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.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

GAME ON!

As we know, Lin Wood has finally filed his lawsuit against CBS and their investigative team. I used to think this was going to be a slam dunk for Wood, since the allegations against Burke have no basis in fact. But now, thanks to some intriguing comments from resident legal expert, "Dog," things are starting to look more complicated. Apparently it's not enough to demonstrate that such allegations have no basis in fact, but also necessary to actually prove they are false, a very different matter, it would seem. The most thorough discussion of the case I've seen so far can be found in, of all places, the showbiz paper, Variety: JonBenet Ramsey’s Brother’s Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS May Hinge on Fact Vs. Opinion But I'm sure we'll see many more such treatments in the coming days and weeks.


According to the Variety piece, "in their 456-page complaint and retraction letter to CBS, [Burke's] legal team identify more than 700 statements and instances they say contributed to the “false and defamatory gist” of the two-part TV series . . ." Hopefully the full complaint will be available soon, so we can take a look.

According to the article, one of the first hurdles faced by Wood will be the question of whether or not Burke is a public figure. If he is deemed a public figure by the judge, it will be necessary to prove that the CBS team acted out of malice, which would be extremely difficult, I would imagine. However:
Even so, his lawsuit suggests that they would meet that threshold anyway, by arguing that the defendants knew the claims were false or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth.
This matter of "reckless disregard for the truth" interests me, because this was definitely the impression I had while watching the show. I don't think that would be difficult for Wood to establish, because in this case unwarranted assumptions were presented as facts, which strikes me as sufficiently reckless for any judge to find for libel. If, however, it would be necessary to prove beyond doubt that Burke could not possibly have committed this crime, that would be all but impossible, and the judge might well dismiss. That strikes me as unfair, however, because it's unreasonable to expect that anyone could prove his or her innocence in a case like this.

The best Wood could be expected to do would be to prove beyond a doubt that an intruder killed JonBenet. And maybe he believes he can. However, now that the DNA evidence has been put into question, and Lacy's decision to exonerate the Ramseys is being so heavily criticized, he'd have no choice but to fall back on some of Lou Smit's lame theories regarding the basement window, the "Butler door," and the stun gun, which the CBS team was easily able to dismiss.

Especially promising for readers of this blog is the following comment, based on one lawyer's take:
CBS and other defendants are likely to seek an immediate dismissal, but, Sammataro notes, even if they don’t succeed there, they get “to conduct discovery on whether Burke had any involvement in his sister’s death. [CBS] has a prospective path to a treasure trove of information and potentially an informational advantage over its competitors on a story that continues to enthrall the public and garner ratings.”
If CBS does decide on the discovery route, which seems likely, they will no doubt share their "treasure trove" with the public, which might give us quite a bit to chew on in future.

Especially intriguing is a final comment by the same legal expert, who reminds us  of an important aspect of this, and any, case that often goes overlooked when all the technicalities are being debated:
A jury could frown upon some of the producers tactics. He cites one instance in the documentary: “The staged demonstration of a young boy beating a pig skin is not a ‘jury-friendly’ fact.”
As a long time fan of the British drama "Rumpole," I very much appreciate this reminder that, when all is said and done, it's the ladies and gentlemen of the jury who have the last word. If the jury is sufficiently offended at all the dubious assertions, assumptions and manipulations of the so-called "experts," all the legal niceties of the CBS lawyers could get tossed out the window, assuming Lin can summon up enough sympathy for a frail nine year old child, caught up in the madness of a mystery no one has ever been able to solve.




293 comments:

  1. This is just the type of breakthrough this case needs to finally get all the facts we haven't been privy to from the grand jury. Here's hoping CBS sticks to their guns. Thanks for sharing Doc and for the legal clarifications Dog. Looking forward to hearing CC's take as well! Happy new year everyone - let's hope 2017 is the year JBR gets her justice. E

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy New Year to you, too! And to everyone else on this very thought provoking, we'll run blog by DocG.

      Agree with you completely, this lawsuit is hopefully exactly what this case needs. Let's hope it leads to some long awaited and deserved answers.

      Delete
    2. *well run ... stupid phone autocorrect

      Delete
  2. I don't know.... Lin Wood appears to be a sharp operator. He may have a plan to prevent any disclosure.
    Would the previous ruling out of BR as a suspect be adequate "proof" of innocence? And I also think the links in the lawsuit made between the CBS program and Kodak's "less than successful book" may mean something. Perhaps the reckless disregard for the truth could be linked to Kolar's agenda in wanting to increase book sales?

    I don't know, I think this will make things murkier rather than clearer.

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
  3. From http://au.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/12/jonbenet-ramsey-brother-lawsuit

    "...Larry Iser, a partner at the Los Angeles firm of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert, told Variety, “In his complaint, Burke Ramsey claims that the documentary is rife with outright lies, half-truths, manufactured information, and the intentional omission and avoidance of truthful information about the murder of his sister. If he can prove that, the defendants would be liable for defamation.”

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that, Sisu. I agree with Iser and disagree with Dog, hardly unusual in law. A lot will depend on the judge assigned to hear the case and his interpretations. It'll be interesting, no question.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Not sure what you disagree with me about. I've simply been quoting law professors. Iser basically echoes them ... he's saying the information presented is false. Exactly what I've said needs to be proven all along.

      Delete
  4. I can't even imagine being in Burke's shoes, especially if he is innocent. If JR is guilty, he has to be shaking in his shoes right now....his luck has to run out eventually. Let's just have a trial, get all of the evidence on the table, and get this over with.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The best Wood could be expected to do would be to prove beyond a doubt that an intruder killed JonBenet."

    While this IS the best that can be expected, the worst to be feared is that Wood is able to make his case without having to present any alternative theory of who-did-it (WDI) whatsoever. And, like SISU says, he may already have a plan in mind to accomplish this without the need for full disclosure. At first blush, IDI's might be pleased by such an outcome, but they shouldn't be. They have no more reason to believe whatever undisclosed evidence the police have exonerates all Ramseys than non-IDI's have reason to believe whatever they have further incriminates "them". The difference is this, in my opinion.

    There is a large segment of the IDI population whose empathy for "the Ramsey's" outweighs their desire for justice for JBR, especially since it's now going on thirty years without anyone having been arrested, let alone tried or prosecuted for the crime. These IDI's are easily identified because they all respond the same way, to such and such effect that, 'it's time to leave the Ramsey's alone' and that, or because, 'they have suffered enough'. Consciously, it's easier to live with believing there exists some unknown perpetrator "out there" who may even be dead or already in jail than with believing some perpetrator you "know" is living free and easy.

    My point is not to malign IDI's but to acknowledge that breathing fresh air into intruder "theories" at this late stage in the game serves no ones interest. CBS has a responsibility to itself, but more so to justice for JonBenet. Whether BDI or not, CBS lies in a bed only it made. They should be willing to reject a first settlement offer from Burke if it comes attached with leaving us the public as blind to the real killer as we are now, even if it costs them more in subsequent settlement costs. Public reaction to the case as it proceeds will tell them when enough is enough.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, didn't have a lot of time to edit.

      "even if it costs them more in subsequent settlement costs."

      should read:

      "even if delaying risks costing them more in future settlement offers".

      Mike G.

      Delete
    2. "Going on thirty years"? Woahhh....slow down, didn't we just reach the twenty year "anniversary" a week ago, Mike?! :P

      Delete
    3. Okay, okay....I meant "entering our third decade". Gee, this is a tough audience!

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. I'm only teasing you, Mike :)
      I love your posts and agree with almost everything you have to say - always well thought out and articulate!

      Delete
  6. I have a question.

    If CBS does get to the discovery stage, would they really be permitted to share any new information with the public? Clearly, I don't know what the law says, but couldn't/wouldn't the court issue some sort of protective order to ensure that such information remains confidential since this is still an open investigation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possibly. Either by motion or at a court conference, the court will put in place protective orders and determine what may or may not be available to the public.

      Delete
    2. Discovery - depositions and interrogatories - are part of pre-trial procedure; their transcripts and answers are not produced at trial unless they're used to impeach a witness, so unless they're leaked, the public is unlikely ever to see them, H.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Thank you, Doc, Dog and CC for your replies.

      CC-If CBS was to uncover new information during the discovery process and present it at trial, would they be allowed to share that info. with the public? Or is the court likely to seal that information? (I don't know the correct legal verbiage, but hopefully, what I'm asking still makes sense.) Thanks.

      Delete
    4. Trials are public record unless sealed for some reason, so it's possible, and what we're all hoping for, H.
      CC

      Delete
  7. Well, first of all, I seriously doubt anything from the Grand Jury investigation could be handed over to either the Ramseys or CBS. That info is sealed, period. But it's possible something like Burke's medical records could be unsealed, especially since he is no longer a child and no lonber in need of special protection. And if such evidence is produced during a court proceeding, then I'd imagine it would be available to the media and the general public.

    Just speculating here, as I know little about the legal aspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stuff that is sealed will usually stay sealed. It will be interesting to see what Burke introduces on his own volition though to prove his case. A deposition would be great, too.

      Delete
    2. There ought to be a statute of limitations on "sealed evidence". Twenty years is long enough to solve a crime.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    3. Even if a lot of the evidence in this case remains sealed, the inconsistencies in John's testimony about the broken window, his disappearance for an hour that morning, and conflicting statements from Patsy and John regarding the 911 call----all this is already part of record. So is what Fleet White saw when John opened the door.

      Doesn't defending any BDI theory as not "false", require exposing John's part in the cover up? If so, shouldn't CBS attorneys, if they're good, be able to expose his lies based on what we already know? Because the statute of limitations has expired, John can't be prosecuted for anything less than murder, right? But that doesn't mean his testimony in Burke's trial can't be used against him in the future if he's tried for murder, does it?

      Mike G

      Delete
  8. Lin Wood is a dynamic lawyer. When he represented Patsy at a police interview on 8/28/2000 in Atlanta, he advised her not to respond to this fiber evidence. Quite shocking stuff, really. Here it is: MR. LEVIN: I think that is
    4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
    5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
    6 from her jacket were found in the paint
    7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
    8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
    9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
    10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
    11 the question is, can she explain to us how
    12 those fibers appeared in those places that
    13 are associated with her daughter's death.
    14 And I understand you are not going to answer
    15 those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not answering a question is "dynamic"? How easily you are impressed.

      Delete
    2. I guess after reading the entire interview, I was very impressed. My main point should have been to state how surprised I was to read about all this fiber evidence.

      Delete
    3. Of course her fibers were going to be everywhere. She lived in the house, was in contact with JBR before she went to bed, she even embraced her after John brought her body upstairs. If she was wearing a fuzzy jacket, that stuff was going to be everywhere.

      That said, how do we know Levin had all of this evidence? You can ask anything in a deposition. This is why lawyers tell you not to answer "loaded" questions like that!

      Delete
    4. Not to mention, Patsy's fibers could have been on John as well. As we've discussed numerous times on this blog, fiber evidence from one's own home is never going to further a case against someone who lives in the home.

      Delete
    5. It wasn't a deposition. Those fibers were found in some key locations. Like into the ligature, on the paint tray, on the blanket she was wrapped in, and on the duct tape. In every transcript of police interviews, both she and John stated that he told her to call 911. I know there was one instance during a taped interview that she said she told him she was going to call 911 and he said okay, but that was one instance out of many, right from the beginning of the police transcripts.

      Delete
    6. Patsy's fibers could easily have been transferred from JonBenet herself onto the fingers of her attacker, and from there onto the various items used in the assault. Those fibers are therefore essentially meaningless as evidence. If fibers from some outsider's garment had been found, that would have been a different story.

      The fact that we have two contradictory versions of what happened prior to the 911 call is most certainly significant. That discrepancy has to be accounted for. John was sitting right next to her when she said that, and didn't blink an eye. Yes, it was one instance of many, but it most certainly cannot be ignored. Patsy's version is totally at odds with the "official" version presented during questioning and in their book. And we have no choice but to ask "why?"

      Delete
    7. I recall reading that there was a floor safe in the wine cellar that JonBenet was found in. Other than it being mentioned, I haven't seen any other discussion about it, but can't believe that it too, wasn't tested for fibers, etc.

      Possibly the reason Fleet White claims not to have seen anything when he opened the door to the wine cellar?


      GS

      Delete
    8. Just thinking that if that was Fleet White's testimony to the Grand Jury, and if in fact JR was unaccounted for, for an hour, this would implicate him in the cover-up.

      And again, if that is the case, and the body previously had been hidden, why did he eventually present the body to the police, when she could have stayed hidden indefinitely?

      Just speculation upon a possible scenario...

      GS

      Delete
  9. Well folks, just when you think you've turned the corner on the "NUTtiness" of this case, some freshly outrageous theory rears it ugly head. This time it's from a women, M'Linda Kula, who claims she and her husband attended a class in New Jersey on self-defense tactical training. They came to know one student in the class, a Bill Ramsey, who they allege murdered JonBenet. It is a long, convoluted, yet compelling in many aspects theory, that she has written a book on and (allegedly) distributed to Senators, the Governor of Colorado, the Boulder Police, John Ramsey, and John Ramsey's attorneys.

    I am still somewhat shocked by it to render an opinion on it yet. There is a lot to process as you listen to it, but it addresses many weaknesses of the IDI theory as it goes along. Hopefully, DocG or someone else on here already knows of it and can advise us accordingly. It's two hours long and often painstaking to listen to but it accounts for the following:

    1) Why and how the kidnapper/pedophile knew so much about John.
    2) How the crime truly might have been a "kidnapping gone wrong".
    3) Why the small size of the intruder perhaps allowed the cobwebs in the window to remain intct.
    4) The Hi-Tech boot print.
    5) The palm print and its curious location.
    6) The animal and other fibers found on the body and throughout the house.
    7) The stun gun marks.

    Some of the evidence she claims to have, including an e-mail she received from John, she said she will post on her Facebook page.

    So put your seat belts on, because if you haven't heard this theory, you're in for a shock. Until I hear what others have to say I'm inclined to believe this lady is a kook. But her knowledge of the case forces you to listen to her.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVun5_Wa5e0

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
  10. At the 9:26 mark of this video the shape of a heart appears in an object under the Christmas tree. It appears to be "cut out" of the object in a way that it be "traced" on something, such as on the palm of JonBenet's hand. Probably not important, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

    Mike G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP_Cy6gVxxw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Mike. That is a footstool that was common in the 90's. It has a heart cut out of the wood. My children were born in the early 90's and this was a common gift or purchase for a child's nursery.

      Delete
  11. Sounds kooky to me, Mike. She refers to Bill Ramsey getting an inheritance from a father who is living? With JR presumably being this father? Even if the Bill Ramsey dude is a long lost son or brother of JR's, no approximate age was given and it seems like that would have been provided. She gets various facts of the case wrong, too. Coo-Coo!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M'Linda Kula's "theory" is typical of the sort of nonsense the authorities have been bombarded with for years. In most cases, such as this one, they are easy to dismiss. In other cases, they lead to huge wastes of time and effort. The result: A reluctance on their part to consider any theory offered by anyone who might have some actual insight into what happened.

      Typically you have a person with a grudge, who manages to find some sort of link between this person he or she has a grudge against and certain aspects of the Ramsey case, puts two and two together, and decides that this person must have been the one who killed JonBenet.

      I listened to her ridiculous spiel, waiting for some substantial piece of evidence linking this guy to the Ramseys, until my patience ran out. First of all, there is no such thing as the Subic Bay Training Center. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that John had a "love child" while in the Philippines. Nor as far as I could tell is there any real evidence linking this guy to any aspect of the case, aside from the fact that he may have owned a stun gun and had Hi-Tec boots.

      This is actually a great example of how easy it is for people with no critical thinking skills whatsoever to delude themselves into believing they've cracked this case. Also a great example of how you can so easily go wrong when focusing only on certain pieces of evidence and ignoring everything else.

      Delete
    2. Thanks DocG. This women's parents were murdered by someone she believes was associated with Bill Ramsey's mentor, so she did have a potential grudge.

      The Boulder police probably received thousands of calls from people thinking they knew what SBTC stood for. It wouldn't surprise me if, to stop the calls, they leaked false information about it, which led to the "plaque" bearing the same initials shown on one of the recent documentaries.

      Sorry if I wasted your time. I've read virtually no full scale intruder theories implicating one person. I should have trusted my instincts better and ignored this one too.

      Mike

      Delete
  12. Doc, what do you think of the planned "further DNA testing" by the authorities? I wonder, even if they found DNA inside the ligatures, and it matched either Patsy, John, or even Burke, would that mean anything, other than the materials came from their home?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I had an emergency appendectomy Friday night so I'm not quite up to speed here, but I've been reading and I'm really amazed how thoughtful most everyone is in here, trying to think through all aspects of this case, the conversations in here are a cut above most blogsites that simply argue and defend their positions. As Dog says he has no skin in the game other than to see justice served and I'm of that mind too. One can believe a certain theory until they don't any more, and it really matters not in the wide scope of things. Only that the truth is ultimately reached. But something strikes me as a little off. Why would Lin Wood in Burke's behalf, want to bring possible incriminating information to light against his client and/or possibly John by opening up this case not knowing what could be revealed. Yes, he's making a huge point by asking for so much in damages, but doesn't he run a huge risk in the process that the surviving Ramsey's may have to talk? Might there be more consequences than payoff? This is Lin Wood's bailiwick however, his first big money client was Richard Jewell and the Olympic park bombing for which Jewell was maligned in the press, treated as guilty and not presumed innocent, by the press.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi inquiry, hope you're feeling better. I just read on Wikipedia about the lawsuits wood brought on Jewell's behalf. The newspaper was the only one that wouldn't settle. It's interesting how it was thrown out eventually from the supreme Court, and I wonder with regards to CBS and Burke, CC and Dog? the court concluded that" the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published-even though the investigators suspicions were deemed unfounded they cannot form the basis of a defamation action".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope you are feeling better too Inquisitive.

      Delete
    2. Get well, Inquisitive! :)

      Delete
    3. I'm feelin' the love, ha. Thank you guys.

      Delete
  15. Sorry should say inqu

    ReplyDelete
  16. The pivotal - and very controversial - finding by the lower court judge that Jewell was a public figure made Jewell's burden of proof more stringent, just as a similar finding of Burke Ramsey will have a huge impact on his case against CBS. The courts have been and remain divided on how they view people like Burke and Jewell who are thrust into the limelight, which is why I said in an earlier post that the trial judge in the CBS case will hold great sway here - it will be his decision whether or not Burke is a public figure. Likely this is why the case was filed in Michigan, Burke's home, rather than in NYC or LA where CBS is based and the "docuseries" originated.
    CC


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interestingly, I think it will be Burke's appearance on Dr Phil, which was voluntary, that may sink him, as up to that point, and unlike his father, he very carefully avoided becoming a public figure.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Completely agree with you, CC. It's also a major factor that a decent (not sure I would call it significant) amount of Burke's life has been in the public realm just based on the nature of the case.

      Everything couples together and I think it'll be difficult to determine he's not a public figure.

      However, as you said, the discretion is left with the court. That's a big blow to either side depending on the ultimate ruling.

      Delete
    3. I recall reading somewhere that the case is being filed in California, not Michigan. Anyone know for sure?

      Delete
    4. Doc, this article says the suit was filed in Michigan.

      http://www.9news.com/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/burke-ramsey-files-750m-suit-against-cbs-experts-in-jonbenet-special/379838922

      The suit was filed in Michigan. In addition to CBS Corp. and Critical Content LLC, it named the investigators involved in the show:

      Jim Kolar, a former Boulder District Attorney’s investigator who wrote a book about the Ramsey case called “Foreign Faction” that intimated that Burke could have been involved in the killing. Kolar is now the Town Marshal in Telluride.
      Jim Clemente, a former New York prosecutor and retired FBI agent.
      Laura Richards, a former behavioral analyst with New Scotland Yard.
      James R. Fitzgerald, a retired FBI agent.
      Stanley B. Burke, a retired FBI agent.
      Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist.
      Dr. Henry Lee, a forensic scientist well known for his work on the O.J. Simpson case, among others.

      Delete
  17. Thanks CC, this is all very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think so too, Eve, but I get that it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

    Defamation is tricky, as Dog has pointed out, and this case is more nuanced than most. CBS presented that show as a documentary, a serious effort at investigative journalism, when clearly it was nothing of the kind, and I think that will be an important consideration to finding that they acted with reckless disregard and willful malice.

    As I recall, there's a motion hearing on 2/4, defendant's Motion to Dismiss, iirc, so our first hurdle isn't long coming.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  19. But everyone should know that CBS is not The History Channel or Discovery, so the "special" should have been viewed as pure entertainment - but in this case entertainment that tarnished Burke's image. Because prior to this although there was much theorizing the death was a family affair (with only a few dissenters - Lou Smit and Mary Lacy) - investigators primarily focused on Patsy primarily, and John and Patsy secondarily. Burke was not properly considered until Kolar's book came out. But correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, to me this is interesting. Now I wonder how it will be covered. Please, no more dramatizations!

    ReplyDelete
  20. After reading some previous comments, it got me to wondering. So does anyone know, without me having to look it up, more info on the room JBR was found in?

    What are the dimensions of this room? How far back from the door was she found in the room? What other kind of stuff was in the room? Was it cluttered, empty? Like was she behind something?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think SC there are crime scene photos on candyrose, or at the least, the internet under of course crime scene photos JB Ramsey. Someone mentioned the wine cellar room having a key, it was a latch. At the top of the door on the side. Inside it was completely dark, although there was a light switch for it. It was used to store things like the fake Christmas trees they had, used paint cans and yes (sadly) like most of the Ramsey house, cluttered. Controversy for a while was that BR's swiss army knife was found on the floor of the wine cellar room, the implication being someone may have used it to cut the black duct tape as it was cut with a knife and not snipped with a pair of scissors. The housekeeper believed only she and Patsy knew where that knife was kept and Patsy must have taken it out of the closet and used it downstairs. But some speculate that Burke himself used it. How did it get there is the question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or rather why was the knife there, in that particular room where her body was found.

      Delete
    2. The knife was not found in that room, but in another location in the basement.

      Delete
  22. Let's just clear something up when it comes to the flack that the CBS special gets on this site. One of the main takeaways I has from watching it was that I think it proved that a boy around Burke's age COULD inflict the head blow. In John Ramsey's book he makes it clear that the head blow would have had to come from a strong adult male. I also believed that it was unlikely that Burke could have delivered the force necessary to do the damage to her skull. To avoid going into my theory again, you can't dismiss Burke now as a suspect simply because of the head blow. He MUST be considered a suspect.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J, I think Doc has commented before, and I tend to agree, that you cannot completely rule out Burke. For many of us, its the sexual abuse, the fact that Burke was allowed by the Ramsey's to leave the house, the fact that Burke was interviewed by the police, the fact that Burke has not turned out to be anything more than a socially awkward young man, and the ransom note itself that lead us to believe that John is the culprit. I don't believe either parent would have gone to the extreme to mutilate JBR in order to cover for Burke. Like John has said, put JR on the stand and let him throw Burke under the bus to save his own hide.

      Because of the grand jury findings, and the fact that I believe a male older than Burke molested her, I have always wondered about John Andrew. A neighbor who was close to the family thought he saw JAR approaching their house on Christmas day. I realize that JAR has an alibi, however JR did get an attorney for JAR and his mother. And his face could not be seen in the ATM shot. That said, I think he used the ATM at a time that evening that would have been too soon for his friends to have been enlisted to use his ATM card for him. So, as much as I think JAR is very suspicious -- even his own friends said he was obsessed with JB, and that adult Dr. Suess book is rather perverse, -- I don't see how he could have done it. Anyway, I've been pondering on that for a few days but still cannot find a way to believe that Burke was chronically abusing JBR.

      Delete
    2. Ok, lets pump the brakes. You didn't put a name to your post, so not sure who is commenting. Of course I have had this conversation with Doc and other before. Years ago I had the conversation with Doc about Burke when I was on the fence with my theory. Ultimately I agreed with him that Burke most likely couldn't have delivered the head blow and I was a JDI for a long time.
      I purposely didn't get into my BDI theory because that wasn't the point of my post. I am simply defending the CBS Special. Most people that rip that special do so because they don't believe Burke did it. That's fine, everybody is entitled to their opinion. IMO, the Special cleared up the issue of whether or not a 9 year old (almost 10) could have delivered the force necessary to inflict the crack in the skull. The answer is now...YES, he could have inflicted the head blow. The head blow started the whole thing that led to the staging.

      -J

      Delete
    3. "you can't dismiss Burke now as a suspect simply because of the head blow. He MUST be considered a suspect."

      No need to pump the brakes. I don't know why you think many have dismissed Burke. He has always been a remote possibility to many JDI's theorists. I didn't need the CBS special to illustrate what a 9 year old boy could do -- I raised a boy and I know what they can do at that age. I simply re-iterated why the possibility of Burke being able to hit JBR is not enough. I get it, you don't want to hear that argument.

      I don't sign my posts intentionally. There has been some bullying and rudeness on this site, as there is anytime people can hide behind a screen or otherwise are not able to choose their words more carefully. I prefer to stay out of that. I try to get my point across as simply as possible.

      Delete
    4. Yes, if one goes only by the uncontested facts, Burke cannot be ruled out. Technically, he could have been abusing JonBenet and, technically, he could have mustered the strength to deliver that devastating blow. Realistically, however, I find it unlikely in the extreme that Burke did either of these things.

      While Kolar was able to dredge up some research showing that some nine year old boys are in fact sexually active, the fact remains that the great majority are not. And there were NO signs of anything of that sort in Burke, who was continually under the watchful eye of his family and his teachers. From all accounts his friends were all boys and he spent much of his time with his computer games. While he may not have been typical in all respects, it does look like he was typical for boys his age in his lack of interest in females.

      As for John Jr., again, technically he might have been the one abusing her in the past. But his alibi is solid -- he was definitely not in Boulder on the night of the crime. Putting two and two together, if the motive for murder was covering up past sexual abuse, then the most likely suspect by far would be John Sr.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous - Understandable and it's a shame that a few bad apples made you feel you couldn't post your name.

      The bottom line is that it is a FACT there was a head blow. It is NOT a FACT to say there was prior molestation. It is also not a FACT to say there was a motive to kill her and that motive was to cover up abuse. The bottom line Anonymous is that BR absolutely gets dismissed on this site for a variety of reasons. One of the main ones up until the CBS special was the head blow, which was my only point. I think they did a great job of illustrating that it was possible that Burke could have delivered the head blow. Talking about how parents wouldn't cover up a heinous crime for their son is pure speculation and opinion.

      -J

      Delete
    6. Awww, c'mon J. . . you know I'm not going to let that pass: six medical experts found evidence of prior sexual abuse. Of the three cited as dissenting, one said he needed more information before reaching a conclusion, another utterly misunderstood the definition of child sexual abuse, and the third said he saw no bruising or evidence JBR had been forced, which was never at issue. All of which makes your position on prior abuse "pure speculation and opinion" without foundation.
      CC

      Delete
    7. ehhhh that's not true CC. I have a Pediatrician who saw her over 25 times saying he never saw any abuse. Her own doctor who actually physically saw her. UTI's and other reasons could have contributed to any signs of what looked like abuse.
      It gets stated on here like its fact she was abuse and I would argue that it is absolutely not factual.

      -J

      Delete
    8. Her pediatrician never did an internal exam, without which it is impossible to determine sexual abuse. UTIs and vaginitis do not damage the hymen or increase the diameter of the vaginal opening.

      It's a fact, J.
      CC

      Delete
    9. For the record, I always felt that IF there was any prior abuse, it was Burke. I don't believe it is a fact, is it likely she was abused prior to that night? Yes it is likely, but not definitive in my mind.

      -J

      Delete
    10. If you can consider Burke as a possible person for molesting JBR, why can you not assume John could have done it? Linda Arndt, who was present at the autopsy, saw the evidence of abuse for herself. Not even being a doctor, but being a female, she was shocked by what she saw.

      I have a daughter and her pediatrician never examined her privates. Never was an internal exam done. Complaints of vaginitis are addressed topically, because the Rx for that symptom is very effective and works pretty quickly. If it doesn't work, then I assume back to the doctor you go. I suspect JBR's vaginitis could have been separate from the abuse, and possibly due to poor hygiene and maybe wearing tight leotards for dancing. That said, she could have complained about her privates being irritable for both reasons - vaginitis and because of the abuse.

      Delete
    11. J, I think there are other reasons to consider Burke's involvement other than CBS showing that a 9 year old can strike a blow with the force that was used on JB. And that is his admission at being up later than the others, and handling the flashlight. As far as I know he was never polygraphed, and manages to allude follow up questioning for some 20 years until he gets softballs thrown at him on Dr. Phil. This seems to be a Ramsey tactic - to use the media for damage control.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous - IF John was abusing her then it was a completely isolated incident. Nobody has ever suspected him of any wrongdoing towards kids or has been accused of it. I dont want to speculate whatsoever on what abuse looks like because I am not a doctor. I will say that there are other symptoms in behaviors that aren't physical of an abused child and I'm not sure if she showed any of those signs.
      Burke saw therapists and was getting a ton of help. Yet the day of the crime he cared about his Nintendo and didnt seem to care at all about his sister when being questioned by the therapist. Why was Burke getting help and why was his grade school teacher called by the Grand Jury?

      -J

      Delete
    13. You all don't seem to get much about abuse.
      "Nobody has ever suspected him of any wrongdoing towards kids or has been accused of it." There is no sign above the kid, YES I am being abused. Often times, no one knows. His friends are not going to know. The wife might know, but she would never tell either.

      As to Burke, yes, he also could have been molesting her. In fact, Burke might have been sexually abused by JR too. Abusers don't always discriminate, it is about power mostly. That is where he might have learned the behavior. But there is no way to judge, that just because BR was playing video games, meant he did not abuse.

      Delete
    14. btw, look up Fred and Rosemary West from the UK. That is a crazy case. They abused all their kids, got away with it for years.

      Delete
    15. J - my sister and 2 cousins were abused by our grandfather. They did not reveal this until they were adults and he was dead. No one ever suspected, and there were plenty of attentive adults around these kids at the time. He sneaked into their rooms in the middle of the night while on summer vacation visits.

      These girls said that they didn't even realize at the time, because they were so young, that fondling was abuse. As their awareness grew, they were ashamed and afraid, so they never spoke about it. This is the way it is with most insidious abuse -- not all abuse is out and out rape, penetration, etc. Some abusers stop at groping. You are out of your everloving mind if you excuse John for the reasons you gave. My grandfather was an upstanding and respected man in his community. No one would ever believe what he did. But these 3 adult women know exactly what he did, and he got by with it until they were old enough to resist his advances, which is when he backed off. He never abused his own daughter, she claims. In fact, some family members believe he only started this "behavior" after a heart attack in his 70's. We will never know if he had other victims, but I can tell you that I was not a victim and neither were other of the grandchildren. Just 3 of them -- all about the same age when it started.

      It sounds like JBR was starting to resist, to me.

      Delete
    16. Yes sorry to hear what happened in your family, but it is not uncommon. Now with the internet, we know how not uncommon it is, because people can write their stories anonymously. We maybe did not know that as much 20 years ago.

      Yes it seems like JBR was one smart little girl. She did not want to wear matching outfits with mommy and she stood her ground. She did not like the doll that mom got that looked like her, in other words, I am not just a doll mom. She might have been too bright for their liking.

      Delete
    17. Yes I agree with the poster above who said that the pediatrician would not examine the hymen. First of all, people are so scared of sex abuse lawsuits, he was probably afraid to look at it. He can't look at it without a really compelling reason.

      Delete
    18. @SC, you wrote...

      "There is no sign above the kid, YES I am being abused. Often times, no one knows. His friends are not going to know. The wife might know, but she would never tell either."

      I totally agree with the majority of your statement. Abuse isn't always obvious. However, the last thing you said is not absolute either. While, sadly, I know that it happens, whether due to denial or blatant disregard for their child's welfare, you can't say that a wife would never tell. It makes me a little sick to even type this, but if I discovered that my husband was abusing our children, I'd turn him in in a heartbeat. I certainly can't be an anomaly.

      Delete
  23. Doc - I posted this at 1:38 PM on Jan 2. Not sure you saw it. If not, can you comment? What do you think of the planned "further DNA testing" by the authorities? I wonder, even if they found DNA inside the ligatures, and it matched either Patsy, John, or even Burke, would that mean anything, other than the materials came from their home?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is that the additional DNA testing will involve resolving the multiple DNA samples into their components, which should, I'd imagine, produce at least two very different sets of markers. Once that is done, then a more meaningful search for a match can be conducted. It amazes me that Lacy expected to find a match for a mixed sample, but apparently that was the case.

      If in fact that's what is being planned, then it's possible a match might be found after all, which would definitely move the case forward. Remember, however, that, even if a match IS found, it by no means could be used as proof positive that this person was involved. He might well have an airtight alibi and even if he doesn't, he could argue, as I and others have done, that no intruder theory makes sense and that his DNA was transferred to JonBenet's clothing indirectly.

      Delete
    2. Well, he could argue that if he has a good attorney. If the intruder is a lowlife with only a public defender at his disposal (not that there aren't some excellent public defenders out there)and given that it's been 20 years and the public wants justice for JB, we'll see how well he fares in a court of law.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Doc, for answering my question. This whole matter of mixed DNA is not something I totally understand. I keep hoping that add'l DNA is found in the ligatures and other places that might even ID yet another person. Which may or may not further the case, you as pointed out.

      Delete
  24. "It is also not a FACT to say there was a motive to kill her and that motive was to cover up abuse." J

    Points 60, 62, and 63 of the 70 reasons why Burke could not have committed:

    60. There were physical findings on her body that strongly suggest that JonBenet struggled with her attacker and was conscious at the time she was garroted.

    62. Wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garrote were found inside JonBenet Ramsey, leading the family and investigators to believe she had been sexually assaulted.

    63. JonBenet's body showed signs of sexual damage that caused bleeding.

    Whatever you believe to be "fact" J, is moot. Wood has already submitted to the court "facts" as he sees them and to which on the surface he now seems committed. If John Ramsey IS ever tried for the crime, Wood's statements here, particularly point 60, made it difficult, if not impossible, to theorize the strangulation as part of a "staging" and/or cover-up. And if Burke strangled a JBR who was "conscious at the time she was garroted", a potentially future defense attorney for John Ramsey, even if it's not Wood, will have difficulty explaining why Patsy wrote the ransom note, AND made the 911 call. If Burke didn't murder JBR, was Patsy covering up for an "intruder" to fool John? I don't think that could even be argued.

    Even if CBS wins the lawsuit and, much to everyone's surprise, John, not Burke, is brought to trial, the "facts" CBS established as "not false" doesn't notarize them as "true". Wood, on the other hand, might recuse himself as John's attorney, but does that mean he can't be subpoenaed to appear as a witness? I'll leave it to our lawyers to inform us what the law says on this.

    There are times Wood used quotation marks in his list of 70 reasons and times he didn't. One wonders how circumspect he crafted his use of them, thinking he could spin them as circumstances dictated. To use the vernacular, he'd be preparing to have his cake and eat it too. Again, until we hear from Dog and CC, I'm only speculating.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm sorry, but you lost me. You think Wood submitted those 70 "reasons" to the court? As what? I thought that was some sort of release to the media, and a lame one at that.

    Lin Wood is a defamation attorney and does not, to my knowledge, practice criminal law. Why would he recuse himself, and from what?

    How could he be subpoenaed as a witness in any proceeding without violating attorney/client confidentiality?

    I'm in the weeds here, Mike, and guess I'm missing your point to boot.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its been a long time since Ive said thank you to anyone, but thank you CC...even if you weren't defending me directly

      -J

      Delete
    2. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, J. You know that.
      CC

      Delete
    3. The 70 facts have were reported as ones "Burke and his legal team stand behind". I'm sure I'm not the only non-lawyer who read them as a document intended only for the media. You chastise me for speaking on legal issues without having a law degree and insult me when I defer them to the attornys.

      I looked it up and you are correct regarding attorney client privilege.

      "The attorney-client privilege is permanent. The client can continue to assert it, and the lawyer must assert it, into perpetuity. That’s true even after the attorney and client's relationship has concluded. (United States v. White, 970 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1992).)"

      Again, I'm sure lots of people without law degrees are unaware of this.

      You are not God or a Doctor CC, you're a lawyer. And if "touche" to me and patronizing people like J boosts your ego, your profession and its reputation stands only to gain by your impending retirement.

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry you were offended, Mike. I never intend to patronize, and try to avoid bogging down in legal arcana in an effort to make the law accessible to everyone. I was genuinely puzzled by your post and convinced you had a point, and I was just obtusely missing it.

      I've complimented you in the past on your enthusiasm for this case and your interest in the law, and that stands. My apologies for the rest.

      As for J, I enjoy sparring with him, and believe he does with me, but if that's not the case, mea culpa to him as well.
      CC

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

      Delete
    6. Mike, I can understand your annoyance, but personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated on this blog, even when they constitute only a part of someone's comment, which may otherwise be meaningful. I've decided not to delete your last post only because of CC's very gracious response.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for your efforts to smooth things over, Candy, and the kind words.
      CC

      Delete
    8. CC - always fun sparring with you as well. Im usually in over my head, so I hope to avoid having you comment on my post's, but still fun :-)

      -J

      Delete
    9. You can hold your own just fine, J, and I'll cheerfully defend your right to do so any time . . . even though you drive me nuts with the damned pineapple bowl.
      CC

      Delete
  26. If Burke did it, it stands to reason, the parents would not do all that, just for Burke. They would do all that to cover up for anything, they THEMSELVES did, and the main thing that could be, is sex abuse. Otherwise, they would just try and get lawyered up and pretend it was an accident by him. Since Burke was just nine, most of it would be sealed. No one would have ever heard of it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I just looked up crime scene photos of the wine cellar room. I did not find a great pic of it yet, into the room. But the room seemed long and narrow. JBR seemed to be against back wall. There seemed to be some stuff in the way, like a bag of golf clubs. It does seem odd that JR could see that far back. Especially since she was fully covered with a blanket. How did he know what it was so quick? Could have just been some Xmas stuff or laundry with a blanket over it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, isn't this a good clue. Apparently, they opened the room and JR screamed. But she was totally covered with a blanket. Wouldn't a parent want to assume the best, and assume it is NOT her, until he removes the blanket? Why scream right away? I don't think that is a normal reaction.

      Delete
    2. Because the theories in here are that he, John, already knew what he was looking at.

      Delete
    3. He must have. And read my comment below too on Fleet.

      Delete
    4. It is my recollection that her feet were not covered by the blanket -- I'm pretty sure John said that in one of his transcripts. I believe Fleet White said he touched her feet and they were cold.

      Delete
  28. As a Denver attorney who has followed the JBR case closely, knows a few of the principals and has even tried a couple of defamation cases . . . Lin Wood has just stepped into a tar pit and he has likely done his client a grave disservice. Wood is a bully, and has gotten this far with threats, intimidation and bluster. Won't work this time. His clients, John Ramsey and everybody else involved will FINALLY get examined under oath and have to answer questions from seasoned lawyers. I'm guessing CBS will hire a murderers row of legal pros who won't get buffaloed or swayed by Lin Wood.

    CBS has zero liability IMHO. They didn't publish a story that declared that BR killed JBR. They hired investigators who reviewed the evidence and offered an opinion. Not a statement of fact. To be sure, if I'm BR I ain't happy. But suing CBS just throws kerosene on a dying fire. And Lin Wood may have started a process that may clear one client . . . and bury another one. Not smart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon....I certainly hope and pray that you are right!!

      Delete
    2. I am not a lawyer and I don't know much about defamation lawsuits, but I agree that CBS is not going down and won't lose. I am sure before that show was aired, their lawyers reviewed it with a fine tooth comb. It was the review of evidence by experts who gave their opinion. Aren't we all entitled to an opinion. Isn't that what we are doing here? None of us can really KNOW for a fact what happened. None of us were there, but we do have theories and opinions.

      EG

      Delete
    3. It wasn't presented as an opinion. It was presented as solving the case. By the time the show was over, they were proclaiming to the world that Burke did it.

      Delete
    4. Great post anon and my feelings exactly ! Everyone should be able to voice their opinion, whether wrong or right, as far as I am concerned, I thought the professionals on CBS did a great job with what they had to work with whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen. If you listen to some of the JDI's on here they speak like they are the professionals and everyone else, including world renowned experts are a joke. Wood is a POS snake as far as I am concerned and a bully as well. I would love to see him get his ass handed to him. I feel either CBS will settle or Wood will back down, although I am surely hoping not.

      Delete
  29. That's probably the strongest argument for why it wasn't Burke, SC. Because of what came after. But I still don't think we can make the connection explaining the murder with a motive being to cover for sex abuse. At least I can't. But I acknowledge that others can.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And my question is, why didn't JR search the wine cellar room himself? Why farm that out to friend? If my kid was missing, I would search every room myself. After all, I am the one who knows my own house the best. It is not THAT big of a house. It is not Buckingham palace. How long would it take to go through each room? Not too long. Yes your friends could look too, as a backup, after you looked. Not first. How long would it take to go to each room, open the door, and turn on the lights, and just look. Not too long. But apparently JR could not manage that? Come on. Does not pass the smell test.

    My theory btw is, that Fleet White DID see her there. And he pretended he did not. Because he was starting to get the idea already that his buddy John was setting him up. So he figured, best stay away. Let John find the body.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Tried to look up stuff on Fleet White. I am not sure why he searched the basement and not JR. I still think the first thing JR would do, even before police got there, was go look into every room, especially the basement, and just see if there was any evidence there. Some objects that shouldn't be there, things messed around, etc. Even if you thought it was a kidnapping, you would still want to see if any room was disturbed, anything was unusual there. You would look at every room, yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, he did search SC. He could have searched before the cops were called,or right after, but he disappeared when Arnt was there for around an hour and likely searched or moved things around then. He told JAR that he found her at 11 a.m. He could have found her earlier than that as well. But around 1 p.m. he's asked by Arnt to have another look around and finds her (again). This time for show. We discussed this many times in here previously. Fleet had reportedly looked in the wine cellar room but did not turn on the light. JB had abrasions other places on her body, interpreted as possible drag marks. We know her bladder gave way outside the wine cellar room probably after strangulation and she could have been dragged into the wine cellar room afterward. I'm wondering something. Why be dragged. If JR did it couldn't he have simply carried her into the wine cellar room? Finding her DNA on his clothing would have meant nothing. He lived in the home. But someone who perhaps couldn't carry her dead weight may have dragged her there.

      Delete
    2. Nice touch too, wrapping her papoose-style in her favorite blanket after brutalizing her body. As if he/she was saying I only care about myself, but I did love you.

      Delete
    3. Yes Inq, I had heard vaguely about the timeline, but now seeing what you wrote again, it does not pass the smell test. He had all that time to look around prior, and he did not open the door to that room and turn on the lights. I mean her spot did not appear to be particularly hidden. It's not like there was a bunch of furniture in front of her or such. All JBR had to do was open the door.

      I personally don't even believe Fleet didn't see her before.

      And frankly, I am surprised PR did not search too. I would, if I were the mom. More evidence that she was in on it too.

      Delete
    4. I mean "JR" had to open the door, above.

      Delete
    5. SC, the way I read the story, Fleet's daughter Daphne once hid out on Fleet and Priscilla to the point where they called the police.

      She was later found hiding under her bed. Fleet's idea was to do a search himself, even calling out JonBenet's name. He was doing this, while John was being briefed by the police as to what to say when the kidnappers called, before it was realized that no call would come, but after an initial search of the basement by police had already be made.

      The door was latched with a piece of wood and a screw at the top, and thick carpet further made opening the door difficult.

      Since there were no other entrances into the wine cellar, the first officer did not make an effort to open that door on first inspection of the basement (they were looking for evidence of a break-in, and no one could have broken in through the fully enclosed wine cellar, at this point still believing JonBenet was removed from the home by the kidnappers).

      Fleet claims to have opened the door to the wine cellar, but did not step in. He felt for a light switch, up on the wall where you normally would expect to find it, but did not find one.

      It was later stated that the light switch was down near the floor.

      Fleet's statement was, indeed, that John let out a scream prior to actually going into the wine cellar, as if he "already knew" what he would find.

      I believe that Linda Arndt had suggested that Fleet accompany John on the "top to bottom" search of the house, but it could be possible that John wanted a witness as to how JonBenet was found.

      GS

      Delete
    6. Thanks for the details GS. That provides more context.

      I still think there is a possibility that Fleet did turn on the light. Perhaps he had been in the room before with JR, and knew where the light switch was. I think he could be lying. And he is lying, to protect himself. No one wants to be more involved than they have to. And he was smart to do so.

      Because I don't think it is realistic that FW would go to all that trouble to open the door, and not make an effort to get a flashlight or something.

      I also do not find it realistic that JR AND PR did not insist on searching the house, themselves. Later that afternoon, or even before police got there. I mean it had to take police ten minutes at least. How long would it take to at least look into each room in your house. No more then 15 minutes probably. It would be the first thing anyone would do.

      Delete
    7. If I found a ransom note written by someone claiming to have taken my daughter, there would be no need to do a search of my house, as the ransom note is proof my daughter is not simply playing a game of hide and seek. A six year old, or even her nine year old brother, isn't capable of writing a two and a half page note detailing her own beheading, foreign factions, law enforcement countermeasures etc., therefore it would be immediately apparent that she had indeed been abducted. So the fact that Patsy didn't search the whole house makes complete sense to me. That was the entire reason John wrote the note to begin with - because he knew Patsy would have no reason to search the house for a kidnapped JonBenet.....and that part of his plan worked just as he'd hoped.

      Delete
    8. If I found a ransom note written by someone claiming to have taken my daughter, there would be no need to do a search of my house, as the ransom note is proof my daughter is not simply playing a game of hide and seek.   More silliness, you would search for your child just as anyone would. It could be a prank, or it could be just about anything. Just as you would read the whole note and follow its instructions rather than do the exact opposite of everything it says and have the whole neighborhood over when you think you are being watched by kidnappers. Whatever you need to do to fit your theory around the facts, I just hope there are at least some who do not buy into its ridiculousness.

      Delete
    9. PR was distraught and upset but the friends were called by PR to use as a shield from LE. FYI

      Delete
    10. Don't tell me what I would or would not do, Keiser. You may speak for yourself, but not for me.....FYI. Thank you.

      Delete
    11. I'm sorry, SC, but what you say about Fleet is simply not logical. An innocent person's first instinct would not be to lie to the cops to protect themselves. If they weren't involved, there is no reason to lie, or close the door and stay mum after finding a dead child.

      Delete
    12. I may not be able to tell you what you would or would not but I can tell you that you nor anyone else would dp what the Ramseys did. Like I said Ms. D feel free to "fit" your story however you would like. The notion that the note was to stop PR from searching is ridiculous as well. As if JR could not hide the body well enough for PR to not find ? Next you will tell me that if you were in this situation and your husband called for an airplane to escape with, you would not be able to pick up on that either or notice he was gone for an hour or notice his handwriting or... sorry but this is getting kind of comical to me.

      Delete
    13. Keiser, regardless of what you might think, it's clear that the ransom note threw just about everyone in that house off-guard. No, Patsy didn't think to turn the house upside down looking for JonBenet, but she wasn't the only one. The police were looking only for an entry or exit point, not a living -- or dead -- child. When Arndt finally told John to look through the house that afternoon, she instructed him to look for evidence. If she suspected a body was hidden in the house she would certainly have looked for it herself, but, like Patsy (and John, initially), she did not.

      You continually make the mistake of assuming that you know how everyone would, or should, behave, but such assumptions mean little. If you follow the various websites devoted to this case you'll find all sorts of different assumptions based on what various people feel sure HAD to be the case. Such assumptions mean little unless backed up by actual facts and evidence.

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

      Delete
    15. Keiser SozayJanuary 4, 2017 at 3:23 PM

      She would not need to think to look all over the house because it would have been a natural instinct to do so. As far as knowing what someone would or would not do then maybe I would not, I do however know that it would NOT BE what the Ramseys did, PR included.

      Delete
  32. Yes the controversy is over. JR did it. And the evidence for that is, the way he acted that first morning. Lot of evidence there.

    I believe PR was involved too, in some way. Maybe even BR too, who knows. But JR was the brains of the operation.

    I am not game with Doc's two part plan though. I think the botched kidnapping was planned from the beginning. It was an act of reverse psychology.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Does anyone know if the duvet, sham and Dr. Seuss book (found in the piece of luggage) had any of JB's DNA on it? I do recall that JAR's sperm was found on the duvet. I have had a gut feeling that JAR was the one that was previously molesting JB, and it's possible that evidence in that suitcase was also going to be disposed of by JR the next day. I believe JAR left for Atlanta around the 18th of Dec., and that was around the time that PR made three phone calls to the pediatrician? While Patsy may have been oblivious -- I think she was naive in a lot of ways -- it may be possible that John was suspicious and asked JB some questions in private after JAR left. Maybe JR decided he had to take action before JAR and JB were in the presence of each other again.

    If it came out that JAR was molesting JB, he would serve jail time and be known as a pedophile for the rest of his life. The question is --- would JR murder his daughter to save his son and family name?

    -V-

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hmmmm, V. I guess that adds another layer. but we have to be careful to not get mired in the morass as Doc has pointed out. The semen stain wasn't on the duvet cover as I recall, but on a blanket, and stuffed into the Samsonite suitcase with a Dr. Seuss book also inside. SC, my point possibly a month ago was if John "found her", as in his earlier excursions down to the basement, then he didn't know she was there until he had a look around and found her. Then at 1 p.m. he already knew where she was and given the chance by Arnt, brought her up. I think what Doc's theory has going for it is it's very linear - this happened, then that, then that, then this. Whereas we can't fathom that a child would kill his sister and then a parent would brutalize her and write a note, and we can't figure out what could have caused Patsy to essentially, go beserk. Now if you would like to entertain an intruder theory I think I know someone who could walk you through one................

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "SC, my point possibly a month ago was if John "found her", as in his earlier excursions down to the basement, then he didn't know she was there until he had a look around and found her."

      I am not sure what that means.

      "Then at 1 p.m. he already knew where she was and given the chance by Arnt, brought her up."

      I am sorry, I don't think that is believable. JR- 'Oh btw, Arndt, I think I found my dead daughter downstairs below. Yeah a couple hours ago. Oh it just slipped my mind. Why, wait, I'm sorry, were you looking for her? Oh I didn't know."

      I don't think that really works.

      Delete
    2. What I meant was he looked around. He obviously found her earlier. In fact he told John Jr. that he found her at 11 a.m. so that at 1 when Arnt said search the house again he went right to the basement, proclaims shock, and brings her up. If he found her earlier, just the act of finding her, then he did not know she was there, as in he didn't cause her to be there. Finding her the first time he found her was not an act in otherwords. Finding her the second time was. It's kind of a mind twister. If he believed his wife had anything to do with it he didn't want to tell Arnt that he had found her in the basement earlier. Perhaps he didn't want to do the police job for them, perhaps he thought they would find something incrimminating so just let it take it's course, but when he grew increasingly more agitated and Arnt gave him something to do he must have thought enough is enough, they aren't going to find her we're just going to sit around here all day, so let's just get this over with and went and retrieved her.

      Delete
  35. I've always questioned why FW didn't ask JR where that light switch was in that room. He claimed he didn't see anything, so either the body wasn't there when FW checked that room OR it was there, but he didn't bother asking how to turn the light on, and couldn't see it. But if you're searching every inch of the house for anything out of place or unusual, why would you NOT turn the light by asking JR where the switch was.
    I don't believe FW would have seen the body and not said anything. I am wondering why JR said he found the body at 11AM, but didn't say anything. That's just odd. Unless he was waiting for LE to discover it and when they hadn't he needed to get the show on the road, so to speak.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  36. Okay this is my latest theory, and I think it works pretty good.

    JR heard BR and JBR go downstairs later. He then took JBR downstairs after, and hit her on the head. His first plan was to remove the body, with JBR alive, that way he would avoid any cadaver dogs.

    Something happened, his plans changed. Maybe JBR woke up early. She began to struggle. He ended up killing JBR. Then he knew he was screwed with the cadaver dogs. He thought the best thing to do was leave the body in the house.

    He woke PR up, told her BR had hit JBR in the head and killed her. He told her they could not go to the police, because they would go to jail for sex abuse, and she would be a conspirator. Patsy did not really believe him about BR, but was too weak to resist. And she said she would cooperate.

    So they cooked up the kidnapping story. The reason they did that, is one they did not want to move the body, because of cadaver dogs. And two, JR's plan was to frame Fleet White. They wanted to write a note with a financial motive, and you cannot do that after the victim is killed.

    Three, JR wanted Fleet White to discover the body. That way, FW would have the cadaver scent on him. That was why he called his friend FW first thing, and made HIM go look at the wine cellar.

    I think Fleet White did see go in that room and did turn on the lights. I mean how hard is it to find a light switch. He saw the body there. And he pretended not to. FW was starting to get the idea he was being framed.

    Once JR saw that FW was not playing along, JR had to go to plan B, and find the body himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or if it makes you all feel better, we can skip the step where JR told PR. I could go either way on it.

      So, other alternative, JR wrote the note, but he tried to imitate PR's handwriting. One, because it's easier to imitate something, than just make up a style. And PR's was the only one he really knew. Two, can't hurt to have a back up plan. He can always say, PR wrote that, not me.

      PR was suspicious though. Deep down she knew it was JR. And that was why she was so evasive later. Because she still wanted him as a support system.

      Delete
    2. But what reason would he have for hitting JB over the head? And if it was so close to him walking Burke back upstairs then Burke heard enough to know who killed his sister. And that's certainly possible in any event. Burke should be polygraphed.

      Delete
    3. JR planned on getting rid of JBR. Someone called 911 three days before. He was afraid that once they went to visit relatives, someone would hear about JBR's sexual abuse, either JBR or PR would tell. He got rid of the main witness. Hitting her on the head was a way to get her out of the house alive, to avoid a cadaver scent.

      Burke might know more than he lets on, true.

      Delete
    4. If JonBenet was going to tell a relative, I'm sure she knew how to use the phone.

      All John would have had to do was deny it, if that were to happen - killing her is hardly the way to avoid an abuse charge, I would think...since murder is abuse of the worse kind. Why try to cover abuse with further abuse?

      What relative would have believed JonBenet, when it is common for children not to be believed in these situations?

      I personally think John acted like a man with a sneaking suspicion. He at first believed that there had been a kidnapping, and demonstrated this by fully cooperating with the police.

      Something, however, led him to question if this actually was the case. As has been observed many times, John was not an ignorant man, nor a stupid man.

      So he looked around the house himself and found her. It took a good 2 hours for that to sink in and come to grips with the situation. What was the best thing to do? The right thing to do was to hand her over to the police, and call off this search for her outside the home.

      In my opinion, rather than to keep her hidden very well (perhaps in that safe, where perhaps he found her originally), he did present her to the police, and lawyered up, choosing to support Patsy on the chance that there had been an intruder and that she was innocent.

      But something in the very beginning led John himself to question that a kidnapping had actually occurred. My opinion only.

      GS


      Delete
    5. Why would finding Jonbenet's body lead White to believe he was being framed? Both were told not to touch anything. Even if, as you seem to imply,"touching" a cadaver is required before a dog can smell it on someone, it is unreasonable to assume White would have touched JonBenet after being told not to. Why would he? She wasn't his daughter.

      But even if he had touched her, how would that one simple act have foiled John's plan to frame him? Are you suggesting John wanted Fleet to discover and touch the body before or just as the police arrived? "Touching" a cadaver contaminates the scene, true, but a "cadaver" scent at that point no longer becomes incriminating--it becomes expected. How would John convince police the scent was the result of Fleet touching the dead body the night before.

      You say: "They wanted to write a note with a financial motive, and you cannot do that after the victim is killed."

      How do you reconcile that with what you said earlier?

      Something happened, his plans changed. Maybe JBR woke up early. She began to struggle. He ended up killing JBR.

      Either you CAN write a ransom note with a financial motive (since that's what the police found) after a victim is killed or the note was written before the murder. Your logic up to this point forces you to choose one or the other. You have to choose the later which means John's entire "frame Fleet White" plan would have included writing a ransom note police could tie back to Fleet. There is no evidence to that effect.

      All this leads to my one final question and it's corollary. What it is about your JDI theory you prefer over Doc's? And what is it about Docs theory you reject in favor of yours?

      Mike G.



      Delete
    6. You ask good questions. Hmm. Maybe John was going to ask Fleet to help carry the body? Maybe JR would go as low as bumping FW's hand into the body? That might be a stretch.

      "How would John convince police the scent was the result of Fleet touching the dead body the night before." Well some cadaver scent is better than no cadaver scent. At least JR has a possibility of framing FW then.

      "Either you CAN write a ransom note with a financial motive (since that's what the police found) after a victim is killed or the note was written before the murder. Your logic up to this point forces you to choose one or the other."

      I don't get what you're saying here. You either have to write the note before or after the murder? Well... yes. It does have to be before, or, after. It can't be both before and after. I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean you can NOT write a ransom note after the murder?

      "You have to choose the later which means John's entire "frame Fleet White" plan would have included writing a ransom note police could tie back to Fleet. There is no evidence to that effect. "

      JR put his Xmas bonus in there. Maybe Fleet was one of the only people JR told about that. Fleet had a key to the house. Fleet was the first person JR called. He tried to make Fleet go into the wine room. JR could not make the note too obvious. He had to leave it a little vague, or it would not realistic.

      Delete
    7. "All this leads to my one final question and it's corollary. What it is about your JDI theory you prefer over Doc's? And what is it about Docs theory you reject in favor of yours?"

      I don't believe JR would be that naive to think PR would not call police after seeing that ransom note. I don't think that is a realistic plan.

      I also think PR was in on it, due to her evasive attitude. Her history beforehand. Also her behavior that morning. But either way, the first point stands.

      Also I don't know where you all get this idea that no one would write a ransom note with the body in the house? Where does that come from?

      Why not? The point of the ransom note, is to throw misdirection. That's all. Why not do that? It's also a nice little bit of reverse psychology. Where they would think, oh, no one would think we did it, because who would write a ransom note with the body in the house? It also gave them some time that morning to get FW over there first. Not have the police search the house with cadaver dogs first things. Maybe flush some evidence first. So I see no reason why they would not write a ransom note.

      Delete
    8. "It also gave them some time that morning to get FW over there first. Not have the police search the house with cadaver dogs first things. Maybe flush some evidence first. So I see no reason why they would not write a ransom note."

      Which could have been achieved more efficiently if they simply never called the police that morning to begin with, as the note clearly instructed - and for a very specific purpose. The plan you've outlined would have worked better if the police were called *after* all of these things had been taken care of. If John and Patsy were both in on it together, the police wouldn't have been called until much later - which, going by the sheer amount of time the author of the note spent on trying to deter the reader from calling the police, it was obviously integral to the plan, and not simply part of a ruse to fool authorities.
      You don't wait until after the police arrive to dispose of incriminating evidence if you have the option to do it prior to calling them. This is what tells us the person who dialed 911 was unlikely aware that any such evidence existed and still needed to be disposed of.

      Delete
    9. Okay, I did not have the time to formulate a complete response yet, but then let me ask you this int he meantime. If you think they could have just called later, then on the flip side, why didn't JR just dispose of the body late night? Get in his car and drive it somewhere.

      What advantage would there be, to your two part plan, of disposing the body later, in daylight? With her cadaver scent growing by the hour.

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

      Delete
    11. "If you think they could have just called later, then on the flip side, why didn't JR just dispose of the body late night? Get in his car and drive it somewhere."

      If you mean the same night/early morning he killed JBR - it would have been way too risky. There's a good chance a neighbour would have seen or heard him, or that he'd wake Patsy, who would have then discovered her daughter missing, and without a ransom note, would have been sure to turn the house upside down looking for her. The ransom note bought John his alibi, should he be seen at the location JB's body might later be found. It bought him time to remove and destroy evidence. The instructions in the note were also designed so that Patsy's suspicions would not be raised when she sees her husband carrying a suitcase/brown paper bags etc. into his car before departing for several hours ("the delivery will be exhausting" - she expects him to be gone a while). Or, even better, as Doc suggested, he'd send her and Burke to a friend's house while he "takes care of the kidnappers". So the RN was essential in order for John to buy himself time, a credible alibi, and to keep Patsy from getting involved, so that note had to have been written before he could even think about removing her body.
      Without the note, he couldn't have explained his absence to Patsy, and he couldn't have explained it to the police. When a little girl goes missing and her Daddy is seen leaving in his car in the middle of the night.....John Ramsey becomes suspect number one.
      As far as the dogs, I honestly don't think John had even factored cadaver dogs into it, it's not something many criminals probably consider. His primary concern was fooling Patsy, I believe, and if he succeeded in that, he'd take his time all of the next day carefully considering what had to be done next. The basic blueprint was outlined, but I think he was going to improvise a bit - after all, he'd never had to do this sort of thing before. If he had considered the cadaver dogs, I think he weighed up the pros and cons, and figured the benefits of his plan outweighed the risks. Remember, had his plan gone accordingly, the police wouldn't have been called until after her body had been removed, and the police wouldn't have been looking for a body, as they believed it to be a kidnapping. At any rate, picking up a dead JB's scent wouldn't have been a huge problem, as it would have been possible the kidnappers killed her there, before taking her body with them in order to still collect a ransom.

      Delete
  37. I, too, have strongly considered JAR as the one who had been molesting JB, and I put his name near the top of my list of suspects responsible for her death. But he is supposed to have an iron clad alibi -- was in Atlanta during the hours when the crime took place. However, a neighbor of the Ramseys thought he saw JAR walking up to the Ramsey home on December 25. I read that later the neighbor recanted his statement. I wonder if JAR had access to a small plane. If so, could he have made the trip to Boulder, committed the crime, and been back in Atlanta on the 26th by the time JB's body was discovered? Of course there are eyewitnesses who maintain they saw him in Atlanta during the time in question. I just can't believe John and Patsy would fake a kidnapping attempt, leave the body in their own house, risk being arrested for murdering their daughter, all to ccover for an adult son who had sexually assaulted and brutally murdered his youngest sibling. This case is mind-boggling!, lol. I love a mystery, but more than anything with this one, I just want the monster who killed that beautiful child to be discovered and brought to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Certainly the semen stained blanket in a suitcase along with a Dr. Seuss book, or just a blanket in a suitcase with semen on it in the basement alone is odd, and the fact that JAR's bedroom was next to JB's could mean easy access. Fleet White helped clear JAR establishing his alibi for that night, but was JAR ever polygraphed? Probably not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inquisitive, I believe it was noted that Patsy also used that bedroom while recovering from chemotherapy so as not to disturb John.

      The hemp rope was in that bedroom, and I believe I saw that fibers from that rope were found in JonBenet's bed.

      As for the suitcase, blanket, and book, its possible that it was put in the basement just to get it out of the way, since John Andrew did not live with John and Patsy full time.

      GS

      Delete
    2. I find John's remark about the suitcase, that it "seemed out of place" even more odd. Was he stuck placing it there to lend credence to an intruder theory, albeit one he would have preferred would not trigger a police investigation into ANY Ramsey, let alone his other son? If it seemed out a place, why would an intruder drag "it" from upstairs (its last reported whereabouts to the best of my knowledge) if the only purpose was to use it as a prop to get up and out a window? Wasn't there anything else in that basement an intruder could have used to stand on? How many trips did the "intruder" take upstairs and then back to the basement? One for JBR, one for a suitcase, and one to write a ransom note? Any others?

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. I think JR was trying to incriminate EVERYONE. Fleet White, his older son (with the suitcase), his younger son (with the pineapple bowl), Patsy, by imitating her writing on the note. Anyone but himself, would be good with him.

      Delete
    4. For Mike G - yes, there was a chair in the basement that John said he had to move out of the way as it was blocking the door to the train room.
      One could theorize that a short person might need to use a chair to latch the door to the "wine closet/cellar/room" that JonBenet was put. The chair would have been a better choice than a suitcase to access the window.

      Delete
    5. Link to part of Lou Smit's questions to John about chair in basement http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TVGQS3RUCOVI70BCU

      Delete
    6. Or trying to cast suspicion away from his wife.

      Delete
  39. Mike, do you think you could find out how we may be able to be privy to information regarding the lawsuit - like where it might be published? You seem good at finding links to things that might be overlooked.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I just rewatched the Dr. Phil interview with BR and JR. this is my first post here, but I've been lurking for months.

    I just feel JR really believable with regard to PR. I went in believing she was innocent, but listening to him talk about it rather reinforced this for me. Which, ironically, makes me feel more sure about his involvement.

    While it doesn't help us solve anything, I am endlessly fascinated with BR. I wonder what he really thinks, if he has a strong opinion or feeling at all. Imagine trying to bury or live with suspicion of your own family OR living believing an intruder murdered your sister in your own house. Both must have long last impacts on a person.

    -SL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SL: I believe Burke does know things he has been able to heretofore repress but that are just now starting to leak out.

      1)The flashlight he used to go downstairs and his Dad used to take him to bed.

      2) The vociferous argument he heard his parents having right before the police arrived.

      If we're both correct, and John is ever brought to justice, Burke will--to paraphrase a line in Hitchcock's original Dial M for Murder---have the most wonderful nervous breakdown he could imagine. Just my opinion.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Mike, I noticed that Dial M for Murder was being aired tonight on TCM (Turner Classic Movies).

      They showed "Lizzie" yesterday, about the multiple personality disordered woman who had 3 personalities, and was writing threatening letters to herself. Believe that movie was based on an actual case, but pre-dated The Three Faces of Eve, and Sybil. Eleanor Parker, Joan Blondell, and Richard Boone starred. Must have dated to early 1960s or late 50s. They've run a bunch of psychological, disturbing thrillers the last couple of days.

      GS

      Delete
  41. The person that reported the 11 am time is being erroneously credited here by many as being John's eldest son. It was not. It was Melinda's fiance, who also went to Boulder. This was also written about in Steve Thomas's book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fiance/boyfriend of Melinda Ramsey informed LE and they were surprised at the time stated. Stewart Long was in the vehicle with Melinda, JAR, and JBR got in the vehicle. Whether Melinda and John Andrew also said that to police...it's not real clear to me. I only know it was reported that John hired attorneys for his ex-wife, John Andrew and for Melinda. I never read if he also obtained attorneys for Mr. Long, or any of Patsy's parents or siblings.

      Delete
    2. DiamondLil, I have some questions for you on my other page if you have time...

      Delete
    3. Did, but I know it's not what you are going for

      Delete
    4. Well I think I could differ with you, but I don't want to argue.

      I have shown people that pic, and they say right away, that is a car with a driver. So there is something there, that looks a car driver to people. If it were just a splotch, no one would think it looks a driver.

      So what is "driver- full" about it? It's got be to something. There has got to be something there that looks like a human. What is there, that inspires people to think that that looks like a human?

      Is is the orange flesh toned area, in contrast to the cooler toned background, that is the same size and same position, that a driver's face would be in a car. Is the sloped white/violet area that is the same size and same position that a driver's shoulder and back would be in?

      Is the dark triangular area at the bottom of the orange area, that is shaped exactly like a beard? And no it is not a scarf, because a scarf would have a straight line across. Not have that dark line dip up under the nostril, and then dip down again, in a sharp curve.

      Is is the two dark spots that are exactly where the eyes would be? Is is the light contrasting nostril area in the nose? Is it the long lines of a jugular vein in the neck area? Is it the rounded tab of an earlobe, in the earlobe area?

      Wow, that odd, it has all the elements of a face, in the same size and same spots the elements for a face would be, in the same size of a drivers head, in the same position in a car, that a driver's head would be. And we know each car has a driver, and we know the appx spot it is in, so we know that area there is the driver's head.

      Wait, could that mean we are looking at the image of the driver? What a coincidence.

      I see that I will have to carefully go over it with some people to explain to them. I guess it is hard to do online.

      But no, it is not just a splotch. It is clearly the face of a driver. And I am wondering why so many people want to act like it splotch. It is odd to me why people want to say that.

      Delete
    5. Oh and I forgot the four fingers too.

      So you want people to believe, an image, right in the spot where the driver in a car would be, with a flesh toned face area, the size of a driver's face, with two eyes, a nose, an ear lobe, some kind of hat (that fades out in the lighter version, but you can see more in the brighter version), an obvious dark beard, FOUR CLEAR FINGERS in the same spot a hand would be, shoulder lines, and all of that together -is just a random SPLOTCH!?!

      Come on. I am sick of people lying about this picture. You know exactly what that picture is.

      Delete
  42. Three, JR wanted Fleet White to discover the body. That way, FW would have the cadaver scent on him. That was why he called his friend FW first thing, and made HIM go look at the wine cellar. This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Leigh, Melinda or whoever you are, If FW found the body then at that point there would be NO NEED for cadaver dogs obviously. If you or Inquisitive actually thought for 5 minutes before posting it would cut your posts down by 95%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I have said before Keiser, Leigh/Melinda would not entertain any theory at all with Ramsey involvement so your belief that SC who clearly thinks JR was involved proves SC is not Leigh/Melinda. Remember Leigh was talking about Ninjas and housekeepers and Michael Helgoth. That is clearly IDI. And I agree with her, if you widen the net outside the house there are many possibilities to pick from but they have all been explored in 2012 on this blogsite by Doc. But we do have some DNA testing coming up this year and if it sheds any light at all on this mystery we'll have to open our minds to accept it. And SC has every right to work out the scenarios any way he chooses.

      Delete
    2. Leigh or Melinda changed her scenarios every 5 mins so Yes, SC Shafer is Leigh. I love how you tried to call her a he,now how would you know that ? You are correct, They or she or you can write whatever scenario they would like, my suggestion was only to try and think, if possible, for a minute before posting.

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

      Delete
  43. I believe this is the complaint pertaining to the recent CBS lawsuit. CC or Doc can you please confirm?

    https://www.scribd.com/document/335233640/Burke-Ramsey-Complaint-vs-CBS-Et-Al

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done, as always, H. That's the Complaint. I scanned it quickly, will have to defer a close reading until later, but noticed immediately that BR is indeed making much of CBS'S promotion of the the show as a "documentary".
      CC

      Delete
    2. Thanks, CC.

      I was able to get in 88 pages before I had to take the kiddos to school. Pretty tedious reading at times. You are absolutely correct that it hammers on CBS promoting the show as a documentary. It also focuses on CBS' claim that their "experts" conducted a complete reinvestigation.

      I'm looking forward to your take on it, as usual. ;)

      Delete
    3. You're right: from a first cursory read, "reinvestigation" along with "documentary" is going to be the point of BR's spear, along with the show's entirely perjorative approach: the Fleet White non-interview, the pig-head-in-blond-wig demonstration, and their deliberate choice of Kolar as their behind-the-scenes scriptwriter.

      I recently read an article on a legal website which said the production company, the name of which escapes me, handled vetting rather than CBS'S usual legal team. They did that network no favors. I think, at first glance, Burke has a good case for reckless disregard and willful malice.

      Tedium is a lawyerly specialty, unfortunately.
      CC

      Delete
    4. I can understand why. I felt like I read a lot of the same points stated 10 different ways.

      And yes, if I understood it correctly, the Complaint touches on the same idea presented in the article you read. Basically, it states that CBS hired an outside production company because they knew the show wouldn't pass CBS's more stringent broadcast review standards.

      Delete
    5. I've been reading the Complaint with great interest. Still not done though. Which makes me wonder whether this whole thing is going to be read aloud, assuming a trial actually takes place. If so, the jury will either fall asleep or pass into a mindless stupor.

      I think the strongest aspect is where Wood points to the many lies and blatant misrepresentations on the part of the "pseudo-investigators." While it's not possible, really, to prove Burke didn't do what they accuse him of, it is possible to prove that they knowingly misrepresented key elements of their case. One example of many: the little act they put on while listening to the 911 tape, as though they'd never examined it before, and had no knowledge of the interpretation offered so long ago by Thomas in his book, and later in Kolar's book.

      The weakest part is the total lack of documentation for any of their accusations. They refer vaguely to the autopsy, but fail to quote from it -- for good reason because nothing in the autopsy confirms their theory that the strangulation came first or even that there were fingernail marks on JBR's neck. The marks are described as "petechial hemorrhages." And Wood repeats certain very questionable aspects of the case that were debunked years ago, such as the pantry door found open, Smit's interpretation of the basement window scene or his easily refuted stun gun theory. And the presentation fails also to reflect the recent re-consideration of the DNA evidence.

      If the CBS lawyers take the trouble to familiarize themselves with the case, they could make Wood look really bad. I hope and pray this goes to trial.

      Delete
    6. I'm now slogging through the Complaint as well, I find it interesting. One wonders however, if Kolar's book was the success Wood says it wasn't, would Burke have really sued then?

      Delete
  44. "911 would not be called with the body in the house." Oh but yes it would since the disagreement that morning between JR and PR was very possibly that JR wanted to get rid of the body and PR did not want to get rid of the body. That is why JR let PR call 911. He surely would NOT have let her, by force or whatever means he needed to, if his livelihood and life in prison were on the line. That explains the possibly unfinished staging, the 911 call, PR being involved, lying about BR being awake and many many other things.

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

      Delete
  45. GS 1/4/17 12:05 p.m. I'm with you GS. It has to be Patsy. She's first one up, she goes and gets John, he spreads the note out and reads it, at that point or some point he must have suspected her involvement. He might have seen something in her manner of expression in the note, he takes a look around and doesn't see anything right away but as the day wears on he figures out where she might be, checks it out, and she's there. Others said they weren't talking to each other, they stayed separated all day, they weren't comforting each other at all. And not because she suspected him, but he suspected her. And we don't know what was going through Arnt's mind when she said after he brought the body up they "had a moment" and she checked her gun and knew what had happened. For all we know she suspected he knew where the body had been since early that morning and that he knew who put her there. We don't know what set Patsy off, doubtful the "poopy pants theory", bit simplistic. But she's all over that note, and as you say GS, my opinion only. In the end he chose to keep the family together. And Patsy's cryptic comment afterward to a friend while on valium "we didn't mean for this to happen." We, the family, her the cause.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Was it said somewhere that Linda Arndt (Crazy Eyes) met with Patsy Ramsey shortly before her death and after talking to her, she no longer suspected John? I thought I heard this, but can anybody confirm?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  47. J, she had some sessions with Patsy for which she was going to later write a book but didn't. LOL, crazy eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Considering some degree of logic:
    If Patsy's was involved prior to the 911 call, you are saying that she knew of and participated in this heinous crime (including the penetration of her daughter's vagina) but was insistent on a burial of the body?

    It seems to me that the 911 call is a problem for those that claim PR's involvement. She either was involved but balked at the dumping of the body, or only aware after the call and not involved in the murder. Either way I can't see PR being a part of it - Doc's logic wins again.

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily. The Michigan trip meant they HAD to be somewhere that morning, so just canceling the trip would have drawn a red flag if days later it is revealed that JB was kidnapped. Patsy's behavior immediately AFTER the 911 call should be the Red Flag you are looking for. Calling friends over right after the 911 call is not normal behavior.

      -J

      Delete
    2. I see that in a bigger context now J. You would rely on your husband, lean on your husband, not wall yourself off FROM said husband in a sea of friends. You would share in the tragedy. Then she's peeking through her fingers, trying to gauge who is going where and doing what.

      Delete
    3. Sisu, after the 911 call I heard PR ask either JR or BR what did you do in a distraught voice so I do not need to make logical guesses. At that point (right after the 911 call) it is very clear to me that PR knew what had occured that night. As to whether she was actually involved before that is up for speculation and to whom she was speaking to is as well. Possibly she just got up and was just informed of what had occcured.

      Delete
    4. Why do you suppose she would have asked "what did you do?" If she had written the note and knew what had happened, why would she have needed to ask that question?

      Delete
    5. Or indeed, if PR was NOT involved initially and made the call in good faith (i.e. thinking her daughter had been really kidnapped), then what happened in the 3-5 seconds following the end of her conversation with the dispatcher and her supposedly asking, "What did you do?"

      She either was not involved up to and including the 911 call, in which case she couldn't have asked the supposed question so quickly, or she was involved from the beginning. If the latter,she would have no reason to make the 911 call.

      -Sisu

      Delete
  49. Hard to fathom I know Sisu. but you can believe John was this Machiavellian character who was harming his daughter and chose to end her life the night before a big trip, or planned it, but I have a problem with it. There are many possibilities within the PDI scenario, such as help from John, but if your instincts tell you John acted solely and alone that night and wrote that note when his handwriting clearly is not a match and hers was a .5% probability then yes, stick with what you believe. He most certainly "helped" after the fact, providing the best legal advice he could afford and probably moving things around in the house plus lies here and there to protect Patsy. At that point he became what's the term, an accessory after the fact?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would JR protect PR if she murdered their child? And why would he allow her to continue to care for BR, knowing what she was capable of?

      Delete
    2. The bigger question for me is why did they allow their remaining child to be removed from their sight without a police escort and/or under police protection, if their daughter had just been kidnapped?

      EG

      Delete
  50. Once she wrote that note she HAD to call 911.

    ReplyDelete
  51. But this is what he did HKH. It's not a why question. It's a what question. What did he do. He searched the house, he made it look like an intruder by moving things around, he hired attorneys, etc., etc. We know what he did. The why of it - isn't important. He kept interrogators away from Patsy, he acted on advice of council. It was an accident, at least the head blow. Or shoving. She was of no danger to Burke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "why" most certainly is important. The "why" is what motivated his behavior and prompted his actions. Did he do these things to protect himself, to protect BR or to protect PR? Covering up JBR's murder to protect PR is the least plausible scenario, IMO.

      The "why" is what propels the "what."

      And, are you saying that if PR administered the head blow, it was an accident?!? Please explain.

      Delete
    2. Yes, you are right, the why is just as important in your question, as you asked originally why would JR protect PR if she murdered her child and also why would he allow P to care for Burke knowing what she was capable of. I think it was a while before he knew what had happened - she would have to tell him what happened, as they were separated the whole day, and if he's looking around the house he may not have known what happened. Steve Thomas even said he believed JR made a choice to protect his wife, rather than tell LE he knew what she had done. So why - can't presume his mindset but if you have ever been married a husband and wife share a bond, to take care of each other. This was not a couple to all outward appearances that were anything but cohesive. He's protecting the family, himself, Burke and Patsy. You asked if Patsy administered the head blow it was an accident? - I don't think it was intentional murder. So in that sense, an accident. As in not intentional.

      Delete
  52. Patsy peaked through her fingers. So what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was faking that is so what

      Delete
    2. She was afraid of John. I think he yelled at her about the 911 call, and possibly even threatened her, saying keep your mouth closed and let me handle this. I guess this is why he was so agitated throughout the morning. Agitation is not an emotion I would be feeling if I thought someone had my daughter and might kill her. I would be distraught and all over the police, wanting to know what all they were doing to find her.

      Delete
    3. Once the ransom call didn't come in they should have cleared the house and began looking in earnest.

      Delete
    4. "Agitation is not an emotion I would be feeling if I thought someone had my daughter and might kill her."

      If I remember correctly, this was the tern Linda Arndt used to describe John's behavior, after the unaccounted for hour. Presumably, this behavior would "fit" if he did indeed find JonBenet during that one hour he was missing.

      GS

      Delete
  53. New JBR Netflix Documentary coming soon.
    http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/799867-jonbenet-ramsey-documentary-acquired-by-netflix

    Geez, how many specials do we need? It's past excessive at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can never get enough JBR specials. Even the Lifetime
      movie that was widely criticized was helpful to me since it showed the house in action the morning of. The layout of the house, where people were, the actual places where JBR's body was moved and who moved it after found. It's hard to visualize with still photos.
      There appeared to be a lot of research done--though the quality of acting didn't match the research IMO.

      Delete