing it with, if not the author himself, someone who is equally familiar with it. Below I provide the link to where you can purchase the book on kindle and read reviews about it. I also provide a link to the authors blog that contains up-to date information on the case and the authors e-mail address so that the two of you can correspond directly. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

      Most Sincerely Yours etc...

      Mike G.

      Delete
  34. I just found an excellent cite listing over 50 articles on the JBR case published through the years, including most recent ones.

    Believe it or not it's Wikipedia. The link is below.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey_theories

    I've already learned there were parts of the autopsy report related
    to the sexual abuse never released, at least prior to grand jury hearing. Whether they have since been released, I don't know.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  35. Had a fun and busy week, so it was nice to take a break from this site for a few days. While I was out, I watched one of the Lifetime specials on Patsy Ramsey and I had 2 major takeaways.

    1. The myth that JR was never looked at because he was ruled out quickly as author of the note is just that, a myth. He was looked at thoroughly! The police interviewed former colleagues and people from his Navy days to see if they had any insight into John Ramsey and nothing came back suspicious. Most importantly, nobody has ever come forward claiming he molested them or that they knew the weird side of him. Does this mean he didn't molest JBR? Of course not, but it would seem to be a completely isolated incident if true

    2. This has been brought up, but hearing the 911 call on the Special...you can CLEARLY hear Patsy say "We need a....we have a kidnapping." There are so many Patsy Ramsey oddities in this case and let's just throw this onto the pile. There is absolutely NO reason to say "we need a" not to mention "We have a kidnapping" is such odd phrasing.

    How much Patsy was involved I don't think we will ever know. She cannot be eliminated as at least the person who physically wrote the note. I really think the JDI's need to start figuring out a theory that IF John did it, why Patsy covered for him. Would she really cover for John's heinous acts simply because of the money? I don't think so.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I for 1, completely agree with you J. You are repeating exactly what I have said many times. All you will get here are unreasonable, undetailed explanations and ridiculous reasons why PR lied so many times and behaved in the manner that she did. Not seeing a reason for her to lie, does not change the fact that she did lie, many times, obviously. Her interview transcripts are a complete wreck and her "amnesia" during them reaches a level I have not seen before, yet many answers were accepted by LE. I think one of the most telling things was when Barbara Fernie (who had no axe whatsoever to grind with PR) reported that there was something wrong with PR because she was not sad or grieving, yet Barbara was grieving. All of these facts are ignored because PR called 911, so therefore, they become not facts.

      Delete
    2. First of all, I never claimed John wasn't looked at. Of course he was looked at and very carefully,as you say. What I've said was that once John was ruled out as writer of the note and Patsy was not ruled out, then all eyes were on Patsy and NO ONE in the investigation ever, to my knowledge (and I've followed this case pretty thoroughly) even suggested that John either wrote the note or killed his daughter. From then on the prevaing theory was that Patsy killed her "by accident." Patsy too was checked out thoroughly and she too had no history of violence or abuse. The ONLY difference had to do with the handwriting verdict. THAT's what got John off the hook, not his supposedly unblemished history.

      As for the 911 call, I've listened to that many times and what Patsy says at the beginning sounds hopelessly garbled to me. What I've heard in the past was the theory that she said "We need 'em." I don't hear that either, but on careful listening it seems closer than "We need a." In any case, we have no way of knowing what she meant by that and certainly no reason to assume she was thinking about needing an ambulance, that's pure speculation. It's also a good example of how easy it is to read things in to anything Patsy ever said if you assume ahead of time that she was involved.

      As for "why Patsy covered for him," I've already dealt with that many many times on this blog. I don't think she covered for him and I feel sure she never suspected him. But I do think he manipulated her into going along with his version of what happened on at least two occasions. We've been over that many times.

      I'm not sure what Barbara Fernie is supposed to have said, but there were many friends who described her as a basket case from the moment she realized JonBenet was dead to weeks afterward. To say she was not sad or grieving goes against everything I've read about her behavior subsequent to JBR's murder.

      Delete
    3. "Would she really cover for John's heinous acts simply because of the money? I don't think so."

      I don't think Patsy would cover for John in ANY case. She loved her daughter.
      And, as the murder appears to be a sex crime, along with the RN detailing careful instructions that benefit JOHN in every way, as well as the fact it was Patsy who called 911 - rendering all the staging redundant - it's patently obvious that Patsy had no part in the crime. She never covered for John because, if she ever did have any doubts regarding his guilt, once he was ruled out she had no choice but to believe an intruder killed her daughter.

      Delete
  36. I'm starting to feel like this case is a road to nowhere. It has consumed me for the past year and have realized discussing it with anyone outside of this forum is incredibly frustrating. The evidence is so inconclusive, so while we all have our interpretations of the details, ultimately it leads us nowhere. We can say John did it alone, Patsy did it alone, The Ramsey's did it together to cover for Burke, IDI, etc., but we will never know the truth. Our storyboards are all we really have. All I know for sure is that the intruder theory doesn't make sense when taking in all the evidence.

    It's a real shame the Ramsey's dream team bullied the media into submission with their intruder theory, and the misinformation on this case is so overwhelming that it isn't worth explaining it to anyone unfamiliar to the case. All we can do is come up with scenarios that may or may not be true. It seems like we're chasing our tails rehashing the same information over and over again. Doc is a saint, and I can't even imagine how frustrating it is to restate his same points year after year. He's definitely a soldier for justice. I just don't have the patience to debate the same points ad nauseam, and feel like it isn't really helpful to my psychological health to be annoyed constantly by a case that unfortunately will remain a "mystery."

    I'm done discussing this case. I need to move on and focus my attention on something else. I really wish Jonbenet would get justice for this crime, but I'm absolutely positive that it will never happen. Not with the corruption, and politics involved in this highly controversial case.

    I wish you all the best, and hope that one day something comes to light that blows this case wide open. Until then, I'm out. Until I contradict myself and return because I can't help it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll be missed.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Zach....look forward to your post later today. I've tried leaving multiple times. You will be back

      -J

      Delete
  37. Haha Zachary, hope you do, I can't get up in the morning without checking what's been written overnight. Yes I must be sad lol. I've just returned from a short cruise where I was sat in a pub where I proceeded to go and take some pics of knots that were tied to a stick on a wall. My husband laughed when my friends asked what I was doing, he said it'll be that blog again. And guess where we were. Yes Amsterdam.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree Zack, the only thing that I know for sure, is that there was no intruder. All three PDI, JDI and BDI make sense to a degree, with the parents more so. The 911 call was odd, the voices heard, the basement window, the flashlight, and of course the RN and the it's oddities such as respecting the business were strange indeed. I do not think the intention was ever to remove the body.I think they were trying to sell it as a kidnapping gone wrong and simply needed proof that someone else was there and did it with an elaborate RN. The Ramsey's stayed together for 10 more years and were " closer" than before. That too is odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the RN hadn't been so specific about the size of case John should bring to the bank, that he "be rested", that the kidnappers "might call early" or the very unusual fact it was addressed to John alone, I might be inclined to agree with you, k1234, but all of these detailed instructions happen to buy John time, excuses, along with an alibi should he be spotted in the area JB's body may eventually be located.
      Staging a kidnapping gone wrong solely for the purpose of throwing off LE would have involved a simple, concise, six line note. This would be in the best interest of The Ramseys - or an intruder - if mere obfuscation was the goal. So, one has to conclude there is a very good reason the note is as long as it is, after all, no one wants to sit down and compose "The War and Peace of ransom notes" after they've just committed murder.
      It's very telling that much of the note reads more like a "To Do List" for John, with the rest focusing on making Patsy frightened enough that she will concede to let John handle all of it without involving the police (or herself, hence why, after a practice note addressed to both of them, John cleverly scrapped the idea).
      As far as I'm concerned, one of the biggest problems regarding this investigation is that people are too quick to dismiss the words in the RN as the superfluous ravings of a drama queen.....but the devil is most definitely in the details in this case, but you have to read between the lines.

      Delete
    2. I have to admit Ms D, I love reading your posts. You are very logical indeed. That does make perfect sense. I wondered if perhaps John could have written the note if Patsy did it covering for her and the long note doesn't make sense. It is so ridiculous that he is so full of himself that he cant even kill his child and write a ransom note without giving himself and his business props. Could it be, that he did fess up to her after the fact? I highly doubt anyone would risk their lives in jail for their spouse. Patsy is so hard to dismiss as not being involved at least after the fact. Thanks for your post.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, k1234.
      Though, I have to admit, I didn't apply the necessary logic before coming across this blog a couple of years ago. For the first two years after the crime, I was a firm believer "The Ramsey's" did it. Then, I became a supporter of the IDI theory due to a couple of books I read, and the fact that Patsy had always seemed genuine to me. Though I couldn't suppress my niggling doubts about John's involvement. But, he'd been "ruled out" by experts, so as far as I was concerned, both he and Patsy had to have been telling the truth. So, with RDI not an option, it was either IDI or BDI. I never entertained the notion of Burke, for the multitude of reasons I have already discussed here a thousand times. So IDI was all that was left, even though it bothered me enormously that it raised more questions than it answered. But, as the only alternative was "The Ramseys" as a team, I felt there was no other option.
      Then, after coming across some interesting tidbits that seemed to implicate John, a few things began to fall into place, so I Googled "Did John Ramsey kill JonBenet Ramsey" and found this blog. By the time I'd read through "Just The Facts Ma'am", almost all of my questions had been answered and I actually felt foolish for not having seen through his lies and b.s all these years, when it was all there in black and white. Doc's analysis of the ransom note sealed it for me.

      Delete
  39. Many people have concluded that an intruder could not possibly have committed this crime, based on the observations made that there was no forced entry into the house. When discussing IDI, these people are quick to point out the window scene, and specifically the intact spider web.

    Well my take on IDI would include someone with a key. That would be someone who either worked for the Ramseys or a person who had access to a key and made a copy. I know all these people were checked out and dismissed by the police, but maybe, just maybe, they missed something. I think more can be explained by someone entering the house with a key than any other theory.

    emma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason I don't subscribe to the IDI theory has nothing to do with the reasons you mentioned above, Emma.
      It's really quite simple:

      A pedophile intruder doesn't leave behind a ransom note.

      An intruder whose motive is to burglarize takes valuable items from the house, and also does not leave behind a phony ransom note.

      A kidnapper doesn't write the ransom note at the scene of the crime or leave his victim lying dead in the house.


      Logic.

      Delete
  40. Why do people come up with such gullible, senseless IDI theories ? Someone in the house was clearly responsible. The behavior, lies, non cooperation and lack of any evidence of an intruder does not appeal to IDIs common sense or what ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I know there are a lot of people that don't think Jonbenet will ever get justice, but I have faith that this case will be solved and the murderer/molester will be held accountable. Whether it's evidence that hasn't been shared/made public or LE/FBI going through everything with a fine tooth comb and identifying the discrepancies that can't be explained. All the media sensationalizing, exploitation of this child's death, or public theories won't solve the case. Like PR stated in one of her interviews go back to the beginning. I hope that investigators do not give up on this little girl. Jonbenet (just like other abused children) needs people fighting for her and being her voice, not minimizing the brutality of what happened to her over her short life.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Has anyone read the new article on Gary Oliva today? I know IDI is absurd, and I certainly don't subscribe to it, but I try to read all the current JB stuff.
    https://www.google.com/amp/radaronline.com/celebrity-news/gary-howard-oliva-confesses-obsession-jonbenet-ramsey-letter/amp/

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  43. Steve Betz posted the following link on an earlier blog page. I'm reposting it here where it will be more visible:

    http://www.lsiscan.com/id39.htm

    As we can see, this is an article from the Globe, titled "Ramsey Trapped by His Own Words", dated March, 1997. The gist is summarized in the first two sentences:

    "Avinoam Sapir, who teaches FBI agents how to detect criminals from the words they speak, has analyzed the Jan. 1 interview John, 53, and Patsy Ramsey, 40, gave to CNN in Atlanta just six days after JonBenet's cruel killing.

    He told GLOBE that the Boulder businessman's choice of words show he is an abuser and knows who killed his daughter."

    As you know, I don't think much of this sort of analysis, so I won't argue that this should be taken seriously as evidence pointing to John's involvement. But I do think it useful as a corrective to articles we've already seen that use similar techniques to argue that Patsy is the guilty party. At the time this article was written, John was the chief suspect, so he was fair game for this type of analysis. Later on, when Patsy became the chief suspect, the same "science" was used to expose HER involvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think JR has a little verbal "tell" that sometimes appears when he is "recalling" an event, emotion or thought process that didn't actually happen (in my opinion).
      He switches to the second person and sometimes third person. Some examples:

      1998 - discussing the ransom note:
      LS: What was the first thing then that struck you when you read the note? I mean your first impression after reading that?
      JR: Well your first impression was that you can't believe it.

      1998 - the open window:
      LS: Did you tell anybody about that?
      JR: I don't really remember. I mean, part of what is going on you're in such a state of disbelief this can even happen. And the, you know, the window had been broken out. And you say hah, that's it. But it was a window that I had used to get into the house before...

      1998 - breaking in when he forgot his keys:
      LS: And you say it was about 11:30 at night? Obviously it would be dark at that time? What's your recollection of the difficulty of getting into the house then?
      JR: Well I guess I remember the unknown harm is when you drop the last foot or two in the basement. Because that basement room is always kind of a mess. You're not quite sure what you're going to land in.
      Once I was in the basement I could find my way to the door. The light switch is over by the door. So you got to be careful because there's a lot of junk in there...

      1997 - finding JBR:
      TT: Can, could you tell me step-by-step when you found her, tell me how you picked her up and tell me (inaudible).
      JR: Right. I found her and I, the first hope of course is that she’s OK.

      AMD

      Delete
    2. That's an interesting observation, yes. In the lingo of "statement analysis" that would be considered "distancing" I believe. And I wonder what some of those "experts" who've been so quick to accuse Patsy of distancing would think of these examples from John.

      Delete
    3. Doc:

      I agree verbal analyses won't get investigators warrants or prosecutors indictments, but once a suspect is in custody and/or standing trial, I should think they'd be tremendously valuable, particulary in cases relying heavily, if not exclusively, on direct evidence. I have two questions.

      1) You said they used the same science on Patsy when she was the prime suspect. Are her analyses available anywhere on-line that we can read and compare to Johns'?

      2) If John IS ever brought trial, given all the evidence as you know it, does he take stand?

      Mike G.

      Delete
    4. To what "direct evidence" are you referring? And why would a pseudo science like statement analysis be "tremendously valuable" in a case relying on same?
      CC

      Delete
    5. Mike, you'll find what you're looking for by doing a Google search on Patsy Ramsey and "content analysis" or "statement analysis."

      And no, I doubt that John would take the stand. There'd be too many questions he wouldn't be able to answer.

      Delete
    6. CC My mistake....I meant to say circumstantial evidence.

      I wouldn't call statement analysis a "science" either; doc used the term initially so I used it too. He said he didn't "take too much to this sort of analysis". Why he later called it a science, and put it in quotation marks, you'll have to ask him.

      I see as valuable only IF Ramsey were to take the stand or refuse to speak to the police should he ever get arrested.
      As you may recall from Doc's book, John's changing testimony on the broken window "trapps" John using his owns words similiar to the way "distancing" does. If testimony more valuable? Absolutley. But you never know what might push a jury sitting on fence separating doubt from reasonable doubt to land on that side which permits, indeed requires, a verdict of guilty.

      Mike G

      Delete
    7. Clearly you're confused, on a number of issues. Please don't make any more sweeping legal conclusions; perhaps stick to...what was it?...medical sales?
      CC




      Delete
  44. A little off topic here, but I stumbled upon this quite by accident: MadTV taking aim at JR and PR. They sure thought they were creepy!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSzXfPlVKg0

    ReplyDelete
  45. 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.

    1. Why Christmas? This was planned because the killer(s) knew it was an ideal time to commit a murder. Some of the most experienced officers were on vacation leaving behind a group of inexperienced cops to take control of a unique situation. Don't forget that the movie "Ransom" was playing at theaters. The date of the release? November 8. 11-8. Do those numbers look familiar? In the film, a police officer was the kidnapper and leader of the group. Someone from the police department saw that film and thought about John Ramsey since both he and Mel Gibson's character were very similar. Ramsey was recently in a newspaper article regarding the success of his billion dollar company. The first mention of this milestone was published 10 days after the release of "Ransom" on November 18. 11-18. There are those familiar numbers again.

    2. The scene of the crime could have easily been altered by one or more officers. The way that it was handled was unprecedented in the most unprofessional of ways. None of the officers checked the wine cellar despite officers French and Reichenbach's initial suspicions about John and Patsy.

    3. The Ramseys unexpectedly called 911. The ransom was very clear about NOT calling or talking to anyone. But in case they did, there was a plan B. Since part of the plan was to hide JonBenet's body in the house to avoid any connection to her, it was now time to get to the Ramseys' house as quickly as possible to alter or stage the crime scene and move JonBenet's carefully hidden body into a position where it would be found, ideally, by someone else.

    4. Linda Arndt suggested that JR and FW search the house again. I find that very suspicious. Arndt wasn't the most experienced officer in the world, but she wasn't an idiot either. Any officer knows that you can't have anyone wandering around a crime scene unsupervised. That's common sense. Arndt was also bizarrely accusatory towards JR, strongly implying that she had no doubt that he was the killer, despite not mentioning those feelings in any of her police reports.

    My prime suspects are Arndt, French, and Reichenbach. - WF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, WF, the three of them were going to risk life in prison for the chance to split $118,000 (merely a coincidence it happened to be the same amount as John's Xmas bonus - they only chose that amount due to the release date of a movie......COME ON!!! If the number they were asking for was so arbitrary, why not at least add an extra couple of zeros to make it worth their while - they knew he could afford it!)
      Tell me, which one of them broke in and was so unconcerned with being discovered, they hung around long enough to write a two and a half page ransom note?
      Which one of them then went down to the basement after arriving on the scene and finished JB off with a garrote, as equally unconcerned with being discovered?
      Oh, and tell me, had Patsy not have called 911 and the kidnapping went ahead as planned - which one of these cops was going to pick up the ransom and deliver JB to John?

      "Arndt was also bizarrely accusatory towards JR".....yes, of course, it is absolutely bizarre that a trained police officer should suspect that the same man who has been AWOL for an hour and a half that now carries his cold, rigid, decomposing child into the living room and asks "is she dead?!"

      Am I being punk'd.......Leigh Too, is this really you???

      Delete
  46. So which was it? Did they want to kidnap for ransom or just murder and innocent child for the fun of it since the BPD was low staffed? Since it was such an ideal time, why did they not in fact kidnap?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hiding the body in the house prevents anyone from seeing the kidnapper with the body. I believe the goal was to collect the ransom and allow the Ramseys to later find JonBenet tied up and hidden, but alive. Since 911 was called and police were sent to the house, JonBenet possibly was murdered shortly after Rick French or Paul Reichenbach arrived. Both officers claimed that they did not open the wine cellar door. I think one or both of them did open it, then killed JonBenet by using their flashlight or the garrote that was spontaneously constructed using one Patsy's paintbrushes. It's possible the flashlight blow was inflicted earlier that night to ensure JonBenet would not struggle or make any noise. After the 911 call was made and the officers arrived, the garrote finished her off. - WF

      Delete
    2. It's beyond a stretch to accuse LE of Jonbenet's murder/molestation. I think time of death would have been estimated before LE called, and forensics have determined estimated Jonbenet's time of death.

      Delete
    3. But WHY did they kill her once the authorities were called?
      What point did it serve? An arbitrary act of retaliation simply because they deviated from the ransom note's instructions???

      Delete
  47. What about the double line through the 'S' of the dollar signs in the RN? I would think it would be easy to get copies of checks to see if JR or PR did this. Interesting that PR wrote out the word dollars in her sample rather than using the dollar sign. Just a thought.

    -GEH

    ReplyDelete
  48. What about the double lines used through the 'S' of the dollar signs in the RN? Seems like LE could get copies of checks to see if JR or PR used that form of the dollar sign. Odd that PR spelled out dollar in her sample. Just a thought.

    -GEH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LE can notand does not have the authority to get copies of citizen's checks to monitor their penmanship, you have got to be kidding. WOW

      Delete
    2. k1234 - Why would I be kidding? Looking at how the dollar sign is written can be just as telling as any other stroke of the 'pen'. Sorry I am unaware of LE's ability to get copies of citizen's checks. Seems they could subpoena checks just like any other document. I would think they subpoena them in fraud cases, why not for evidence of penmanship?

      - GEH

      Delete
    3. Forgive me GEH, I misread this post and thought it was a continuation of Anonymous WF's silly theories. I thought you were insinuating as part of the Plan to kidnap but not kidnap, the LE intruders got a copy of the Ramsey's checks to forge their writing. HA.

      Delete
    4. In response to your original post, She submitted several samples and although she may not have actually written the dollar sign she wrote the entire ransom note multiple times with both hands, Yes it was odd she wrote out the words to the dollar amount but she did write out actual numbers as well.

      Delete
    5. I believe writers are usually encouraged to write the words rather than the numbers ("one hundred", as opposed to "100")
      Patsy had a degree in journalism. It makes complete sense.
      My English professor was anal about this.....we would lose marks if we wrote the number as opposed to spelling it out. He considered it "lazy" and "bad writing".

      Delete
    6. k1234 - Thank you for clarifying! At first I was taken aback when you said 'you have got to be kidding'. It does make sense, as Ms D noted, to have someone write out words rather than symbols and numerals to provide more examples of lettering. I did notice though that PR used numerals for the dollar amounts. The way the dollar sign was written in the RN might be nothing, but to me it is 'unique' enough to warrant a look. From what little I have researched on the double-line dollar sign, I think it might have been used to play into the 'foreign faction' angle as most Americans use a single line. Anyway, I have never seen the double-line dollar sign addressed and thought I would try and bring attention to it so that someone might tell me that it has already been looked into. Love the blog, love reading majority of the posts and weighing all theories. Still in the JDI camp. I just can't fathom a murder to cover an accident and I can only accept BDI if he committed the assault and the murder and then the parents did some staging to throw off LE.

      - GEH

      Delete
  49. "or just murder and innocent child for the fun of it since the BPD was low staffed?"

    I really did lol! You just made my morning :)

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was in reply to k1234 by the way, but it somehow landed down here :)
      AMD

      Delete
    2. Thank you, I'm glad you got a chuckle. I really enjoy reading your posts so I take that as a compliment.

      Delete
  50. "I think time of death would have been estimated before LE called, and forensics have determined estimated Jonbenet's time of death."

    Time of death was estimated by the coroner to be "very roughly about 1:00am and no later than 7:00am" (Thomas, Davis pg. 146). Officer Rick French arrived at the Ramsey home at approximately 6:00am. If the coroner's assessment is accurate the killer(s) still had an hour to commit the murder. - WF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Arndt, French, and Reichenbach just left their abductee alive in the basement of her own home, WF?
      What, then, was their plan if Patsy hadn't have called 911?

      Delete
    2. There was no intruder Anonymous WF. No criminal hangs out for hours while the occupants of a home are there committing murder and writing ransom notes. It is mind boggling that lots of people don't Get that.

      Delete
    3. The ransom note writer felt at ease in the home because it was his/her home.

      Delete
    4. Not to mention the fact that a kidnapper actually ABDUCTS their victim and doesn't stash them in the basement of their own home whilst waiting for the ransom! 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? And why did the kidnappers risk detection a SECOND time by breaking into the house after the 911 call to strangle JB? Wouldn't it have been wiser to cut their losses and just leave JB's unconscious body in the basement for her parents to eventually find? After all.....they didn't need to kill her, their plan was to return her unharmed (except for that pesky, mortal, head wound) if her parents never called 911, right? If it wasn't, why didn't they kill her immediately rather than have to come back to finish the job? Why was it even necessary to kill her once the authorities were called? How did that work to their advantage?

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

      Delete
  51. Did anyone notice in one of the recent specials, it was one the first. It showed in the beginning of the special John on the computer reading on the internet blogs/news articles etc on JonBenet? I guarantee he is a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "What, then, was their plan if Patsy hadn't have called 911?"

    I'm guessing like the ransom note stated, the kidnappers would have called and instructed John Ramsey where to drop off the money. - WF

    ReplyDelete
  53. Back on October 11th, Doc posted the following:

    "WARNING: Especially offensive posts (i.e. those containing personal attacks on me or anyone else) will be marked as spam -- meaning that from now on nothing posted from the offending source will appear at all. If you desire reinstatement, you may email me with your request."

    While personal attacks have declined, inane hypotheticals, arguments, and theories have taken their place. What constitutes an "offensive" post is in the eye of only one beholder; Doc can move the goalposts anytime he wants without anyones permission.

    I hope he does.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? What's your problem? I don't find the above any more inane than some of your posts.

      Delete
    2. "I'm guessing like the ransom note stated, the kidnappers would have called and instructed John Ramsey where to drop off the money. - WF"

      And they were going to break into The Ramsey's basement again, collect JB and deliver her when they picked up the ransom? Or were they just going to say "Ha! Sucked in! She was in your house the whole time, fools!" after collecting the ransom?

      Have you thought ANY of this through at all?

      I agree with Mike G. Baseless arguments that are so inane they border on trolling/satire just waste precious space on the blog.

      A theory is one thing, a fantasy that has absolutely no basis in reality is another.....next we'll be asked to entertain the notion that aliens (dressed as ninjas, of course) abducted and killed JB.

      Delete
  54. Question for anyone who has read Kolar's book.

    In the recent Lifetime movie, there is a scene which depicts a young BR being interviewed by a therapist. During the interview, the therapist accidentally takes a drink from BR's soda can, which causes BR to become (somewhat irrationally) angry.

    I have searched for video footage/transcripts from BR's real life childhood interviews to support that this actually happened. I wasn't able to find anything. However, an online poster told me that this incident was cited in Kolar's book. Can anyone confirm this?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes HKH, I can confirm that is correct. I have actually just finished reading Kolar's book.

      Kolar says that Burke was interviewed by Dr Susanne Bernhard from the Department of Social Services on 8 January 1997. Kolar reviewed a video of the interview and said, "I was troubled by what I saw".

      Kolar goes on to talk about a few things that stand out to him. Here is the context:

      "When asked key questions about sexual contact, his body language exhibited signs of anxiety, and at one point, he picked up a board game they were playing and was rubbing it on his head. The display of this body language contrasted to the behavior exhibited as a baseline throughout other parts of the interview.

      On another occasion, Dr. Bernhard had mistakenly taken a sip from Burke’s soda can. He seemed to bristle at the intrusion of his personal space / property and indicated that he couldn’t drink from the can anymore."

      AMD

      Delete
    2. I don't think it is at all odd for a nine year old to become uncomfortable when the topic of sex comes up.

      Right up until her teens, my daughter had an intense fear of catching germs from other people and would react the same way if anyone drank from her can. I can assure you she was not harboring any latent, homicidal tendencies.

      These behaviors do not appear to be even remotely incriminating as far as I'm concerned, and only a BDI would feel his reactions were suspicious.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for taking the time to post that information, AMD. I appreciate your thorough response.

      Ms. D, I *knew* I should have added a disclaimer to the end of my post. ;) I wasn't looking for confirmation of suspicious behavior on BR's part. I was simply trying to distinguish fact from fiction concerning a few pieces of information presented in the Lifetime movie, which were new to me. The soda can incident being one of them.

      Delete
    4. AMD - since you read Kolar's book and he mentions the reaction to the Coke can being sipped, does he mention anything about the reports of fecal smearing?
      Perhaps those that engage in interacting with their own waste don't have problems with their own germs - just other people's germs. Go figure,

      Delete
  55. Since it's confirmed that the flashlight was in John's hands per Burke's statement that his father walked him up to his room and used the flashlight, and the flashlight had no fingerprints on it later, that does point to John using the flashlight to hit JBR on the head. I believe John did it, but I think it was accidental, i.e., in a rage, and then proceeded to cover up with the ransom note and everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it was an accident, it's highly unlikely John would have then chosen to "finish her off". This is why I also don't subscribe to the idea that Patsy "accidentally" clubbed her daughter over the head following a bed wetting incident, or that Burke whacked her on the head because she stole a piece of fruit, so his parents decided the most logical course of action, rather than call 911, was to strangle their daughter to death and write a phony ransom note - and do a bit of genital penetration as well, just for good measure - instead.
      I cannot believe that the blow to the head was accidental: A. because it was delivered with such brutal force that it cracked her skull from end to end, and B. because we know the strangulation was intentional, suggesting the plan was murder all along. I'm sorry, but it is not logical to believe that after your child is knocked unconscious, you decide to end their life rather than call for help.

      Delete
  56. Maybe the strangulation was to "finish her off" because she was still breathing? He could have hit her much harder than he realized, paniced, realized this meant the end of his world, his marriage, career, possible prison, etc, and just went into survivor mode or something. He possibly didn't call for help because he saw that she was nearly dead. I don't know. But I feel it was not premeditated or planned, but I do believe John acted alone. But who really knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never suggested it was premeditated. That's something I go back and forth on.....but, as the garrote was twisted so tightly, this device was used with the sole purpose of ending JB's life, therefore her murder wasn't an accident - even if it started off that way. (Which, as I stated above, going by the force of the blow, I find that to be very unlikely...but anything's possible).
      At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because ultimately her killer, at some point, made a conscious decision to take her life, making it willful homicide.

      Delete
  57. Yes, ultimately she was killed ("finished off") with the garrote, absolutely. I was just thinking that for me, it seems more realistic that he hit her in the head with the flashlight, not meaning to actually kill her, but then, realizing that it was a deadly blow, he used the garrote to distance himself as much as possible from her death. I guess we all want to KNOW what happened, so we have a need to imagine how it went down. This scenario works in my mind, for myself only. But overall, I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may well be right.....I don't have any doubts as to who JB's killer was, my only questions are:

      "Was it premeditated?"
      "Was the blow intended to kill her?"
      "What truly was the motive?"

      Delete
  58. Gut feelings only: Not premeditated. Blow not intended to kill her. Anger/rage motive.

    ReplyDelete