If JDI is correct I think premeditation is the only way it's possible. I find it unlikely that John could compose the note and have it relatively consistent in type throughout the duration of the note under such stressful conditions. The trial and error, on top of all the crime entailed would make him very pressed for time. Disappearing for an hour the next day withstanding.
Fleet White said once sailed with John Ramey when the weather became vicious. He was more than a little amazed at how calm John remained handling the boat on his own. From this and other comments I've read from those intimate with John, I find it highly LIKELY John does his best work under pressure.
The thing that makes me think it was premeditated is that all the items at the scene seemed new. The duct tape, rope, and underwear. The large underwear especially. It seems it was all bought in advance. And someone messed up, like JR, and did not know the right size.
The two things with JDI that bother me Zach, is if it was premeditated why would JR use a pen and pad from his own home. If it wasn't, why is the RN so long considering all that needed to be done that night and with the likelihood of being caught by patsy or as to why he was out of bed for hours on end.
Well if JDI makes sense than he would probably have discarded the original pad the next day when he finished staging and removed the body. The note was overly long so John could improvise and be flexible with time. Also to dump the body under the guise of ransom delivery. Patsy calling the cops strangely worked in his favor. Once John and jbrs body had contact with the outside world it becomes damning forensically and very risky.
When you think carefully about the situation it becomes evident that
1. Assuming John premeditated this crime, he could not have used a computer printer, because the printer could easily be traced, so, as unlikely as it might seem, his best bet would have been a hand printed note.
2. Most stores would have been closed on Xmas day, making it difficult or impossible for him to buy paper at or near the airport.
3. It might have been convenient for him to simply use a notepad from the house. As you say, he might well have planned on discarding it along with all the other evidence while dumping the body.
4. It's also possible it never occurred to him that the paper could be traced back to that notepad. If you look carefully at paper torn from such a pad you'll see that the perforations are really tiny. If you don't look really carefully you might not even notice them.
So yes, I do think it possible that this whole thing was planned ahead of time by John, possibly on Christmas day -- which would explain his strange trip to the airport. He could have written it while in the cockpit of his plane.
I was also thinking it could be premeditated on John's part. Like I wrote above, I think John bought that large underwear mistakenly. Not Patsy. At that shows premeditation.
So maybe what happened is, Patsy called 911 three days before. John stopped her. But John knew the jig was up. He knew they were traveling to some relatives. He thought the relative might get the word out from Patsy. He thought JBR would spill the beans there. Maybe a relative there had medical training and could examine the hymen. And he knew his goose was cooked.
If you think a father can't kill a child, remember the Green River killer used to bring his young son when he went to lure prostitutes. One time his son almost caught him, and he was about to kill his son to cover up.
The one thing that makes me think it was not planned was how lucky *whoever* whacked her on the head was that blood didn't go everywhere. I feel like it would be quite risky to hit her on the head at the exact amount of force to kill her (she would have died from that injury eventually had she not been strangled) but not produce blood.
Whoever did this caught a lot of breaks... well obviously since they haven't been charged!
I, too, wonder if the 911 call made a few days prior was the catalyst for John. He knew he had barely escaped discovery this time, and next time he may not be so lucky. The story is that 911 had been dialed by accident, but that just seems a little unbelievable in light of what happened a few days later.....but if 911 was called intentionally because someone knew John was interfering with JonBenet, who made the call? Was it JB herself? Had she threatened, in no uncertain terms, to tell on daddy?
It's possible JBR called 911 herself. It would be rare, but a smart 6 year old could call 911. Or maybe Burke for her.
Or even Patsy. Probably Patsy. But then John threatened her and said, if you tell on me, I am going to tell that you knew, and facilitated it.
Maybe PBR thought about it, and she thought that better JBR be dead than go through this. She thought she herself might die of cancer. Then the child would be raised by John.
Kind of a Caylee Anthony scenario. Where the mom, Casey could not raise the child herself. But she did not want to lose the child to her mother. So she thought her daughter was better off dead. She would rather the child be dead, than lose the war with her mom.
SC, the defense won its case for a reason; the prosecution thought it was a Susan Smith case; the defense thought it was a JonBenet Ramsey case. The latter is far, far more plausible. To quote one of the jurors "He (george) was there."
I think Casey Anthony murdered her daughter because she was a self absorbed, narcissist who wanted to be free of the shackles of motherhood, SC. She viewed Kaylee as a ball and chain. She resented her and probably just considered her as collateral damage in her quest for freedom. Her behaviour right after the murder and the weeks that followed show us that she was happy.....I'd speculate that she was relieved, as she behaved like a woman who didn't have a care in the world. A young girl on Spring Break. I don't think this would have been the case if she had murdered her as some kind of "mercy killing" as you suggest.
By the way, and for the record, the oversize panties were purchased by Patsy and intended as a gift for an older girl. Not sure how you got the idea that John bought them.
Are we sure Patsy is not lying about that? Is there some witness statement from earlier about it? Just curious. Because we can't assume she is not lying.
Mrs. D, Casey Anthony could have given up her daughter to her mom, easily. And then go out and party. But she and her mom had a battle over Caley, some kind of competition I think, and I don't think Casey wanted her to 'win'.
You see something similar when one parent kills children in a divorce, they don't want the other parent to have custody, they don't want to lose.
A lot of people have been talking about the pineapple and the prints on the bowl. Why were there no prints on the spoon (as far as we know)? The bowl looked to me to be pretty full and a lot for a small child to eat. I think that it was barely eaten at all. The only reason the Ramsey's would lie about it is because it was found in JB's stomach and it put a whole in their story about her not being awake.
My apologies for posting about an entirely different case, but can anyone recommend a site devoted to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? A site that has FACTS like this one. I listened to a podcast about the case and want to read more, but I don't know enough to weed put fact from fiction at this point. Thanks all!
I don't know about blogs, but because the parents have talked a lot, most of what they have stated has been reported fairly accurately. There is some info out there from the Portuguese detective who handled the case originally and tells a lot more from his perspective. Another strange case, damning from evidence from cadavers in apartment, yet timeline of parents alone to dispose of body leaves me guessing.
The cadaver dogs are pretty damnibg! Did they bring cadaver dogs into the Ramsey home? They maybe could've determined where exactly she was killed and if she was hidden somewhere other than the wine closet.
"(Burke) Ramsey …also admitted to being out of bed late the night his sister died.
“Yeah, I had some toy that I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was in bed … wanting to get this thing out,” Burke Ramsey said.
“Did you use the flashlight so you wouldn’t be seen?” Dr. Phil followed up.
“I don’t remember. I just remember being downstairs with this toy,” Burke replied."
I found a cool True Crime podcast called The Generation Why. In an old episode (you can find it free on itunes) the hots interviewed James Kolar. It was really interesting to hear him talk about the case and I recommend listening to it. I feel like anyone- JDIs, PDIs, AND BDIs would find it interesting. After all, listening to another perspective could change your mind OR reinforce your own theory. Or give you a brand new idea that no one ever even considered! Please post if you do listen to it and let me know what you think. One thing that really interested me was how Kolar said the staging seemed both organized and chaotic at the same time... as if two different people had been involved.
I believe the reason it was "both organized and chaotic at the same time" is quite simple. It is because John meticulously took care of everything that needed to be taken care of for the phony kidnapping, and had his plan gone the way he intended, LE would never have entered that house while JB's body was still there, along with any other incriminating evidence. It would have been a cut and dried kidnapping: a ransom note, along with a missing child and a broken window as a probable point of entry. BUT, as Patsy called the police, it meant the kidnapping scenario probably wasn't going to work anymore, because JB's body was going to be found inside her very own house on the very same day. So John had to perform some very chaotic staging (it was chaotic because time and resources were very limited - he had to make do with what was in the basement, and he had to work quickly and quietly). So, in a nutshell, what began initially as a well organized, but simple, plan - a kidnapping for ransom, along with a missing child - then became a botched-kidnapping-cum-sex-crime with the victim dead in the house, and a ransom note that no longer made sense. If it looks like "two, separate crimes", as many speculate, that's because it is. #1: The actual murder, which didn't call for any staging (minus the ransom note), as the body would have been disposed of and #2: the cover up, which was undoing some of the things he'd previously done (changing the location of her body, which was probably ready and waiting for disposal) and staging other facets to make it look like she was murdered by "a foreign faction", (garrote perhaps, maybe a change of clothes he removed from the basement dryer, some cord around her wrists etc.) which, because it wasn't initially part of the plan, was rather rushed and sloppy.....John didn't have the luxury of "planning ahead" this time.
So the Ramsey's would have to come up with an excuse for cancelling their trip to Michigan. John would need Patsy and Burke out of the house and just HOPE that neither of them told anybody what was going on. The magical note was going to have to convince Patsy to shutup for 2 days. John would then have to go to a payphone, call his own house so the call would register. At the end of this day and a half stage job, he would have to meet up with Patsy and Burke and explain that the kidnappers called and he did a money drop, but he never got JB back. Then John would have to recount this entire story in specific details to the police because they would need to hear ever detail of this concocted story. The Cops would also be able to verify the pay phone it came from due to phone records and if John was seen by anybody at all, his plan would be foiled.
YES, John meticulously took care of everything. I actually was having a hard time writing the above with a straight face. I am glad that many on this blog are questioning the ridiculousness of the JDI theory.
But yet if Burke did it, we have two parents staging a murder to protect their son or if Patsy did it, wearing the same clothes the next morning after supposedly being up all night. But JDI is ridiculous right?
The head blow was an accident. There was no motive, no intention to murder, no premeditation. The staging is crazy irregardless of murdered her. Parents do crazy things to protect their children and even though this might be the craziest of them all, that's what I believe happened. 3 Page RN, abusing her private area, using a garrote are all crazy acts despite who did it. All I know is that it wasn't done by 1 person
The staging is crazy only if alternatives had have been available (which there obviously were if it was a cover up for Burke, as Patsy and John would have communicated, and all would have gone according to plan), so the staging only doesn't make sense from a BDI or a PDI perspective. Which is one of the major reasons I don't buy either. The Ramseys, had they have been working together, would have gone with either an intruder pedophile or a kidnapping, certainly not both. The only way to make sense of the RN is to realize that at the time it was written - a phony kidnapping was the only plan. No staging requiring cords, paintbrush handles, duct tape etc. was part of that plan. But, if LE were upstairs and John had to improvise, then the staging naturally looks "crazy", because he'd had to change it from what looked like a kidnapping, now to a crazed pedophile intruder, as kidnappers demanding ransom take their victim with them.....yet that pesky ransom note still existed, making the kidnapping for ransom look dubious, and now instead of it being a help, it was only a hindrance. But John was left with no choice - the note had been retrieved, and JB's body was going to be found in her home, so he had to do the staging in the hopes of at least minimizing his involvement. It should never have worked, of course, and he probably doubted it would, but if he left the scene the way it was, he was SURE to be caught.
You don't *know* it wasn't done by one person, as we're just as sure it *was* done by one person. A person who was forced to change his plan, thus why it may appear there are two, separate crimes, as I explained above. If BDI, the cover up would have been a lot more organized. The staging will always look nonsensical to you, as a BDI, but to a JDI, it makes sense completely, for all the reasons I pointed out. As this is the only scenario that can make sense of the seemingly chaotic mess, it's the only one I can go with.
I love reading your posts. It is completely logical. Certain posters are just so ridiculous. I look to see who is posting and skip. I do not even bother reading them. It will be so interesting to see what the vaginal swabs show. Panties were changed for a reason. They were bloody and had DNA evidence.
J... Even though I'm pretty convinced that JDI, you do bring up an interesting point about the payphone records. And aren't payphones normally located near businesses, not out in the middle of nowhere? Even though cameras have become much more common since Jonbenet's murder, I think even back then a lot of businesses had them. You'd think that would be another thing for John to worry about. Minnesota Linda
J... Just so long as JR gets the body out of the house (and the note instructs him to leave the house early with a big bag) then he doesn't have to do anything else. It becomes "obvious" as soon as the body is discovered that the kidnappers didn't call to get the money because the child is dead and now they just want to get away. Martin
EG asked a question on the last thread that I was curious about too. I know Kolar thinks the marks on JB'some body were from Burke poking her with the train tracks. How do the JDIs and PDI's explain those marks?
I don't think it necessary to explain them. She was obviously assaulted and all sorts of things might have happened during the assault that we have no way of knowing about. The "stun gun" was Lou Smit's desperate attempt to produce "intruder evidence" since the Ramseys didn't own one. But there is no reason to assume a stun gun was used and to at least some people familiar with such weapons, the marks are inconsistent with stun gun marks. Kolar preferred the toy railroad tracks because they were associated with Burke (though that's no reason to assume Burke would have used them rather than anyone else). But again we have no way of knowing whether they made those marks, it's just another assumption.
So to clarify, you're not concerned with the marks because they may or may not be related to the crime at all? I personally think the train tracks are what made the marks due to them matching up. Now theyes really no way of knowing when the marks got there or how. It sounds like the train tracks were all over the house. I forget where I read or heard that.
Megan, I agree. The train tracks seem like a key point for me specifically Bc they matched up so perfectly to the two round abrasions. I don't agree with Doc (sorry!) on this one - an abuser is not going to poke a child w plastic train tracks when he was using such violent techniques as a garotte strangulation and paintbrush sexual violation. To me (Bc I waffle daily on BDI or JDI or BDI w JDI cover up), B hit her on the head by accident w the flashlight and when she didn't move he poked her, like only a kid would, not w a finger Bc he may have been scared to actually touch her, but w a toy. JR either came down on his own or B got him, and JR hid the body and wrote the RN so he could dump the next day. PR not brought into the picture Bc JR likely knew she would want to take JBR to a hospital or worse, not after w dumping the body. Doc G's explanation of the 911 call made me almost absolutely certain PR not involved and JR used the note as an excuse to have her not call the police and give him time to dump the body. i still haven't concluded whether he finished the staging and strangulation that night or later that morning during the hour he was missing. Unless there is definitive concrete evidence that she was abused prior to death (too many conflicting reports) im going to stick w BDI w JR coverup. Thanks and happy holidays to everyone who I enjoy reading every night!! e
"An abuser is not going to poke a child w plastic train tracks when he was using such violent techniques as a garotte strangulation and paintbrush sexual violation."
No one's suggesting John poked her with the train tracks (at least, I don't think they are). They were simply scattered on the floor where she was being assaulted and thus left abrasions where she had been lying on them. That is, if it is indeed the train tracks that left the abrasions.....there is no definitive proof of what caused those marks.
"EG asked a question on the last thread that I was curious about too. I know Kolar thinks the marks on JB'some body were from Burke poking her with the train tracks. How do the JDIs and PDI's explain those marks?"
My personal theory only is that they might be cigar burns. A stun gun would leave a burn-like mark, I would think.
I know I saw it mentioned that there was a cigar humidor in the wine cellar, and that Fleet White had handled it, and John was questioned on if he was trying to hide a smoking habit.
The Bonita Papers mentions Patsy admitting to buying a pack of cigarettes in Michigan after the murder, but not taking the habit up regularly. And smoking at a party.
This would explain the round burn marks on JonBenet, and possibly why the window was really left open.
Thanks for answering Mrs D. I can't agree - the round points of the train tracks would have caused the abrasions and unless she fell on them as they were balanced straight up and down, any abraisions would have been from the side of the tracks. As a visual think of two pencils. They would make round poke marks on someone only if they were standing straight up and down and someone fell on them. Therefore, the train tracks (you're right if those caused the marks) would have had to be inserted into her skin w the round parts pointing at her, she could not have fallen on the round points unless you are saying that the train tracks were balanced straight up and down (unusual for train tracks meant to be laying down). GS, cigar burns would be huge, cigarette burns more plausible but why would the two marks and the other two marks Bc spaced the same apart? That's one awfully precise use of a cigarette. I really think the train tracks are key. I was JDI for such a long while but now I'm BDI w JR cover up. only a kid would poke someone w an object to see what had happened or if they were scared about what happened and were trying to figure out if someone was still moving. Thanks everyone and early holiday greetings to all.
My thinking is that the diameter of a cigar burn would depend on how lightly it was held. The very tip would make just a small round burn if not held full flush against the skin.
I may be wrong, but I thought there was only one place where 2 marks were found. The area on the side of JonBenet's face was just a single mark. Distance between the area with 2 marks could be purely coincidence.
Also, I read that Burke's tracks actually had 3 prongs of attachment, and that Kohler failed to mention that information.
I'm PDI, and it seems to me that once again, this is part of the staging. Cigarette burns on abused children have been widely reported. She wanted to depict a very cruel, cigar-smoking male as the killer, and cast suspicion away from herself, since no mother sexually assaults her daughter, or smokes cigars.
Does anyone know any detail or much on the "practice ransom letter"? Was it pretty much the exact same words? Was there ever a picture of this practice letter? I would like to know more.
The so-called "practice note" consisted of the words "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. No image of this document has ever been made public. It's not clear whether it actually is a practice note or just something Patsy scribbled. It would help if we could get a look at it.
Jean Casarez was right to zoom in on that ACCESSORY charge the Ramseys were also indicted for. Near the end of the program, she asked current Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett about the indictment, and he had this to say
"It does appear that the theory they (the grand jurors) were looking at assumed that SOMEONE ELSE besides the two Ramsey parents were involved in what happened. If the DA KNOWS who killed JB, it is his duty to arrest that person, charge him, and prosecute that person NOW.
Unless he knows it's Burke. Burke can't be charged. Uh oh JDI ......
With all due respect to Garnett - and to you, KS - how does that make a lick of sense? You're seriously suggesting the Ramseys aided and abetted an intruder, a perfect stranger, in the murder of their daughter? Or that they, what, hired a hit man? CC
When John laughed off the accessory charge and claimed he didn't know what that meant, he was soooo lying. He lies in all his interviews. Come on, you're a grown ma. You know what it means to be an accessory.
Well Burke said he went down after everyone was asleep. There was a bowl of pineapple there with his fingerprints. JBR had pineapple in her. So it could be, they were both downstairs later at the same time. They ate pineapple together.
And Burke could have just swung at her with a baseball bat on the back of her head while she was eating. Just for the heck of it. It is not impossible for a 9 year old to do that, it would not take much strength to knock someone out with a bat.
And the parents could not take her to the hospital because of the fear of her sex abuse injuries. So they got rid of her.
I don't know. I could go either way. They all seem weird to me. Any one of them could have done it.
The JB Encyclopedia website is in outline form, everything is discussed, outlined, and argued - and refuted. For every theory there is a counter theory. But it seems a pretty straighforward at least "summary" of what happened, what was done about it, and what experts believe what and in outline form. But it will not be a place for answers. You can always find an expert that you agree with. But the question was posed in here as to why was there no blood from the blunt force trauma, and which came first, the strangulation as a sex game coinciding with blunt force trauma or trauma first, strangulation second as staging. I'm curious about the blunt force trauma so did some reading on a site called "Forensic Autopsy of a Blunt Force Trauma". Just FYI and a very brief summary, not at all in entirety, is the following few points: Characteristics of the blunt object and the surface imparted are looked at in the following ways:
1) The severity of injuries inflicted area is dependent on the amount of kinetic energy and the tissue to which the energy is transferred. In general a somewhat lighter object traveling at a higher speed would cause more damage than a heavier object traveling at a low speed. (our "bat versus maglite" conversation)
2) the composition and plasticity of the tissues impacted also affects the resultant injuries (head injury versus a blow to the back, legs, etc.)
3) also affected are the amount of time the body and the impacting object are in contact are to be considered.
There was of course more on why some head injuries show no blood or blood spatter however internal damage is significant, and that histology analysis is difficult to ascertain - fix time of death with blunt force trauma victims.
I also think that if JonBenet was moving at the time the head trauma was inflicted (as in "running away") the severity of the head trauma would have been different than if she was stationary and was hit from either front or behind (entire skull was cracked).
Dr. Cyril Wecht believed she was strangled first due to very little inter-cranial bleeding, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Spitz believed otherwise so again, pick your favorite expert. It's also possible one was started and the other was used to subdue - but then you would have clawing at the cord and the hands of the perpetrator. But just thought this article may be of some interest. Forensic Autopsy of Blunt Force Trauma emedicine.medscape.com/article/1680107-overview
I just read something interesting about JAR--and being that the grand jury came up with that "Accessory charge", I think it's worthwhile discussing the possibilities.
1. A neighbor claimed to have seen JAR walking up into the Ramsey house on Christmas day, which he later said he might have been mistaken due to possibly being pressured? 2. There were no videos and not many pictures taken on Christmas morning, which was unusual for the Ramsey's. Was that because JAR was in them? 3. He claimed to have been with his mother, and also at the movies, also at an ATM machine getting money. However the pictures at the ATM machine were grainy, and the person wore a baseball cap, and his face couldn't be seen clearly. 3. JR hired lawyers for JAR and his mother. Why? 4. The suitcase found in the basement was one JAR had used with a blanket in it with semen and a children's book. 5. His friends at college said he talked non stop about JBR and when they heard she was murdered, they immediately thought of him, as they thought he was weird. 6. He spent weekends with the family and JBR had many Monday visits to the nurse at school. The DA never requested those medical records from the school nurse. 7. JAR mentioned how similar the Ramsey family was to the family in the Mel Gibson movie, RANSOM.
It was verified that JAR was at the airport on the flight with Melinda and her fiance early morning on the 26th. It's 1400 plus miles (20 hours) from Atlanta to Boulder, so there is no way he could have drove from Boulder home.
John hired lawyers for his x-wife to keep her quiet about their relationship and John's affair.
It would be interesting to know how many people JR's lawyers paid off to keep them quiet.
How does it make more sense that JB's half brother would fly in Xmas night, abuse and murder her, leave a ransom note - along with a body - then fly back out to Atlanta, than it does to assume someone in the house did it? If JAR had access to JB most weekends, why didn't he murder her when he was in town - why fly out in the middle of the night when he knew he had to be in Atlanta early in the morning to make a flight? It makes NO sense. Such mental gymnastics that everyone is so fond of employing here are not required - the answer is right in front of everyone's face. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?
Basically, what I'm asking is this: how is a guy who has been photographed at an atm in a city over 1400 miles away and has several witnesses that can confirm his whereabouts on the night of the murder, a more likely suspect than the adult male who had access to JB that night and who had no alibi that anyone else can corroborate?
All of our theories aside, what will happen if the new DNA analysis renders the "evidence" worthless and unrelated to the crime? This will be a huge game changer, and will certainly blow the intruder theory out of the water. I can't tell you how annoying it is to view JBR case related content on Facebook and see how many discussing this case think it's a DNA case. I'm curious what would happen with such a development.
8. "The following day, investigators videotaped an interview with John Andrew, at the conclusion of which they asked him what he thought an appropriate punishment would be for the person that committed this crime. After a thoughtful pause he said, "Forgiveness." Incredulous, the detectives went into the brutality of his half-sister's murder and asked him to reconsider his answer. Another silence ensued, then he said again, "Forgiveness." (John Andrew Ramsey and Long declined to comment.)"
It wasn't JAR. His alibi is airtight: he was 1400 miles away at the time of the crime. LE checked flight records - he never left Atlanta until Boxing Day morning, when he flew to Michigan (?) with Melinda and her boyfriend. It simply isn't physically possible for JAR to have traveled to Boulder and back to Atlanta in that time frame.
Unless it was in JR's private plane--and no flight plan recorded or submitted. I know that's far fetched, but just a thought. One never knows and JR's reach was far and high. He knew influential people and when he didn't he just hired lawyers to keep everyone else quiet.
1+1=2 If Garnett says that he knows who killed Jb and that he will prosecute only when there will be more evidence then it is damn obvious which Ramsey killed her. He can't prosecute Patsy for murder. Nor Burke. JDI.
I know. It is so blatantly obvious, I cannot believe people are still in denial. Garnett practically named the killer, yet people are still going with this ridiculous BDI theory.....if the DNA proves it was John, and he were to confess, I still don't believe they'd be swayed!
If that news.com/au article quotes Garnett correctly, I think you and k1234 and I are right, Anony. Burke and Patsy can't be charged, the GJ findings seem to rule out an intruder, and if Garnett is hoping to learn more from further DNA testing, it's likely what he's looking for is a profile from the vaginal swabs or the garrote, or both. Here's hoping. CC
Thank you, k1234 and CC. I like to think I use reason and logic, though a couple of posters here- who shall remain unnamed - tend to make me look like a laughing stock, yet offer no logical rebuttal to my own claims, and only bring us further down the rabbit hole. Aussies call a spade "a spade" and don't suffer fools, it's true! I equally look forward to reading posts from the two of you also. Hoping you all have a merry Christmas and you keep fighting the good fight into the new year. :)
But the Grand Jury did not return a "murder" indictment. They returned an indictment for child abuse and aiding the actual killer.
In this scenario, where Patsy can't be charged, and Burke can't be charged, John can only be charged for allowing JonBenet to be in a dangerous situation, and helping the person who did the killing.
All Garnett needs is evidence that John knew who killed JonBenet.
But if the police can't prove it, and John did not witness it, and Patsy did not confess it to John, then how could John prove his suspicion? He could only say, yes, I agree with your theory that my wife was the killer, or my son is the killer.
The only person who probably heard something that night, may have even witnessed something that night is Burke, since John was on another floor of the house, in a deep Melatonin sleep.
Maybe with new DNA evidence, a new Grand Jury would bring a different indictment. But Garnett's statement does not say to me that he knows JDI.
The statute of limitations has long since expired for accessory after the fact. There's therefore no percentage in Garnett pursuing further DNA testing unless murder is his intended charge and John or his intended target. CC
As we near the anniversary of JonBenet's murder --- regardless of who is responsible --- I hope everyone remembers that little girl and how her life was taken from her. It is such a tragedy.
Got to look at the facts, why would anyone choosing to carry out this crime come unprepared without a pen, paper, tools to band Jonbenets hands together and strangle her? Why on a holiday night would they spend what seems to be hours in a home carrying out a crime when they could have been caught? Going into a home with 4 people, someone could have heard something at any moment and screamed at any moment. The notepad and pen (evidence) was left in the home, but the person made sure to disguise their hand writing. I believe the evidence that is missing could have easily been flushed down a toilet. On top of that leaving a ransom note with the body in the house and Patsy and John seeming to not care about calling their friends seconds after reading it. They also don't seem to care about leaving Burke upstairs in his bedroom alone.
Everything just adds up to the parents but the physical evidence goes against them.
I only recently became convinced through Doc's writings that John is the culprit and it makes re-reading the ransom note a whole new experience. After the first paragraph of "we have your daughter/foreign faction" the second paragraph is essentially "John you need to leave the house very early with a big bag" which I'm sure is exactly what he would have done. The note is ordering John to behave in exactly the way he needs to in order to get the body out of the house. It seems that the "well rested" thing and "we may call you earlier" just allows him to get back and concentrate on being "well rested" rather than confronting his family some more that day.
Has anyone checked the site shakedowntitle.com? It has pictures of the case I have never seen elsewhere. I found one entry to the blog very interesting. It refers to a picture (called 17.7 in the interviews) that came from the Ramsey fam, apparently taken by John to finish the roll in the camera. There, two legal notepads can be seen on the glass table close by the telephone where the 911 call was made. The notepads then disappeared from that table as they could not be seen there on crime scene photos, that allegdelly were taken before the notepads were handed to police. That does not seem to be the place (glass table) where the Ramseys would keep those pads and it gives the impression someone had been using them and moving them around in the days/hours before JBR's death. Does anyone have more info on this? Martha from California
I know in the transcript of Patsy's interrogation, there are times she is shown photos taken throughout the house. There are multiple notepads shown, in various rooms of the house. I seem to remember one was in John and Patsy's bedroom. I believe the transcripts can be found on acandyrose.
We don't know how long Burke was downstairs but I would think that the timeline would somehow be effected. Did Burke unknowingly disrupt the crime scene? If an IDI it might have been an opportunity to take out both kids since he/they had such a deep rooted anger with JR A twofer. Intruder? Nah
This is so obvious to me…if Burke killed his sister during an outrage of any type, Patsy would have surely reacted in an over the top manner, possibly violently towards Burke for harming her “little princess.” Imagine this: You are Patsy, and you just discovered that your son bludgeoned your sweet, innocent little girl that is the absolute apple of your eye, over…above all things, her taking a bite of his pineapple. You are not going to say to yourself, “Well, my son just blew a gasket and killed my precious daughter, so, I guess I better send him to bed and sit down and calmly compose a three-page ransom note, haul out my bag of killing gear, garotte JB to death (Sorry honey, but your brother means more to me than you potentially being the future Miss America) and construct a kidnapping-attempt scene complete with sexual abuse component and get my son off the hook for this atrocious crime. Hell, with that temper, he’s gonna fit right in as a linebacker at WVU one day. He’s a great kid and he just don’t deserve to go down like this.” Neither is she going to say, “John, honey, I totally agree with you - got ourselves a little Ronnie Defao here, but yes, we have to save him, he could be the next Steve Jobs and make us more money than you do - let’s come up with a plan to cover this whole damn mess up. You go ahead and strangle JB ‘til she’s really dead, tie her up and sexually abuse her, hide her real good down in that cold wine cellar, and while you’re at it go ahead and bust one of them little windows down there just to make it look like some madman came in the middle of the night. And look, while you’re doing all that, I’ll sit here at the ‘ole roll-top desk and compose one hell of a Sherlock Holmes ransom note – it might take me a few hours, but hey, we’re on vacation time now anyways. In the morning, I’ll dredge up some of my fabulous acting skills learned from my pageant days, call 911, and fake ‘em completely out about what we just spent the last 7 hours doing...” No, the immediate reaction Patsy Ramsey would have in this situation, being a true southern girl at heart, would be to jerk Burke up by the scruff of his neck and (at least attempt) to beat him within an inch of his life. While she was doing that, John Ramsey would have one hand pulling her back and the other hand on the phone with his attorney trying to find out how he can get himself out of this mess. Remember, Patsy freaked out when Burke hit JB with a golf club and immediately inquired about plastic surgery for her. Do any of you honestly think for one second that Patsy would lay down and go along with a cover-up of this nature??????
Yes, but you are assuming the family is normal. What if there was already sex and physical abuse going on. One or the other or both parent did it. If it was one, the other covered up. If one went down, they knew the other would blow the whistle. At that point, they had an understanding to get rid of the "evidence".
Don't forget, the main reason was not to protect Burke, the main reason was to explain the opened and injured hymen. That was the point of staging the body.
"Most of the tools and things used in the murder belonged to Patsy specifically. Paint Brush, Sharpie, Notepad etc."
Yes because Patsy's art supplies happened to be nearby when John was staging the scene in the basement. He was pressed for time and would have had no other materials available to him, as the house was swarming with people upstairs. If Patsy wrote the note and wanted to deflect attention away from herself, why would she intentionally use all of her own materials? Makes no sense whatsoever.
"Don't forget, the main reason was not to protect Burke, the main reason was to explain the opened and injured hymen. That was the point of staging the body."
If that were the case, The Ramseys would have merely staged the scene to look as though a pedophile had broken in and killed JB, they would not have bothered with a kidnapping for ransom, would they? The fact the crime was staged in two very different ways means the perpetrator had to change his plan, which would not have been the case if the Ramseys were in on it together. They would not have called the police until they had decided on what motive they were going with - kidnapping or sex crime.
I agree there could have been a change of plans. First they went with the idea of body disappearing. To cover the sex abuse evidence. And wrote the note. Then they changed their mind and decided to leave the body there. And they came up with the idea to put the paintbrush in the child. They thought that would be good enough to cover their tracks. They decided to leave the note though, because they thought it was good to throw some confusion on the scene, and point away from them.
Or maybe they first came up with the idea to stage a kidnapping. Patsy on her own changed the plan and staged the scene and wrote the note. Without telling John until she did it. She wanted to have a burial. John had to go down and restage for her.
Also no matter how it happened, like who did the first blow, clearly JBR was out for a while.
I believe JR lied to PR and said JBR was dead already. PR pretended to believe it. Because she thought she would be caught out as an accessory to sex abuse if JBR came to. Like I wrote above, she thought JBR might be better off dead. JR brought JBR downstairs and strangled her, out of sight of PR. JR was going to get rid of the body. They wrote the ransom note together.
Early morning, Patsy went down and restaged the scene with the paintbrush and duct tape and large underwear. And called 911. Against the knowledge of JR. Because Patsy wanted a funeral.
JR went down again to make sure the scene was better set. He broke the window and moved the body to a better spot.
"I believe JR lied to PR and said JBR was dead already. PR pretended to believe it. Because she thought she would be caught out as an accessory to sex abuse if JBR came to. Like I wrote above, she thought JBR might be better off dead.......Early morning, Patsy went down and restaged the scene with the paintbrush and duct tape and large underwear. And called 911. Against the knowledge of JR. Because Patsy wanted a funeral."
This theory is so convoluted and absurdly illogical, I don't even know how to respond. How this bizarre scenario seems more reasonable to you than John having murdered his daughter to save himself from being exposed as her abuser, is beyond me.....
The reason I am coming up with this theory is because I am trying to find a way to incorporate BOTH JR and PR. Because I believe they both acted guilty. And Burke did not act so innocent either. This is about the only way I can do it.
But I don't think it is necessarily too far off. When abuse happens, it can often incorporate a WHOLE family. It becomes a family dynamic.
That's patently false. Child sexual abuse usually remains a secret forever, unless the victim speaks out years later. Further, your notion that Patsy knew about the abuse and turned a blind eye is absurd. CC
Child abuse CAN be private. But there are many times where the mother knew as well. I have seen many articles, and news stories about it. Or the child tells the mother and the mother pretends not to believe it. In fact, the mother can start to resent the child. She takes out her anger on the child after that. Happens all the time.
I saw a story on Lisa Ling where the father sexually abused the daughter for years. The mother knew. One time she yelled at the father when she caught them, you are supposed to be sleeping with me, not her! And just walked away.
Also that British metal singer, not too long ago, who made his girlfriends offer up their pre teen daughters to him so he could molest them. And the women did it. Women will be accessories.
We've been all over this issue for years. Many have quoted and posted scholarly articles and references. I'm sure what you're saying is possible, most things are, but it isn't the norm for an intelligent, educated, well-adjusted mother. CC
The mother can be educated, rich, it has nothing to do with abuse. Obviously something was going on in that family, or the daughter wouldn't have been found dead with a paint brush stuck in her. That right there is a clue that something a little funny was happening in that family.
In fact, rich families can suffer more and longer, because they are more afraid to lose their status and standing.
You are starting from faulty premises based on your feelings and impressions. Better to begin, as Doc has done, with the acknowledged facts, and go from there. It might be helpful to do more reading and research, both on this blog and elsewhere. CC
And before any of you BDI’s say, “Well John discovered it and covered it up without Patsy knowing anything about it.” I’ll say this – if this had been the scenario, John, having lost one daughter already, would not have covered it up. He lost Beth in a car wreck in the not too distant past. If he was truly the doting dad, then he would have been mad as hell to find out that his youngest daughter had been killed in a such a senseless act. He may very well have lost it on Burke as well. He certainly would not have gone to bat for him so fervently as he has over the years when Burke has been under the microscope. Additionally, John had numerous attorneys on tap – he would have simply reached out to one or more of them before trying to stage a scene Houdini couldn’t escape from.
Thank you Ms. D. Your posts, along with DocG, CC’s, Mike G’s and Gumshoe's are the most coherent soliloquies on this blog. I’m down with the struggle lol….
"One or the other or both parent did it. If it was one, the other covered up. If one went down, they knew the other would blow the whistle. At that point, they had an understanding to get rid of the "evidence"."
Geeze. Either on purpose or by accident, you totally and thoroughly missed the big picture in my post SC Shafer. Go back and read it again. Then rumitate on this for a while: the top of a step ladder always says in big bold letters, "This is not a step."
Yeah I read it again. I'm not sure what you mean about my post not getting it. Because I think I get what you are saying. You are saying the likely scenario is, Patsy would be pissed at Burke. I am saying, she is more afraid of being caught.
Was Patsy within reading distance of the note when she called 911?
Because the ransom note reads
Victory! SBTC
But to the 911 operator she says "SBTC-Victory!"
So unless she is reading it from bottom to top she didn't say it accurately. And if she memorized what she wrote and got it wrong that is something peculiar after reading the note quickly and just one time.
Or, just as Patsy claimed, JR had it on the floor in front of him, and she was reading it "upside down", thus why she saw the letters "SBTC" before the word "Victory", rather than in the order they were written, "Victory, SBTC".
What would someone be doing for an hour while Jonbenet was hit in the head and prior to finally strangling her? I think the ransom note was written in-between the time she was hit and the time she was strangled.
Doc, one of the videos released recently by the radar shows a check or something with John's handwriting on it. It is a 7 thousand dollar check from or for Jay E. Did you see it?
Jay Elowsky was Pasta Jay, a good friend of the Ramseys, and with whom they stayed for weeks after that first night at the Fernies. John had invested in his restaurants. CC
btw, if I knew the parents, I bet I could tell if they wrote the note or not. I am pretty good at picking up people's language when they write something, even if I don't know who wrote it. I bet I could pick up on some mannerisms in there.
Also I just read up on the handwriting. I long time ago I read some writing analysis books for the heck of it, so I know a bit about it.
I just read Doc's examination of the similarity between Patsy and the note in here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html
But read this article I just read below. You have to take out the disguised letters. The writer tried to use some trick letters. Even if you do that, some similarities remain.
Compare samples with the trick letters removed. It is very similar. http://www.experthandwritinganalysis.com/2013/07/19/unmasking-the-ramsey-ransom-note/
Nope, PR wrote the note. I saw some samples where she wrote nice notes, formal cursive style. Those are not too similar. But look at this printed entry she wrote. The 'a's are the same. the 'y's are the same.
Unless.. John is so devilishly clever, he can imitate PR writing, writing left handed. It would be very hard though, to write the same sizes, the same zone, and slants. It would be very tough to do.
1) An instructor hands each of twenty people a written letter to copy by hand in print lettering and they comply.
2) Next, the instructor tells them to write the same note, only this time they are to disguise their lettering. Furthermore, they are told the stakes are high. The copies in original print will be mixed in with the copies in disguised print and shuffled. Ten copies of the twenty mixed and shuffled copies will be made, and one set each given to ten independent handwriting experts. The experts will then be tasked to match up original letters with disguised letters by individual author. The results will then be recorded.
3) Participants are informed there will be no winners; only one loser, who will have to spend the rest of their natural life in prison. Even then, the loser will not have to suffer this punishment unless at least seven out of ten of the experts are able match the two copies to the same author.
Now imagine you are one of the participants. You have already copied the letter in your own printed handwriting. You have, or course, at least two choices as to how you craft your disguised edition. You can copy the note in your normal printed handwriting then go back and alter individual letters as you see fit, or you can disguise each letter right from the start. The only requirement is a pen to paper methodolgy--no cutting out and pasting pre-printed letters allowed.
Questions:
1) What method would you use? 2) What odds would you place that at least seven out of ten experts are able to identify at least one author by matching their original to their disguised copies? 3) What would you anticipate to be the average score of the experts? 4) The standard deviation?
Assumptions:
1) Partcipants, other than yourself, are randomly selected, albeit they are literate and capable of writing in English. They are also unfamiliar with this case. 2) The "experts" have never met any of the participants. They are not on hand to observe them as they are preparing their copies. 3) Each participant is provided identical materials; the same notebook, the same pen, sharpie, or numbered pencil. Each works alone from the others but in identical rooms with identicle lighting conditions. 4) A maximum of one hour is allowed to prepare disguised copies.
I would just do opposite to what I normally do. If I slanted left, I would slant right. If I used block letters, I would use curvy letters. If I wrote small, I would write big.
Ha, I actually spent my youth forging my mom's and dad's signatures,(with their permission) so I am pretty good at doing someone else's handwriting. I don't know if I could do a whole letter though. That would be hard.
I think I could disguise my handwriting. But don't forget, these people were under stress. A lot harder to do then. They might not have cared that much, they just wanted to get it done.
Assumption: This is a new assignment with no time to prepare in advance, so one would need to think quickly about the best way to disguise his/her handwriting.
Most people would write the note with their opposite hand. Once you have written it, you may go back over it and try to further disguise certain letters. Some may choose to use print versus cursive in their natural hand and use bigger letters and different slants as you suggest, but I think the majority of people would try to write the note in their opposite hand.
Fun question! SinCenter I normally write in a half printing/half cursive style and it's very flowy, I would do tinnnnnnyyyyy uppercase block letters. The tinier the better because I'm sure I wrote in block letters before so m if I try to write really small, hopefully the habits I have to shine through!
I do the cooking in my household, and leave notes addressed to different people in the house on the food containers, due to individual dietary requirements, and something I noticed a few weeks ago, and have been meaning to post here, is that when I leave a note for my nephew, I always use block lettering, no exceptions. When I leave a note for my mother, it is in lower case and "curvier", usually followed by a love heart. When I leave a note for the kids (my daughter and her boyfriend - not exactly"kids", lol, but I digress) it varies between the two.....essentially, what I'm saying, is that depending on who I'm addressing, my hand writing varies wildly, and it occurs on a sub conscious level, it isn't intentional - in fact, after all these years, I only just noticed it, thanks to our many discussions on hand writing here on this blog.
Very interesting, Ms, D! The only time I consciously change my writing style is when I write for my students. My natural writing is sloppy, half printing and half cursive. I try to print perfectly and neatry at school to set a good example.
I finally started reading Kolar's book after finishing Thomas'. There is a part that struck me in particular from Kolar - about deviant sexual behavior in children under 12 and how an FBI research study interviewing sex abusers indicated that 60% of abusers began abusing before the age of 9. Also that this type of behavior in young children was due to emotional detachment and issues with parents and family... jealousy etc. Seeing as his dad was a busy businessman and always traveling and his mom was preoccupied w JBR and her pageants (both parents were drawn in his family portrait as detached and small and not close to him, not to mention JBR not even in the photo) - why isn't it possible that he was abusing her? I really would like help from the JDI's on this one - why is Burke ruled out as a suspect but JR could be the abuser? To me, he acted in a fit of rage, hit her on the head, poked her w the tracks and prob realized she was dead, and the parents either aware of his prior abuse (paugh family had given PR lots of books on how to deal w children at risk and why johnny can't tell right from wrong) and were worried it would turn up in autopsy or that Burke himself admit it? That would seem like an adequate reason for the gruesome staging and cover up by one or both of the parents - how would they look and their business suffer if their son turned out to be abusing their daughter? Its a big deal but not that big of a deal if ur son mistakenly hit your daughter on the head by mistake like children sometimes roughhouse. Please help me understand why Burke can be ruled out as the abuser or at the very least, the cause of the head blow. Thanks and happy holidays, E
You'll never understand this case if you stay fixated on motive. Burke could not have written the ransom note. A kidnapper wouldn't have left one behind with his hostage dead in the basement. And Patsy wouldn't have called 911 if she had written it. That leaves only John. Had Burke hit his sister or killed her, the parents, individually or as a team, stood nothing to gain for themselves or Burke by staging a kidnapping. Patsy wouldn't have called the police if she had murdered her daughter. And if she was covering for John, she would have waited until the next day, after she and John had disposed of the body. Ergo, John Ramsey murdered JonBenet Ramsey.
Case solved. All doubt that it isn't is unreasonable.
Burke was interviewed by LE and child psychologists and they didn't spot any abnormal sexual pathology, which would have been patently obvious for someone so disturbed - that's a big reason I don't buy BDI. Don't you think people trained in the field would have picked up on it? It's not something one can hide, especially a nine year old who's guilty of murder. Also, the parents would have known JB was still breathing after Burke throttled her on the head, and there's just no way they would have decided they'd end their daughter's life to save their son. To believe BDI, you have to believe Burke meant much more to his parents than his sister did, and I just don't buy that. One more thing, it doesn't account for why they would stage a phony kidnapping - they would have just gone with the crazed pedophile intruder. The ransom note became an incriminating piece of evidence once police realized the body had never been taken from the house and the Ramseys would have known this wouldn't look good from the outset. So, whilst the idea of Burke having sexual assaulted his sister is certainly not out of the realms of possibilities, everything else about the crime is.
Thank you Mrs D and Mike G for giving me the other side of the argument - which is also sound. Kolar did note that he exhibited signs of distress when asked about sexual behavior tho, by rubbing a board game on his head. The second time he was asked he put it in front of his face. When he was asked about some of his relationships w his family, he curled up in the fetal position. Ugh this case is going to give me an ulcer
A nine year old reacting uncomfortably when asked about sex is not abnormal. Think about how you would have reacted when asked - by a stranger - about sex, at the same age. That is why his, probably very typical reaction, never rang any alarm bells with anyone who knew what to look for. Burke did not commit this crime, and the only thing more disgusting than John Ramsey getting away with murdering his daughter is that he continues to allow the public to believe his wife, or nine year old son, were responsible. This man is evil personified.
Ms D...you still don't understand us (and by us I mean those who are adamant that BDI).
You wrote:
"Burke was interviewed by LE and child psychologists and they didn't spot any abnormal sexual pathology, which would have been patently obvious for someone so disturbed - that's a big reason I don't buy BDI. Don't you think people trained in the field would have picked up on it? It's not something one can hide, especially a nine year old who's guilty of murder."
Why would they spot anything about Burke? This was an accident as we have been saying all along. Burke didn't purposely kill his sister. Anyone can potentially become a murderer by accident. Saying that, Burkes interviews are definitely abnormal from a normal child his age...I dont care what anyone says. And smearing feces is also not normal. Does Burke need to be prosecuted? No. Does John and Patsy for covering? Absolutely.
Zed, I was responding to Anonymous, who said that Burke may have been sexually abusing his sister and smashed her over the head - there was nothing accidental about the premise I was responding to. Not every BDI believes as you do.
We understand what you're saying perfectly, Zed. It just makes no sense. Surely the parents' first response to an accident is to call for medical help, but if for some bizarre reason they decided to stage the death instead, why not arrange the body at the foot of the stairs?
The poop smearing happened while Patsy was being treated for Stage IV cancer - I would assume a child might act out in a number of strange ways faced with the loss of his mother.
Patsy is beyond prosecution and the statute of limitations for accessory charges expired in 1999, making John safe as well. It's murder or nothing. CC
The poop smearing happened while Patsy was being treated for Stage IV cancer - I would assume a child might act out in a number of strange ways faced with the loss of his mother. The poop smearing was quite obviously still happening or most ironically only on the night that JBR was murdered, as there was feces on the box of chocolates in JBR's room and poopy pajamas on thr floor You are usually the most logically correct of the JDI, I would however, expect to here something ludicrous from some other of the other more illogical JDI like "We do not know for sure" whose feces it was in JBR's room or the usual backwards type logic like "it must be JR's feces because it has someone elses fingerprints on it. Lol .Logically this puts BR up and with JBR again that night, The ridiculous notion that BR was just a normal child with no signs to us that he had some mental illness is just agenda-like denial.
Please print your sources for the fece smeared box of candy and poopy pjs and show me where it was proven to be Burkes then we can talk about whose illogical.
I'm going to have to agree with Anony here, KS. As far as I can determine, the three search warrant returns do not show a box of chocolates or pajamas, poopy or otherwise. Please post your source for this information; otherwise we're going to be forced to assume it's just part of the apocrypha that surrounds this case. CC
I wonder, does the allegation about Burke source back to Kohler's book? Because apparently the stained pajamas and underwear are among the crime scene photos that I've read about, but the other sources say that it was JonBenet who had this problem.
My thinking (theory) was that this was the actual trigger that set Patsy off on JonBenet that night.
I come from a large family of children, none of whom suffered from this problem. Neither did any of my children have issues like this. But I have cleaned up after one who has been sick, and it is not pleasant.
If the bedwetting was a near nightly occurrence, its hard to imagine that Patsy just mildly accepted it and cleaned it up with no verbal repercussions.
That's why I believe that Burke most likely was used to hearing something like this going on in the middle of the night.
Why do I think that Burke did not do it? In addition to the ludicrous idea that his parents would stage to allow him to escape suspicion?
I just look at him. He has not yet reached puberty in the Christmas photos. He's addicted to his Nintendo, which I've known many a young boy that way. They can't think of anything else.
A year later, in the interview, there is a Burke who has experienced that growth spurt of entering puberty, but not at the time of the murder.
He just seems like a dorky kid to me that Christmas. And I don't believe John and Patsy would have covered for him.
Zed and kaiser - I'll answer. The poop in burkes pjs found in her room and her candy box were captured by csi and were documented by Kolar in his book when he was reviewing evidence for the case. Nedra Paugh also told their old housekeeper (also from Kolar) to clean the smeared feces Burke had put on the wall of his bathroom once.
Mrs D I double checked on the three prong train track and though you are right, Kolar and others point out that the pins were very loose on the tracks and one could have easily fallen out.
RIP JBR we will figure this out somehow from the madness! E
Here's what Kolar wrote, as quoted by "Cherokee" in an old Forums for Justice Post:
From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70:
------------------
Quote:
"I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny – housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.
I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.
Do you see how adroitly Kolar manipulates the reader into assuming the feces found in the candy originated with Burke? First he quotes a legitimate report concerning feces smeared on a bathroom wall, which does appear to have been done by Burke, while his mother was fighting for her life as a cancer patient and he was obviously in a deeply disturbed state of mind.
He then reports on "fecal matter" in pajamas found in JBR's room, too large for her and thus most likely belonging to Burke. Now I wonder how many parents reading here have ever found "fecal matter" in a child's pajamas or underwear. I'm not a parent so I wouldn't know for sure, but I'd imagine it's a pretty common occurrence. Note that he doesn't mention feces, just "fecal matter."
Finally we see the reference to the box of candy smeared with feces, and on the basis of NO evidence whatsoever, leads the reader to assume this too must have originated with Burke. And as we know, this has been a common assumption for many years, backed by literally NO evidence that I've ever seen. If there were any, I feel sure Kolar would have mentioned it.
As I see it, if this is something found in JonBenet's room, the most likely assumption would be that it originated with her. And if we have reason to believe she was being sexually molested, as we do, it's not difficult to see how this act could have been an expression of contempt for whoever gave her that candy. I'd think it would be just as important to learn the source of the candy as the source of the feces. One wonders whether the feces was ever tested for DNA, but to my knowledge that's never been determined. To simply assume it came from Burke because Burke is your principal suspect is yet another example of the confirmation bias that has pervaded discussion of this case from the start.
Doc you make a good point as usual. Kolar doesn't state that they actually came from Burke. Why wouldn't the fecal matter not have been tested by CSI? If I was investigating a crime scene and found feces in two separate locations in the victims bedroom I would investigate, no? Ugh I wish we had access to everything from the beginning... E
The 12/27/96 search warrant specifies ". . . cloth or clothing with . . . trace amounts of blood, semen or seminal fluid. . ." Cops may not exceed the parameters of a search warrant, and so could not collect and subsequently test the box of chocolates or the pajama bottoms. CC
Writing 'em is almost an art form and is often a collaborative effort between detectives and an assistant DA: too broad and a judge won't sign, too narrow and you take the chance something significant will be missed. Glad I could help, E. CC
I just watched one of the latest JBR Whodunits. In it they stated one of the DNA samples came from a drop of blood from JBs panties from 1997. Then later, sometime in the early 2000s after DNA testing had advanced (touch DNA), they decided to check the waistband of the longjohns thinking that would be a likely location DNA would be left behind. The samples matched. Unidentified male DNA. This can't be summarily dismissed.
The DNA in two spots was most likely transferred from Jonbenet herself. That's how sensitive touch DNA is. The source DNA's origins are unlimited. She had six UNIQUE samples on her. If an intruder was there they wouldn't have left composite, artifact, degraded DNA that wasn't even a full profile.
"The samples matched. Unidentified male DNA. This can't be summarily dismissed."
Nothing about the DNA has been treated summarily. On the contrary, the sophistication by which it continues to be approached marks it as one of three recurrent red herrings used to justify not prosecuting the case, the other two being the impossibility of John being the writer of the ransom note and a one-time incestuous pedophile.
I cant think of a reason someone would call the police, but there are people that think Patsy did it or both. I know you believe John did it and Patsy had nothing to do with it.
If you read the first few posts on this blog, Anon, your questions are answered in detail. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to comment on a blog you haven't read.....and clearly, you haven't read it, because you're asking about the key factors Doc's entire theory is built around (which are, essentially: "who wrote the ransom note, what was it's purpose and why call 911?") If you genuinely want the answer - read his entire hypothesis.
Can hardly believe it's been 20 years tonight since this happened. Thinking of Jonbenet and hoping she's at peace. I also hope however this crime went down that it was quick and as painless and unscary for her as possible. I think people get so caught up in this case that we forget that a little girl had her future ripped from her. Will light a candle in her memory. -SM
Hello. Since you are all fine mystery solvers here, I was wondering if any of you all could give me some opinions on these pics I posted on my new page. And help solve a new mystery.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
""Don't forget, the main reason was not to protect Burke, the main reason was to explain the opened and injured hymen. That was the point of staging the body."
If that were the case, The Ramseys would have merely staged the scene to look as though a pedophile had broken in and killed JB, they would not have bothered with a kidnapping for ransom, would they? The fact the crime was staged in two very different ways means the perpetrator had to change his plan, which would not have been the case if the Ramseys were in on it together. They would not have called the police until they had decided on what motive they were going with - kidnapping or sex crime."
It is a good question. I think it involves some awkward change of plans, like you all think. But there could be some twists on that. Maybe it was not the original plan. Maybe they thought there was some benefit in doing it the combo way. Not sure what though.
"I think it involves some awkward change of plans, like you all think. But there could be some twists on that. Maybe it was not the original plan. Maybe they thought there was some benefit in doing it the combo way."
Or.....it could all just be as straight forward as JDI. There is no need for the mental gymnastics, SC, there really isn't. You're trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, when you've been offered a perfectly shaped, round peg to fit that hole. But, if you feel the need to complicate matters, go ahead, by all means. Merry Christmas. :)
Well, hope everyone had a Merry Christmas. Or HH. I've read some of your comments while away, but also went over every possible scenario with someone close to me. We argued it all the way one day, refuted it all the next. Finally came up with the following points. And by the way I'm operating under an assumption here that we are "allowed" to think and rethink and refute and argue and change perpetrators if we so wish. Having said that, I'm going to mostly address this to J and Zed when the time comes. May have to do a few posts so as not to exceed the 4,000 plus letter limit. Here is why we refuted the IDI:
1. The note was too specific. An intruder would have to have known absolutely everything about the family, especially the whereabouts of Dec. 25 had they chosen to enter the house that afternoon (and hide) or night (and kill).
2. They would have to know that the house alarm was not going to be set that night. Even though someone intimate with the family might know that John rarely if ever set his house alarm, an intruder would have to COUNT ON IT that night. That's just not possible.
3. An Intruder would have to know the dog was being pet-sat across the street, and have to COUNT on that as well, would have to know a barking dog was not going to be returned to the house until after the holidays, and specifically that night.
4. Had the Intruder wanted to "stage" a phony kidnap for ransom, murder is what happened. He could have removed the child - instead he cracked her skull and strangled and assaulted her. Not likely they would have removed the child and counted on the family actually "making the drop" and returned the child. Even though the child was well hidden, she would have eventually been found, so murder was the goal so the note was completely phony.
5. Big house, what are the chances of absolutely no sounds. Even accounting for key in the lock, bringing the note in and laying it in plain site, a murder was committed - possibly in the kitchen, and then down in the basement. Intruder has to then exit without a sound. If Burke had come downstairs again, John, or Patsy, he would have been found.
6. If note was intended as a giant FU to John Ramsey, the note was too detailed and specific - killer would have to have been privy to a lot of information such as bonus amount.
So we finally after two days ruled IDI out. However - (next)....
We believe Patsy wrote the note. 100%. We also believe that John suspected Patsy wrote the note. We came to these conclusions:
1. Does anyone think JB would have gone downstairs late at night (and had her one or two pieces of "fibrous fruit" on her own? For no reason? She likely checked, as was her habit (read any number of books on the murder) to see if Burke was in his room. Her habit was to either wet the bed and crawl into his bed (much to his disdain and anger - again, read any number of books and articles on this murder) or get into bed with him to be close to him, stay warm, or whatever reasons you want to assign her behavior to.
2. She found him not in his room that night. By his own admission he was up late, then snuck back downstairs. I have asked if he attested to this last fact on the record and it seems that someone in here quoted him as not remembering if he had gotten back up or not. Sorry, it was over a week ago. Likely though he was up, and was not in his room when she checked. That is the only motive to me as to why she went downstairs that night, long enough to grab the fibrous fruit.
3. She angered him in some way, or he thought he was playing. In any event he hit her hard enough to render her unconscious. Train tracks were likely what he used to prod her awake. Or it could be any toy. I don't believe for a minute it's a cigarette burn.
The rest - pick your "enabler." Patsy's odd quote after that day to a friend, "we didn't mean for this to happen." And of course all of the rest, which I'm going to exceed the 4,000 characters. This was indeed an accident, and then a coverup. Zed, I agree with your 12/25 3:10 a.m. post.
Inquisitive, first of all I want to stress that all points of view are welcome here. Unlike other Internet forums in which I've participated, no one is going to be banned for disagreeing with the person running this blog (me), nor are any posts going to be deleted simply because they challenge my view of the case. I will delete offensive posts and personal attacks, and I will delete superfluous posts where someone keeps repeating ths same thing over and over. But that's IT. And if you've been here for any length of time you'll know that.
The problem some of us have with you is not simply that you keep changing your position, which you are entitled to do, but that each time you arrive at a new theory you decide that this HAS to be the absolute truth and then proceed to ridicule anyone who disagrees, even when you totally agreed with that person a few days ago.
Now as far as your latest theory is concerned, I see nothing new there, nor do I see any real evidence or even much in the way of logic backing up your scenario. Phrases like "Does anyone think JB would have gone downstairs," etc. are nothing more than expressions of opinion. Sure, lots of people might well think otherwise, why wouldn't they?
And no, train tracks were NOT likely for Burke to have used on JonBenet. Just because those items belonged to him and the marks on JonBenet seem to have been consistent with the abrasions on her body does NOT tell us he probed her with those items. It's a possibility, nothing more. Just as a stun gun is a possibility. Those wounds could have been caused in any number of ways, and, if we assume the tracks actually were used, there is NO reason to assume the person who used them was Burke. They were sitting in the basement and whoever was down there with her could have used them. Which should be obvious!
Thanks for reply Doc. The logic backing up my scenario as to why JB would have ingested the fruit is that she had visited Burke's room many times over, as discussed in books and transcripts, either after wetting her bed or for comfort. He admits to being up later that night. Your idea that John lured her out of bed and gave her a piece of pineapple is just as speculative, as to why she would have gone downstairs. But I made a mistake. I see now as I have suspected earlier that this blogsite is totally YOURS. That it is about agreement. It is about being right and defending being right. I have never laid claims to pretending to know what happened. I assumed this was a discussion site. My mistake.
Inquisitive, I'm just a reader here and an infrequent contributor. I cannot stay silent with you anymore. First of all, this IS DocG's site. What made you think it was not? Secondly, you sound like a pouty child. You have had numerous conflicting opinions, and frankly I don't care about yours or anyone else's opinions. I have opinions too, but they DO NOT MATTER. In order to move this case forward, what is needed is logic, a dose of common sense, and for the BPD to step away from the DNA case, because as Stan Garnett said, this is not just a DNA case. I read everyone's posts here, but I just skip over yours. Here's why: you seem to be thinking out loud, and not taking the time to put together a cohesive set of thoughts. Its just a brain dump from you to the rest of us. I don't mean that to be rude at all, just trying to let you know how your posts come across. The ridicule is, however, rude. So please, don't mistake discussion for brain dump-ridicule-change mind-next brain dump-repeat. Its beyond annoying.
I saw Stan Garnett on television but what I heard him say is what he said years ago. That the Ramsey's should stop hiding behind their lawyers, etc. Is there anything new?
Thanks Anonymous, I had read that snippet from CNN. Saying that he didn't think new DNA testing would show anything new, but would have to be viewed in the context of everything else they have. I just hadn't seem him on camera since the comment about hiding behind lawyers.
Not sure how you got there from Doc's reply Inq...
However, if PR was involved in a BDI cover up, where is a logical reason for her calling 911? If she did pen the note as you say at 1.07pm, why make such detailed instructions if the "plan" was to always call 911?
Oh Sisu, you have to wait til she has another discussion with her friend and then comes back here to rehash her private discussion. But don't be surprised if it has nothing to do with the last post.
Good point Sisu. And of course it's crazy to think any parent would carry a head injury all the way to a strangulation and sexual assault. And why. Yet why would she hit her over the head with such force. (If she acted alone). The two are not related. So yes, dilemma. For me to embrace a JDI theory I would have to believe he had he time to chronically abuse her, in absolute secrecy, write a note with the express purpose of alarming his wife so that he could get her out of the house, and then leave the note in plain site for her to read and hope she would not react with fear by calling the police. And, she did. So all I can think is Patsy took it upon herself to cover for either her own actions or that of another person and that other person admits to being downstairs later than the others and sneaking back downstairs at least 45 minutes before pineapple was ingested and a headblow occurred.
How is Patsy covering up for someone else by calling police? Why can't you accept that John could have abused JBR in the past? We don't know if it happened 5 times or 50 times; doesn't matter. She was only 6 and this could have started when she was 4 or 5. It would only take one time when the abuse went too far in order to damage her hymen. So, do you not believe abuse could have happened at all? That he could not have done it in that big house? He's a controlling man. Controlling people think others are going to act according to their will. I honestly believe he thought Patsy would not call, but that if she tried, he could stop her. He underestimated his ability to control a woman whose fear for her daughter outweighed her concern for his will. Its really that simple -- I would have called, too.
Let’s return to the original logic of Doc’s case, Inq. That is what convinced me when I originally read it. But to do so, let’s forget everything we know of the case.
So – four people in a house: Parent A, Parent B, and two minors. One of the minors is killed by a combination of head blow and garrotting. To make it simple, we will assume that one of the other people in the house committed the murder.
Scenario 1: the remaining minor was the killer. Possible only if assisted in a cover up by one or both parents (who wrote an involved ransom note, hid the body in an out of the way place).
So: Parent A was the sole person involved in the cover up. However, this parent rang the police, rang friends, was then in the presence of friends and a police officer up to the finding of the body.
So: Parent B was the sole person involved in the cover up. This parent was not in the line of sight of friends or a police officer for the entire morning, found the body and then moved said body, arranged for the family to board at a friend’s house, denied interviews with the police. This parent had control of the narrative due to the other parent being sedated (heavily).
So: Both parents were involved in the cover up from the get go. However, Parent A still calls the police, whose subsequent presence destroys the (hoped for) established narrative, i.e. that the killed minor was abducted.
Lastly: Parent B was originally solely responsible for cover up, but told Parent A after the phone call to the police was made. This is possible and fits the “logic” of the situation, save for the fact that the remaining minor (who was the killer) has remained undetected by teachers, friends, psychiatrists, the police, etc.
Scenario 2: Parent A was the killer. So: Parent A killed the child, never told the other spouse. Does not fit as it was Parent B who had missing time when not in the line of sight of others (thus continuing the cover up).
So: Parent A killed the child, Parent B assisted with the cover up. This is possible and fits the “logic” of the situation. However, Parent A still calls the police, whose subsequent presence destroys the (hoped for) established narrative, i.e. that the killed minor was abducted.
Scenario 3: Parent B was the killer. So: Parent B killed the child, never told the other spouse. Does logically fit as it was Parent B who had missing time when not in the line of sight of others (thus continuing the cover up).
So: Parent B killed the child, Parent A assisted with the cover up. However, Parent A still calls the police, whose subsequent presence destroys the (hoped for) established narrative, i.e. that the killed minor was abducted.
Thus logically we have 2 possible scenarios: Patsy did it, with John’s subsequent involvement and the illogical (and potentially damning) of calling 911 prematurely; or John did it, without Patsy being any the wiser. My money is on the latter.
Thanks Sisu for netting it out. We can fill in the blanks all day long with opinions about poopy pants, pineapple, pageant mommies, psychologically disturbed kids, and so on. Its not how crimes are solved. That little girl had been sexually molested in the past. Someone did that to her. Was it JR? Pasta Jay? It comes down to who had access to her and who had a LOT to lose if Patsy found out.
All scenarios presented must be dismissed due to the glaring inconsistencies and total lack of logic. The only one that is remotely plausible (highly probable, in fact, once you realize you have no choice but to throw out the other scenarios) is Parent B. being the sole killer.
The JDI theory, for me, seems just too obvious. It's like when you watch a movie and all clues, signs, fingers point to that one suspect and then at the end of the movie, there's a twist. Maybe that's what it is. JR is so obviously the one who was most likely to be the top suspect--adult male in the house, opportunity, motive(cover up of possible sexual abuse.) He is a cold calculating, emotionless man who ruled the roost. PR seemed to tiptoe around him and her job while he was home was to keep the house quiet so that he could work. He was controlling, driven, successful and distant.
Is there a twist here or is this it? Could it be THAT simple?
My thinking on this is, if it were Patsy, how was she going to explain to John that JonBenet was missing?
The ransom note directs away from searching the property for her. It might as well say "Do not look for her in the house, John. She is not hiding. We have her. Go get some money. We'll call you later."
As I pointed out before, John is so very helpful. After allowing the calling of the police immediately after Patsy finds the note, he hands over the notepads and handwriting samples, and arranges for the ransom money to be raised. He seems to believe what is happening and tries to cooperate.
He even finds the body and hands her over to the police.
I do believe he found her earlier, at 11:00, as he told John Andrew. At that point, he had no reason to lie about it. He just didn't know how to tell the rest of them.
So where are the previous employees who can testify to how controlling and emotionless he was? Where are the women he controlled and propositioned at work?
It seems to me that he and Patsy led separate lives, and he never got in the way of anything she wanted to do, as evidenced by all her extra-curricular activities.
I look at him and see a dorky man who was wrapped around Patsy's little finger. Some one he had taken a vow with.
He had no choice but to believe her and support her, however he could.
That is the scenario that makes the most sense to me.
John is clearly guilty, because he closes the basement window that morning, and or says he closes the basement window, and does not tell police about it until hours later.
No innocent person does that. Period. He was guilty of something. At least abuse. Now whether PR also was involved is up for debate. I think she was somehow.
And the statement by the disguised Grand Juror who said, "Is there any evidence that this was a sexual assault at all?" He said something to that effect.
Well, you know the prosecution was incompetent. How much did they emphasize what the coroner and six other experts who were given access to the case found? Geez, if the grand jury had been conducted properly, we wouldn't be here, 20 years later, discussing this case!
"As I pointed out before, John is so very helpful. After allowing the calling of the police immediately after Patsy finds the note, he hands over the notepads and handwriting samples, and arranges for the ransom money to be raised. He seems to believe what is happening and tries to cooperate."
Or, he knew he'd written the ransom note on Patsy's paper, with Patsy's pen, and was actually, eagerly throwing her under the bus.....though, the more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that he simply didn't know the pad could be linked to the RN. To accept Patsy wrote the RN, I'd have to ignore everything else I know about this case.....
"He even finds the body and hands her over to the police."
And you think that actually points away from his involvement?! Most would disagree, and find it very suspicious. Linda Arndt sure did. John knew just where to *find* the body because he put it there, and he probably wished to contaminate the crime scene as much as possible. Many murderers actually "discover" their own victims, GS, so your point is moot.
I think both parents both knew and or did the abuse. It is not uncommon for abuse to be done by one, and accepted and almost facilitated by the other. So if you start with that basis, you need to come up with a new twist to the theory.
In fact, thinking about it, it would be good sense for an abuser to blackmail the other parent. Like, allow some twisted behavior from the other parent, to keep them under control. One parent could have had some dirt on the other. So they knew they were both going down, if it got out.
btw just curious. I am wondering why no one wanted to give me some opinions on these pics. This is a new real life mystery I am dealing with. I would have thought you all would be interested in tackling some other mysteries. Any word on why you are all steering clear?
Question, what does it look like to you, in the center area of the first pic? See that orange-ish spot there. In insert, in middle of pic? Do you think that looks like anything? Or do you think it is supposed to look like anything?
Yes GS, I tend to agree with your logic (posted 12/26 7:50 p.m.). By writing a note pointing to a kidnapping, and hiding the body in the wine cellar room a "hunt" for her will begin primarily centered around a phone call - that won't come of course. I think it's very possible John did not fully put it all together until he did some looking around on his own. He couldn't exactly confront Patsy about his suspicions while she was surrounded by friends and under the watchful eye of Arnt. Yes, he hands over the pad, the pad that also had a practice salutation started. If he wrote the note he would have remembered that he had started it one way and then finished it another. Also Burke was kept away from any and all questioning for quite some time. One could say he has evaded formal investigative questioning for 20 years! He was however, seeing a psychiatrist for a full two years - Patsy's idea she says when a friend told her it had helped her child. This interview is on a candyrose somewhere.
Thank Gosh for a new post! Happy Holidays to you too.
ReplyDeleteIf JDI is correct I think premeditation is the only way it's possible. I find it unlikely that John could compose the note and have it relatively consistent in type throughout the duration of the note under such stressful conditions. The trial and error, on top of all the crime entailed would make him very pressed for time. Disappearing for an hour the next day withstanding.
ReplyDeleteFleet White said once sailed with John Ramey when the weather became vicious. He was more than a little amazed at how calm John remained handling the boat on his own. From this and other comments I've read from those intimate with John, I find it highly LIKELY John does his best work under pressure.
DeleteMike G
The thing that makes me think it was premeditated is that all the items at the scene seemed new. The duct tape, rope, and underwear. The large underwear especially. It seems it was all bought in advance. And someone messed up, like JR, and did not know the right size.
DeleteThe two things with JDI that bother me Zach, is if it was premeditated why would JR use a pen and pad from his own home. If it wasn't, why is the RN so long considering all that needed to be done that night and with the likelihood of being caught by patsy or as to why he was out of bed for hours on end.
ReplyDeleteWell if JDI makes sense than he would probably have discarded the original pad the next day when he finished staging and removed the body. The note was overly long so John could improvise and be flexible with time. Also to dump the body under the guise of ransom delivery. Patsy calling the cops strangely worked in his favor. Once John and jbrs body had contact with the outside world it becomes damning forensically and very risky.
DeleteIt is the length of the note that always brings me back to believing it had to have been written it advance.....
DeleteWhen you think carefully about the situation it becomes evident that
Delete1. Assuming John premeditated this crime, he could not have used a computer printer, because the printer could easily be traced, so, as unlikely as it might seem, his best bet would have been a hand printed note.
2. Most stores would have been closed on Xmas day, making it difficult or impossible for him to buy paper at or near the airport.
3. It might have been convenient for him to simply use a notepad from the house. As you say, he might well have planned on discarding it along with all the other evidence while dumping the body.
4. It's also possible it never occurred to him that the paper could be traced back to that notepad. If you look carefully at paper torn from such a pad you'll see that the perforations are really tiny. If you don't look really carefully you might not even notice them.
So yes, I do think it possible that this whole thing was planned ahead of time by John, possibly on Christmas day -- which would explain his strange trip to the airport. He could have written it while in the cockpit of his plane.
I was also thinking it could be premeditated on John's part. Like I wrote above, I think John bought that large underwear mistakenly. Not Patsy. At that shows premeditation.
DeleteSo maybe what happened is, Patsy called 911 three days before. John stopped her. But John knew the jig was up. He knew they were traveling to some relatives. He thought the relative might get the word out from Patsy. He thought JBR would spill the beans there. Maybe a relative there had medical training and could examine the hymen. And he knew his goose was cooked.
If you think a father can't kill a child, remember the Green River killer used to bring his young son when he went to lure prostitutes. One time his son almost caught him, and he was about to kill his son to cover up.
The one thing that makes me think it was not planned was how lucky *whoever* whacked her on the head was that blood didn't go everywhere. I feel like it would be quite risky to hit her on the head at the exact amount of force to kill her (she would have died from that injury eventually had she not been strangled) but not produce blood.
DeleteWhoever did this caught a lot of breaks... well obviously since they haven't been charged!
I, too, wonder if the 911 call made a few days prior was the catalyst for John. He knew he had barely escaped discovery this time, and next time he may not be so lucky. The story is that 911 had been dialed by accident, but that just seems a little unbelievable in light of what happened a few days later.....but if 911 was called intentionally because someone knew John was interfering with JonBenet, who made the call? Was it JB herself? Had she threatened, in no uncertain terms, to tell on daddy?
DeleteIt's possible JBR called 911 herself. It would be rare, but a smart 6 year old could call 911. Or maybe Burke for her.
DeleteOr even Patsy. Probably Patsy. But then John threatened her and said, if you tell on me, I am going to tell that you knew, and facilitated it.
Maybe PBR thought about it, and she thought that better JBR be dead than go through this. She thought she herself might die of cancer. Then the child would be raised by John.
Kind of a Caylee Anthony scenario. Where the mom, Casey could not raise the child herself. But she did not want to lose the child to her mother. So she thought her daughter was better off dead. She would rather the child be dead, than lose the war with her mom.
You think that's why Casey Anthony killed her daughter?
DeleteI think you're being way too kind. And naive perhaps.
Why do you think CA killed her daughter?
DeleteSC, the defense won its case for a reason; the prosecution thought it was a Susan Smith case; the defense thought it was a JonBenet Ramsey case. The latter is far, far more plausible. To quote one of the jurors "He (george) was there."
DeleteI think Casey Anthony murdered her daughter because she was a self absorbed, narcissist who wanted to be free of the shackles of motherhood, SC. She viewed Kaylee as a ball and chain. She resented her and probably just considered her as collateral damage in her quest for freedom. Her behaviour right after the murder and the weeks that followed show us that she was happy.....I'd speculate that she was relieved, as she behaved like a woman who didn't have a care in the world. A young girl on Spring Break. I don't think this would have been the case if she had murdered her as some kind of "mercy killing" as you suggest.
DeleteBy the way, and for the record, the oversize panties were purchased by Patsy and intended as a gift for an older girl. Not sure how you got the idea that John bought them.
DeleteAre we sure Patsy is not lying about that? Is there some witness statement from earlier about it? Just curious. Because we can't assume she is not lying.
DeleteMrs. D, Casey Anthony could have given up her daughter to her mom, easily. And then go out and party. But she and her mom had a battle over Caley, some kind of competition I think, and I don't think Casey wanted her to 'win'.
DeleteYou see something similar when one parent kills children in a divorce, they don't want the other parent to have custody, they don't want to lose.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA lot of people have been talking about the pineapple and the prints on the bowl. Why were there no prints on the spoon (as far as we know)? The bowl looked to me to be pretty full and a lot for a small child to eat. I think that it was barely eaten at all. The only reason the Ramsey's would lie about it is because it was found in JB's stomach and it put a whole in their story about her not being awake.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for posting about an entirely different case, but can anyone recommend a site devoted to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? A site that has FACTS like this one. I listened to a podcast about the case and want to read more, but I don't know enough to weed put fact from fiction at this point. Thanks all!
ReplyDeleteI don't know about blogs, but because the parents have talked a lot, most of what they have stated has been reported fairly accurately. There is some info out there from the Portuguese detective who handled the case originally and tells a lot more from his perspective. Another strange case, damning from evidence from cadavers in apartment, yet timeline of parents alone to dispose of body leaves me guessing.
ReplyDeleteThe cadaver dogs are pretty damnibg! Did they bring cadaver dogs into the Ramsey home? They maybe could've determined where exactly she was killed and if she was hidden somewhere other than the wine closet.
Deletehttp://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/13/burke-ramsey-i-remember-being-downstairs-after-everyone-was-in-bed/
Delete"(Burke) Ramsey …also admitted to being out of bed late the night his sister died.
“Yeah, I had some toy that I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was in bed … wanting to get this thing out,” Burke Ramsey said.
“Did you use the flashlight so you wouldn’t be seen?” Dr. Phil followed up.
“I don’t remember. I just remember being downstairs with this toy,” Burke replied."
I found a cool True Crime podcast called The Generation Why. In an old episode (you can find it free on itunes) the hots interviewed James Kolar. It was really interesting to hear him talk about the case and I recommend listening to it. I feel like anyone- JDIs, PDIs, AND BDIs would find it interesting. After all, listening to another perspective could change your mind OR reinforce your own theory. Or give you a brand new idea that no one ever even considered! Please post if you do listen to it and let me know what you think. One thing that really interested me was how Kolar said the staging seemed both organized and chaotic at the same time... as if two different people had been involved.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason it was "both organized and chaotic at the same time" is quite simple. It is because John meticulously took care of everything that needed to be taken care of for the phony kidnapping, and had his plan gone the way he intended, LE would never have entered that house while JB's body was still there, along with any other incriminating evidence. It would have been a cut and dried kidnapping: a ransom note, along with a missing child and a broken window as a probable point of entry. BUT, as Patsy called the police, it meant the kidnapping scenario probably wasn't going to work anymore, because JB's body was going to be found inside her very own house on the very same day. So John had to perform some very chaotic staging (it was chaotic because time and resources were very limited - he had to make do with what was in the basement, and he had to work quickly and quietly). So, in a nutshell, what began initially as a well organized, but simple, plan - a kidnapping for ransom, along with a missing child - then became a botched-kidnapping-cum-sex-crime with the victim dead in the house, and a ransom note that no longer made sense. If it looks like "two, separate crimes", as many speculate, that's because it is. #1: The actual murder, which didn't call for any staging (minus the ransom note), as the body would have been disposed of and #2: the cover up, which was undoing some of the things he'd previously done (changing the location of her body, which was probably ready and waiting for disposal) and staging other facets to make it look like she was murdered by "a foreign faction", (garrote perhaps, maybe a change of clothes he removed from the basement dryer, some cord around her wrists etc.) which, because it wasn't initially part of the plan, was rather rushed and sloppy.....John didn't have the luxury of "planning ahead" this time.
DeleteYes, Ms. D, thanks. What you've written makes perfect sense.
DeleteSo the Ramsey's would have to come up with an excuse for cancelling their trip to Michigan. John would need Patsy and Burke out of the house and just HOPE that neither of them told anybody what was going on. The magical note was going to have to convince Patsy to shutup for 2 days. John would then have to go to a payphone, call his own house so the call would register. At the end of this day and a half stage job, he would have to meet up with Patsy and Burke and explain that the kidnappers called and he did a money drop, but he never got JB back. Then John would have to recount this entire story in specific details to the police because they would need to hear ever detail of this concocted story. The Cops would also be able to verify the pay phone it came from due to phone records and if John was seen by anybody at all, his plan would be foiled.
DeleteYES, John meticulously took care of everything. I actually was having a hard time writing the above with a straight face. I am glad that many on this blog are questioning the ridiculousness of the JDI theory.
-J
But yet if Burke did it, we have two parents staging a murder to protect their son or if Patsy did it, wearing the same clothes the next morning after supposedly being up all night. But JDI is ridiculous right?
DeleteYes, JDI is ridiculous.
DeleteThe head blow was an accident. There was no motive, no intention to murder, no premeditation. The staging is crazy irregardless of murdered her. Parents do crazy things to protect their children and even though this might be the craziest of them all, that's what I believe happened.
3 Page RN, abusing her private area, using a garrote are all crazy acts despite who did it. All I know is that it wasn't done by 1 person
-J
The staging is crazy only if alternatives had have been available (which there obviously were if it was a cover up for Burke, as Patsy and John would have communicated, and all would have gone according to plan), so the staging only doesn't make sense from a BDI or a PDI perspective. Which is one of the major reasons I don't buy either. The Ramseys, had they have been working together, would have gone with either an intruder pedophile or a kidnapping, certainly not both. The only way to make sense of the RN is to realize that at the time it was written - a phony kidnapping was the only plan. No staging requiring cords, paintbrush handles, duct tape etc. was part of that plan. But, if LE were upstairs and John had to improvise, then the staging naturally looks "crazy", because he'd had to change it from what looked like a kidnapping, now to a crazed pedophile intruder, as kidnappers demanding ransom take their victim with them.....yet that pesky ransom note still existed, making the kidnapping for ransom look dubious, and now instead of it being a help, it was only a hindrance. But John was left with no choice - the note had been retrieved, and JB's body was going to be found in her home, so he had to do the staging in the hopes of at least minimizing his involvement. It should never have worked, of course, and he probably doubted it would, but if he left the scene the way it was, he was SURE to be caught.
DeleteYou don't *know* it wasn't done by one person, as we're just as sure it *was* done by one person. A person who was forced to change his plan, thus why it may appear there are two, separate crimes, as I explained above. If BDI, the cover up would have been a lot more organized. The staging will always look nonsensical to you, as a BDI, but to a JDI, it makes sense completely, for all the reasons I pointed out. As this is the only scenario that can make sense of the seemingly chaotic mess, it's the only one I can go with.
I love reading your posts. It is completely logical. Certain posters are just so ridiculous. I look to see who is posting and skip. I do not even bother reading them. It will be so interesting to see what the vaginal swabs show. Panties were changed for a reason. They were bloody and had DNA evidence.
DeleteJ... Even though I'm pretty convinced that JDI, you do bring up an interesting point about the payphone records. And aren't payphones normally located near businesses, not out in the middle of nowhere? Even though cameras have become much more common since Jonbenet's murder, I think even back then a lot of businesses had them. You'd think that would be another thing for John to worry about. Minnesota Linda
DeleteJ... Just so long as JR gets the body out of the house (and the note instructs him to leave the house early with a big bag) then he doesn't have to do anything else. It becomes "obvious" as soon as the body is discovered that the kidnappers didn't call to get the money because the child is dead and now they just want to get away.
DeleteMartin
Perfect choice for the season, Doc! Thank you and Happy Holidays to you and everyone here!
ReplyDeleteEG
EG asked a question on the last thread that I was curious about too. I know Kolar thinks the marks on JB'some body were from Burke poking her with the train tracks. How do the JDIs and PDI's explain those marks?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it necessary to explain them. She was obviously assaulted and all sorts of things might have happened during the assault that we have no way of knowing about. The "stun gun" was Lou Smit's desperate attempt to produce "intruder evidence" since the Ramseys didn't own one. But there is no reason to assume a stun gun was used and to at least some people familiar with such weapons, the marks are inconsistent with stun gun marks. Kolar preferred the toy railroad tracks because they were associated with Burke (though that's no reason to assume Burke would have used them rather than anyone else). But again we have no way of knowing whether they made those marks, it's just another assumption.
DeleteSo to clarify, you're not concerned with the marks because they may or may not be related to the crime at all? I personally think the train tracks are what made the marks due to them matching up. Now theyes really no way of knowing when the marks got there or how. It sounds like the train tracks were all over the house. I forget where I read or heard that.
DeleteMegan, I agree. The train tracks seem like a key point for me specifically Bc they matched up so perfectly to the two round abrasions. I don't agree with Doc (sorry!) on this one - an abuser is not going to poke a child w plastic train tracks when he was using such violent techniques as a garotte strangulation and paintbrush sexual violation. To me (Bc I waffle daily on BDI or JDI or BDI w JDI cover up), B hit her on the head by accident w the flashlight and when she didn't move he poked her, like only a kid would, not w a finger Bc he may have been scared to actually touch her, but w a toy. JR either came down on his own or B got him, and JR hid the body and wrote the RN so he could dump the next day. PR not brought into the picture Bc JR likely knew she would want to take JBR to a hospital or worse, not after w dumping the body. Doc G's explanation of the 911 call made me almost absolutely certain PR not involved and JR used the note as an excuse to have her not call the police and give him time to dump the body. i still haven't concluded whether he finished the staging and strangulation that night or later that morning during the hour he was missing. Unless there is definitive concrete evidence that she was abused prior to death (too many conflicting reports) im going to stick w BDI w JR coverup.
DeleteThanks and happy holidays to everyone who I enjoy reading every night!! e
"An abuser is not going to poke a child w plastic train tracks when he was using such violent techniques as a garotte strangulation and paintbrush sexual violation."
DeleteNo one's suggesting John poked her with the train tracks (at least, I don't think they are). They were simply scattered on the floor where she was being assaulted and thus left abrasions where she had been lying on them. That is, if it is indeed the train tracks that left the abrasions.....there is no definitive proof of what caused those marks.
"EG asked a question on the last thread that I was curious about too. I know Kolar thinks the marks on JB'some body were from Burke poking her with the train tracks. How do the JDIs and PDI's explain those marks?"
DeleteMy personal theory only is that they might be cigar burns. A stun gun would leave a burn-like mark, I would think.
I know I saw it mentioned that there was a cigar humidor in the wine cellar, and that Fleet White had handled it, and John was questioned on if he was trying to hide a smoking habit.
The Bonita Papers mentions Patsy admitting to buying a pack of cigarettes in Michigan after the murder, but not taking the habit up regularly. And smoking at a party.
This would explain the round burn marks on JonBenet, and possibly why the window was really left open.
My opinion only.....
GS
Thanks for answering Mrs D. I can't agree - the round points of the train tracks would have caused the abrasions and unless she fell on them as they were balanced straight up and down, any abraisions would have been from the side of the tracks. As a visual think of two pencils. They would make round poke marks on someone only if they were standing straight up and down and someone fell on them. Therefore, the train tracks (you're right if those caused the marks) would have had to be inserted into her skin w the round parts pointing at her, she could not have fallen on the round points unless you are saying that the train tracks were balanced straight up and down (unusual for train tracks meant to be laying down). GS, cigar burns would be huge, cigarette burns more plausible but why would the two marks and the other two marks Bc spaced the same apart? That's one awfully precise use of a cigarette.
DeleteI really think the train tracks are key. I was JDI for such a long while but now I'm BDI w JR cover up. only a kid would poke someone w an object to see what had happened or if they were scared about what happened and were trying to figure out if someone was still moving. Thanks everyone and early holiday greetings to all.
My thinking is that the diameter of a cigar burn would depend on how lightly it was held. The very tip would make just a small round burn if not held full flush against the skin.
DeleteI may be wrong, but I thought there was only one place where 2 marks were found. The area on the side of JonBenet's face was just a single mark. Distance between the area with 2 marks could be purely coincidence.
Also, I read that Burke's tracks actually had 3 prongs of attachment, and that Kohler failed to mention that information.
I'm PDI, and it seems to me that once again, this is part of the staging. Cigarette burns on abused children have been widely reported. She wanted to depict a very cruel, cigar-smoking male as the killer, and cast suspicion away from herself, since no mother sexually assaults her daughter, or smokes cigars.
Only my opinion...
GS
Does anyone know any detail or much on the "practice ransom letter"? Was it pretty much the exact same words? Was there ever a picture of this practice letter? I would like to know more.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called "practice note" consisted of the words "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. No image of this document has ever been made public. It's not clear whether it actually is a practice note or just something Patsy scribbled. It would help if we could get a look at it.
Delete
ReplyDeleteJean Casarez was right to zoom in on that ACCESSORY charge the Ramseys were also indicted for. Near the end of the program, she asked current Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett about the indictment, and he had this to say
"It does appear that the theory they (the grand jurors) were looking at assumed that SOMEONE ELSE besides the two Ramsey parents were involved in what happened. If the DA KNOWS who killed JB, it is his duty to arrest that person, charge him, and prosecute that person NOW.
Unless he knows it's Burke. Burke can't be charged. Uh oh JDI ......
With all due respect to Garnett - and to you, KS - how does that make a lick of sense? You're seriously suggesting the Ramseys aided and abetted an intruder, a perfect stranger, in the murder of their daughter? Or that they, what, hired a hit man?
DeleteCC
Obviously they are speaking about BR and I just cut and pasted from an article. The only part that is me is the Uh oh JDI.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen John laughed off the accessory charge and claimed he didn't know what that meant, he was soooo lying. He lies in all his interviews. Come on, you're a grown ma. You know what it means to be an accessory.
DeleteWell Burke said he went down after everyone was asleep. There was a bowl of pineapple there with his fingerprints. JBR had pineapple in her. So it could be, they were both downstairs later at the same time. They ate pineapple together.
ReplyDeleteAnd Burke could have just swung at her with a baseball bat on the back of her head while she was eating. Just for the heck of it. It is not impossible for a 9 year old to do that, it would not take much strength to knock someone out with a bat.
And the parents could not take her to the hospital because of the fear of her sex abuse injuries. So they got rid of her.
I don't know. I could go either way. They all seem weird to me. Any one of them could have done it.
So we're talking a two for the price of one coverup. How efficient.
DeleteWell you know what they say, when you practice to deceive, and webs, etc.
DeleteOne lie leads to another.
The JB Encyclopedia website is in outline form, everything is discussed, outlined, and argued - and refuted. For every theory there is a counter theory. But it seems a pretty straighforward at least "summary" of what happened, what was done about it, and what experts believe what and in outline form. But it will not be a place for answers. You can always find an expert that you agree with. But the question was posed in here as to why was there no blood from the blunt force trauma, and which came first, the strangulation as a sex game coinciding with blunt force trauma or trauma first, strangulation second as staging. I'm curious about the blunt force trauma so did some reading on a site called "Forensic Autopsy of a Blunt Force Trauma". Just FYI and a very brief summary, not at all in entirety, is the following few points:
ReplyDeleteCharacteristics of the blunt object and the surface imparted are looked at in the following ways:
1) The severity of injuries inflicted area is dependent on the amount of kinetic energy and the tissue to which the energy is transferred. In general a somewhat lighter object traveling at a higher speed would cause more damage than a heavier object traveling at a low speed.
(our "bat versus maglite" conversation)
2) the composition and plasticity of the tissues impacted also affects the resultant injuries (head injury versus a blow to the back, legs, etc.)
3) also affected are the amount of time the body and the impacting object are in contact are to be considered.
There was of course more on why some head injuries show no blood or blood spatter however internal damage is significant, and that histology analysis is difficult to ascertain - fix time of death with blunt force trauma victims.
I also think that if JonBenet was moving at the time the head trauma was inflicted (as in "running away") the severity of the head trauma would have been different than if she was stationary and was hit from either front or behind (entire skull was cracked).
Dr. Cyril Wecht believed she was strangled first due to very little inter-cranial bleeding, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Spitz believed otherwise so again, pick your favorite expert. It's also possible one was started and the other was used to subdue - but then you would have clawing at the cord and the hands of the perpetrator. But just thought this article may be of some interest.
Forensic Autopsy of Blunt Force Trauma
emedicine.medscape.com/article/1680107-overview
I just read something interesting about JAR--and being that the grand jury came up with that "Accessory charge", I think it's worthwhile discussing the possibilities.
ReplyDelete1. A neighbor claimed to have seen JAR walking up into the Ramsey house on Christmas day, which he later said he might have been mistaken due to possibly being pressured?
2. There were no videos and not many pictures taken on Christmas morning, which was unusual for the Ramsey's. Was that because JAR was in them?
3. He claimed to have been with his mother, and also at the movies, also at an ATM machine getting money. However the pictures at the ATM machine were grainy, and the person wore a baseball cap, and his face couldn't be seen clearly.
3. JR hired lawyers for JAR and his mother. Why?
4. The suitcase found in the basement was one JAR had used with a blanket in it with semen and a children's book.
5. His friends at college said he talked non stop about JBR and when they heard she was murdered, they immediately thought of him, as they thought he was weird.
6. He spent weekends with the family and JBR had many Monday visits to the nurse at school. The DA never requested those medical records from the school nurse.
7. JAR mentioned how similar the Ramsey family was to the family in the Mel Gibson movie, RANSOM.
Hmmmmmm makes you wonder.
EG
It was verified that JAR was at the airport on the flight with Melinda and her fiance early morning on the 26th. It's 1400 plus miles (20 hours) from Atlanta to Boulder, so there is no way he could have drove from Boulder home.
DeleteJohn hired lawyers for his x-wife to keep her quiet about their relationship and John's affair.
It would be interesting to know how many people JR's lawyers paid off to keep them quiet.
I agree..its amazing and it wreaks of cover up. No school records obtained, neighbor recanting, parents not cooperating.
DeleteEG
Does the adult son have access to a small plane? Just wondering.
DeleteHow does it make more sense that JB's half brother would fly in Xmas night, abuse and murder her, leave a ransom note - along with a body - then fly back out to Atlanta, than it does to assume someone in the house did it? If JAR had access to JB most weekends, why didn't he murder her when he was in town - why fly out in the middle of the night when he knew he had to be in Atlanta early in the morning to make a flight? It makes NO sense.
DeleteSuch mental gymnastics that everyone is so fond of employing here are not required - the answer is right in front of everyone's face. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?
Basically, what I'm asking is this: how is a guy who has been photographed at an atm in a city over 1400 miles away and has several witnesses that can confirm his whereabouts on the night of the murder, a more likely suspect than the adult male who had access to JB that night and who had no alibi that anyone else can corroborate?
DeleteDebates and disagreements happens on here with every post, but we all keep coming back to hopefully all reach the same goal which is justice for JB.
ReplyDeleteHappy Holidays to everyone....even those of you that yell at me ;-)
-J
All of our theories aside, what will happen if the new DNA analysis renders the "evidence" worthless and unrelated to the crime? This will be a huge game changer, and will certainly blow the intruder theory out of the water. I can't tell you how annoying it is to view JBR case related content on Facebook and see how many discussing this case think it's a DNA case. I'm curious what would happen with such a development.
ReplyDeleteEG, I will add number 8 to your list.
ReplyDelete8. "The following day, investigators videotaped an interview with John Andrew, at the conclusion of which they asked him what he thought an appropriate punishment would be for the person that committed this crime. After a thoughtful pause he said, "Forgiveness." Incredulous, the detectives went into the brutality of his half-sister's murder and asked him to reconsider his answer. Another silence ensued, then he said again, "Forgiveness." (John Andrew Ramsey and Long declined to comment.)"
It wasn't JAR. His alibi is airtight: he was 1400 miles away at the time of the crime. LE checked flight records - he never left Atlanta until Boxing Day morning, when he flew to Michigan (?) with Melinda and her boyfriend. It simply isn't physically possible for JAR to have traveled to Boulder and back to Atlanta in that time frame.
DeleteUnless it was in JR's private plane--and no flight plan recorded or submitted.
DeleteI know that's far fetched, but just a thought. One never knows and JR's reach was far and high. He knew influential people and when he didn't he just hired lawyers to keep everyone else quiet.
EG
Ha. I also thought that above, about the private plane. Did that son have a pilot license?
DeleteAccording to Case Encyclopedia, one of JAR's friends who provided an alibi for him was a pilot.
DeleteNo I read up on it, he apparently had alibis the night before, with friends and such.
DeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteDefinitely something to ponder.
EG
1+1=2
ReplyDeleteIf Garnett says that he knows who killed Jb and that he will prosecute only when there will be more evidence then it is damn obvious which Ramsey killed her. He can't prosecute Patsy for murder. Nor Burke. JDI.
I know.
DeleteIt is so blatantly obvious, I cannot believe people are still in denial. Garnett practically named the killer, yet people are still going with this ridiculous BDI theory.....if the DNA proves it was John, and he were to confess, I still don't believe they'd be swayed!
If that news.com/au article quotes Garnett correctly, I think you and k1234 and I are right, Anony. Burke and Patsy can't be charged, the GJ findings seem to rule out an intruder, and if Garnett is hoping to learn more from further DNA testing, it's likely what he's looking for is a profile from the vaginal swabs or the garrote, or both. Here's hoping.
ReplyDeleteCC
Glad someone picked up on my post yesterday about the vaginal swabs, k1234, I was afraid it got lost in the noise.
ReplyDeleteYup, Ms D brings reason and logic and a certain hard-nosed Aussie charm to the table, no question.
CC
Thank you, k1234 and CC.
DeleteI like to think I use reason and logic, though a couple of posters here- who shall remain unnamed - tend to make me look like a laughing stock, yet offer no logical rebuttal to my own claims, and only bring us further down the rabbit hole.
Aussies call a spade "a spade" and don't suffer fools, it's true! I equally look forward to reading posts from the two of you also. Hoping you all have a merry Christmas and you keep fighting the good fight into the new year. :)
But the Grand Jury did not return a "murder" indictment. They returned an indictment for child abuse and aiding the actual killer.
DeleteIn this scenario, where Patsy can't be charged, and Burke can't be charged, John can only be charged for allowing JonBenet to be in a dangerous situation, and helping the person who did the killing.
All Garnett needs is evidence that John knew who killed JonBenet.
But if the police can't prove it, and John did not witness it, and Patsy did not confess it to John, then how could John prove his suspicion? He could only say, yes, I agree with your theory that my wife was the killer, or my son is the killer.
The only person who probably heard something that night, may have even witnessed something that night is Burke, since John was on another floor of the house, in a deep Melatonin sleep.
Maybe with new DNA evidence, a new Grand Jury would bring a different indictment. But Garnett's statement does not say to me that he knows JDI.
My opinion.
GS
GS
The statute of limitations has long since expired for accessory after the fact. There's therefore no percentage in Garnett pursuing further DNA testing unless murder is his intended charge and John or his intended target.
DeleteCC
I love the Nutcracker! Thanks for sharing, Doc.
ReplyDeleteAs we near the anniversary of JonBenet's murder --- regardless of who is responsible --- I hope everyone remembers that little girl and how her life was taken from her. It is such a tragedy.
Got to look at the facts, why would anyone choosing to carry out this crime come unprepared without a pen, paper, tools to band Jonbenets hands together and strangle her? Why on a holiday night would they spend what seems to be hours in a home carrying out a crime when they could have been caught?
ReplyDeleteGoing into a home with 4 people, someone could have heard something at any moment and screamed at any moment. The notepad and pen (evidence) was left in the home, but the person made sure to disguise their hand writing.
I believe the evidence that is missing could have easily been flushed down a toilet.
On top of that leaving a ransom note with the body in the house and Patsy and John seeming to not care about calling their friends seconds after reading it. They also don't seem to care about leaving Burke upstairs in his bedroom alone.
Everything just adds up to the parents but the physical evidence goes against them.
I only recently became convinced through Doc's writings that John is the culprit and it makes re-reading the ransom note a whole new experience. After the first paragraph of "we have your daughter/foreign faction" the second paragraph is essentially "John you need to leave the house very early with a big bag" which I'm sure is exactly what he would have done. The note is ordering John to behave in exactly the way he needs to in order to get the body out of the house. It seems that the "well rested" thing and "we may call you earlier" just allows him to get back and concentrate on being "well rested" rather than confronting his family some more that day.
ReplyDeleteMartin
Has anyone checked the site shakedowntitle.com?
ReplyDeleteIt has pictures of the case I have never seen elsewhere. I found one entry to the blog very interesting. It refers to a picture (called 17.7 in the interviews) that came from the Ramsey fam, apparently taken by John to finish the roll in the camera. There, two legal notepads can be seen on the glass table close by the telephone where the 911 call was made.
The notepads then disappeared from that table as they could not be seen there on crime scene photos, that allegdelly were taken before the notepads were handed to police. That does not seem to be the place (glass table) where the Ramseys would keep those pads and it gives the impression someone had been using them and moving them around in the days/hours before JBR's death.
Does anyone have more info on this?
Martha from California
I know in the transcript of Patsy's interrogation, there are times she is shown photos taken throughout the house. There are multiple notepads shown, in various rooms of the house. I seem to remember one was in John and Patsy's bedroom. I believe the transcripts can be found on acandyrose.
DeleteGS
Does anyone have any comments on the fact that Burke said he went downstairs again after everyone was asleep?
ReplyDeleteIf they went to bed at what like 10pm, when did he do this? And how did he not come across the murder scene?
We don't know how long Burke was downstairs but I would think that the timeline would somehow be effected. Did Burke unknowingly disrupt the crime scene? If an IDI it might have
ReplyDeletebeen an opportunity to take out both kids since he/they had such a deep rooted anger with JR
A twofer. Intruder? Nah
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is so obvious to me…if Burke killed his sister during an outrage of any type, Patsy would have surely reacted in an over the top manner, possibly violently towards Burke for harming her “little princess.” Imagine this: You are Patsy, and you just discovered that your son bludgeoned your sweet, innocent little girl that is the absolute apple of your eye, over…above all things, her taking a bite of his pineapple. You are not going to say to yourself, “Well, my son just blew a gasket and killed my precious daughter, so, I guess I better send him to bed and sit down and calmly compose a three-page ransom note, haul out my bag of killing gear, garotte JB to death (Sorry honey, but your brother means more to me than you potentially being the future Miss America) and construct a kidnapping-attempt scene complete with sexual abuse component and get my son off the hook for this atrocious crime. Hell, with that temper, he’s gonna fit right in as a linebacker at WVU one day. He’s a great kid and he just don’t deserve to go down like this.” Neither is she going to say, “John, honey, I totally agree with you - got ourselves a little Ronnie Defao here, but yes, we have to save him, he could be the next Steve Jobs and make us more money than you do - let’s come up with a plan to cover this whole damn mess up. You go ahead and strangle JB ‘til she’s really dead, tie her up and sexually abuse her, hide her real good down in that cold wine cellar, and while you’re at it go ahead and bust one of them little windows down there just to make it look like some madman came in the middle of the night. And look, while you’re doing all that, I’ll sit here at the ‘ole roll-top desk and compose one hell of a Sherlock Holmes ransom note – it might take me a few hours, but hey, we’re on vacation time now anyways. In the morning, I’ll dredge up some of my fabulous acting skills learned from my pageant days, call 911, and fake ‘em completely out about what we just spent the last 7 hours doing...” No, the immediate reaction Patsy Ramsey would have in this situation, being a true southern girl at heart, would be to jerk Burke up by the scruff of his neck and (at least attempt) to beat him within an inch of his life. While she was doing that, John Ramsey would have one hand pulling her back and the other hand on the phone with his attorney trying to find out how he can get himself out of this mess. Remember, Patsy freaked out when Burke hit JB with a golf club and immediately inquired about plastic surgery for her. Do any of you honestly think for one second that Patsy would lay down and go along with a cover-up of this nature??????
ReplyDeleteBINGO!
DeleteFinally, the voice of reason! I'd like to kiss you, Retired Fed! :P
Yes, but you are assuming the family is normal. What if there was already sex and physical abuse going on. One or the other or both parent did it. If it was one, the other covered up. If one went down, they knew the other would blow the whistle. At that point, they had an understanding to get rid of the "evidence".
DeleteDon't forget, the main reason was not to protect Burke, the main reason was to explain the opened and injured hymen. That was the point of staging the body.
DeleteMost of the tools and things used in the murder belonged to Patsy specifically.
DeletePaint Brush, Sharpie, Notepad etc.
"Most of the tools and things used in the murder belonged to Patsy specifically.
DeletePaint Brush, Sharpie, Notepad etc."
Yes because Patsy's art supplies happened to be nearby when John was staging the scene in the basement. He was pressed for time and would have had no other materials available to him, as the house was swarming with people upstairs.
If Patsy wrote the note and wanted to deflect attention away from herself, why would she intentionally use all of her own materials? Makes no sense whatsoever.
"Don't forget, the main reason was not to protect Burke, the main reason was to explain the opened and injured hymen. That was the point of staging the body."
DeleteIf that were the case, The Ramseys would have merely staged the scene to look as though a pedophile had broken in and killed JB, they would not have bothered with a kidnapping for ransom, would they? The fact the crime was staged in two very different ways means the perpetrator had to change his plan, which would not have been the case if the Ramseys were in on it together. They would not have called the police until they had decided on what motive they were going with - kidnapping or sex crime.
I agree there could have been a change of plans. First they went with the idea of body disappearing. To cover the sex abuse evidence. And wrote the note. Then they changed their mind and decided to leave the body there. And they came up with the idea to put the paintbrush in the child. They thought that would be good enough to cover their tracks. They decided to leave the note though, because they thought it was good to throw some confusion on the scene, and point away from them.
DeleteOr maybe they first came up with the idea to stage a kidnapping. Patsy on her own changed the plan and staged the scene and wrote the note. Without telling John until she did it. She wanted to have a burial. John had to go down and restage for her.
DeleteAlso no matter how it happened, like who did the first blow, clearly JBR was out for a while.
DeleteI believe JR lied to PR and said JBR was dead already. PR pretended to believe it. Because she thought she would be caught out as an accessory to sex abuse if JBR came to. Like I wrote above, she thought JBR might be better off dead. JR brought JBR downstairs and strangled her, out of sight of PR. JR was going to get rid of the body. They wrote the ransom note together.
Early morning, Patsy went down and restaged the scene with the paintbrush and duct tape and large underwear. And called 911. Against the knowledge of JR. Because Patsy wanted a funeral.
JR went down again to make sure the scene was better set. He broke the window and moved the body to a better spot.
"I believe JR lied to PR and said JBR was dead already. PR pretended to believe it. Because she thought she would be caught out as an accessory to sex abuse if JBR came to. Like I wrote above, she thought JBR might be better off dead.......Early morning, Patsy went down and restaged the scene with the paintbrush and duct tape and large underwear. And called 911. Against the knowledge of JR. Because Patsy wanted a funeral."
DeleteThis theory is so convoluted and absurdly illogical, I don't even know how to respond.
How this bizarre scenario seems more reasonable to you than John having murdered his daughter to save himself from being exposed as her abuser, is beyond me.....
The reason I am coming up with this theory is because I am trying to find a way to incorporate BOTH JR and PR. Because I believe they both acted guilty. And Burke did not act so innocent either. This is about the only way I can do it.
DeleteBut I don't think it is necessarily too far off. When abuse happens, it can often incorporate a WHOLE family. It becomes a family dynamic.
That's patently false. Child sexual abuse usually remains a secret forever, unless the victim speaks out years later. Further, your notion that Patsy knew about the abuse and turned a blind eye is absurd.
DeleteCC
Child abuse CAN be private. But there are many times where the mother knew as well. I have seen many articles, and news stories about it. Or the child tells the mother and the mother pretends not to believe it. In fact, the mother can start to resent the child. She takes out her anger on the child after that. Happens all the time.
DeleteI saw a story on Lisa Ling where the father sexually abused the daughter for years. The mother knew. One time she yelled at the father when she caught them, you are supposed to be sleeping with me, not her! And just walked away.
DeleteAlso that British metal singer, not too long ago, who made his girlfriends offer up their pre teen daughters to him so he could molest them. And the women did it. Women will be accessories.
We've been all over this issue for years. Many have quoted and posted scholarly articles and references. I'm sure what you're saying is possible, most things are, but it isn't the norm for an intelligent, educated, well-adjusted mother.
DeleteCC
The mother can be educated, rich, it has nothing to do with abuse. Obviously something was going on in that family, or the daughter wouldn't have been found dead with a paint brush stuck in her. That right there is a clue that something a little funny was happening in that family.
DeleteIn fact, rich families can suffer more and longer, because they are more afraid to lose their status and standing.
You are starting from faulty premises based on your feelings and impressions. Better to begin, as Doc has done, with the acknowledged facts, and go from there. It might be helpful to do more reading and research, both on this blog and elsewhere.
DeleteCC
No I am basing my ideas on facts, the fact that abuse hits all class levels. If you don't know that, you need to do a little more research. And fast.
DeleteAs I'm convinced John abused his daughter, you'll get no argument from me there.
DeleteI was suggesting you familiarize yourself with the facts of this case, as you obviously have not done, but suit yourself.
CC
And before any of you BDI’s say, “Well John discovered it and covered it up without Patsy knowing anything about it.” I’ll say this – if this had been the scenario, John, having lost one daughter already, would not have covered it up. He lost Beth in a car wreck in the not too distant past. If he was truly the doting dad, then he would have been mad as hell to find out that his youngest daughter had been killed in a such a senseless act. He may very well have lost it on Burke as well. He certainly would not have gone to bat for him so fervently as he has over the years when Burke has been under the microscope. Additionally, John had numerous attorneys on tap – he would have simply reached out to one or more of them before trying to stage a scene Houdini couldn’t escape from.
ReplyDeleteThank you Ms. D. Your posts, along with DocG, CC’s, Mike G’s and Gumshoe's are the most coherent soliloquies on this blog. I’m down with the struggle lol….
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm down with you, RF. Remember your earlier posts well; glad to have you back and hope it's not just a drop in. Best.
DeleteCC
"One or the other or both parent did it. If it was one, the other covered up. If one went down, they knew the other would blow the whistle. At that point, they had an understanding to get rid of the "evidence"."
ReplyDeleteGeeze. Either on purpose or by accident, you totally and thoroughly missed the big picture in my post SC Shafer. Go back and read it again. Then rumitate on this for a while: the top of a step ladder always says in big bold letters, "This is not a step."
Yeah I read it again. I'm not sure what you mean about my post not getting it. Because I think I get what you are saying. You are saying the likely scenario is, Patsy would be pissed at Burke. I am saying, she is more afraid of being caught.
DeleteWas Patsy within reading distance of the note when she called 911?
ReplyDeleteBecause the ransom note reads
Victory!
SBTC
But to the 911 operator she says "SBTC-Victory!"
So unless she is reading it from bottom to top she didn't say it accurately. And if she memorized what she wrote and got it wrong that is something peculiar after reading the note quickly and just one time.
The 911 operator asked her who wrote the RN. The last line would be the signature, the identity of the author, as in
DeleteRegards,
Caroline
I think she was holding it, and being very literal.
CC
Or, just as Patsy claimed, JR had it on the floor in front of him, and she was reading it "upside down", thus why she saw the letters "SBTC" before the word "Victory", rather than in the order they were written, "Victory, SBTC".
DeleteWhat would someone be doing for an hour while Jonbenet was hit in the head and prior to finally strangling her? I think the ransom note was written in-between the time she was hit and the time she was strangled.
ReplyDeleteDoc, one of the videos released recently by the radar shows a check or something with John's handwriting on it. It is a 7 thousand dollar check from or for Jay E. Did you see it?
ReplyDeleteYes, I do recall seeing something like that. I think it was in cursive, and I didn't see anything that struck me as useful.
DeleteI saw it, and it was an check made out to John from Jay Elowsky. So not John's handwriting.
DeleteIn the 1990s, it was quite a bit easier to cash a check without ID or an account. You could just sign it and cash it.
I believe the camera closes in on that because an intruder inside the house for hours probably would have found it and taken it and cashed it.
It remained there undisturbed.
Also, it is evidence that someone owed John money.
GS
Jay Elowsky was Pasta Jay, a good friend of the Ramseys, and with whom they stayed for weeks after that first night at the Fernies. John had invested in his restaurants.
DeleteCC
btw, if I knew the parents, I bet I could tell if they wrote the note or not. I am pretty good at picking up people's language when they write something, even if I don't know who wrote it. I bet I could pick up on some mannerisms in there.
ReplyDeleteAlso I just read up on the handwriting. I long time ago I read some writing analysis books for the heck of it, so I know a bit about it.
ReplyDeleteI just read Doc's examination of the similarity between Patsy and the note in here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html
But read this article I just read below. You have to take out the disguised letters. The writer tried to use some trick letters. Even if you do that, some similarities remain.
Compare samples with the trick letters removed. It is very similar.
http://www.experthandwritinganalysis.com/2013/07/19/unmasking-the-ramsey-ransom-note/
By "trick letters" do you mean disguised letters?
DeleteNope, PR wrote the note. I saw some samples where she wrote nice notes, formal cursive style. Those are not too similar. But look at this printed entry she wrote. The 'a's are the same. the 'y's are the same.
ReplyDeletehttp://blabbieville.tripod.com/entryforumsample2.gif
Unless.. John is so devilishly clever, he can imitate PR writing, writing left handed. It would be very hard though, to write the same sizes, the same zone, and slants. It would be very tough to do.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following.
ReplyDelete1) An instructor hands each of twenty people a written letter to copy by hand in print lettering and they comply.
2) Next, the instructor tells them to write the same note, only this time they are to disguise their lettering. Furthermore, they are told the stakes are high. The copies in original print will be mixed in with the copies in disguised print and shuffled. Ten copies of the twenty mixed and shuffled copies will be made, and one set each given to ten independent handwriting experts. The experts will then be tasked to match up original letters with disguised letters by individual author. The results will then be recorded.
3) Participants are informed there will be no winners; only one loser, who will have to spend the rest of their natural life in prison. Even then, the loser will not have to suffer this punishment unless at least seven out of ten of the experts are able match the two copies to the same author.
Now imagine you are one of the participants. You have already copied the letter in your own printed handwriting. You have, or course, at least two choices as to how you craft your disguised edition. You can copy the note in your normal printed handwriting then go back and alter individual letters as you see fit, or you can disguise each letter right from the start. The only requirement is a pen to paper methodolgy--no cutting out and pasting pre-printed letters allowed.
Questions:
1) What method would you use?
2) What odds would you place that at least seven out of ten experts are able to identify at least one author by matching their original to their disguised copies?
3) What would you anticipate to be the average score of the experts?
4) The standard deviation?
Assumptions:
1) Partcipants, other than yourself, are randomly selected, albeit they are literate and capable of writing in English. They are also unfamiliar with this case.
2) The "experts" have never met any of the participants. They are not on hand to observe
them as they are preparing their copies.
3) Each participant is provided identical materials; the same notebook, the same pen, sharpie, or numbered pencil. Each works alone from the others but in identical rooms with identicle lighting conditions.
4) A maximum of one hour is allowed to prepare disguised copies.
Mike G.
I would just do opposite to what I normally do. If I slanted left, I would slant right. If I used block letters, I would use curvy letters. If I wrote small, I would write big.
DeleteHa, I actually spent my youth forging my mom's and dad's signatures,(with their permission) so I am pretty good at doing someone else's handwriting. I don't know if I could do a whole letter though. That would be hard.
I think I could disguise my handwriting. But don't forget, these people were under stress. A lot harder to do then. They might not have cared that much, they just wanted to get it done.
Assumption: This is a new assignment with no time to prepare in advance, so one would need to think quickly about the best way to disguise his/her handwriting.
DeleteMost people would write the note with their opposite hand. Once you have written it, you may go back over it and try to further disguise certain letters. Some may choose to use print versus cursive in their natural hand and use bigger letters and different slants as you suggest, but I think the majority of people would try to write the note in their opposite hand.
Anonymous
DeleteI asked what you would do, not what you think others would do. And don't forget to answer the other questions.
Professor Mike.
Fun question! SinCenter I normally write in a half printing/half cursive style and it's very flowy, I would do tinnnnnnyyyyy uppercase block letters. The tinier the better because I'm sure I wrote in block letters before so m if I try to write really small, hopefully the habits I have to shine through!
DeleteI do the cooking in my household, and leave notes addressed to different people in the house on the food containers, due to individual dietary requirements, and something I noticed a few weeks ago, and have been meaning to post here, is that when I leave a note for my nephew, I always use block lettering, no exceptions. When I leave a note for my mother, it is in lower case and "curvier", usually followed by a love heart. When I leave a note for the kids (my daughter and her boyfriend - not exactly"kids", lol, but I digress) it varies between the two.....essentially, what I'm saying, is that depending on who I'm addressing, my hand writing varies wildly, and it occurs on a sub conscious level, it isn't intentional - in fact, after all these years, I only just noticed it, thanks to our many discussions on hand writing here on this blog.
DeleteVery interesting, Ms, D! The only time I consciously change my writing style is when I write for my students. My natural writing is sloppy, half printing and half cursive. I try to print perfectly and neatry at school to set a good example.
DeleteMerry Christmas and a happy new year to you all.
ReplyDeleteI finally started reading Kolar's book after finishing Thomas'. There is a part that struck me in particular from Kolar - about deviant sexual behavior in children under 12 and how an FBI research study interviewing sex abusers indicated that 60% of abusers began abusing before the age of 9. Also that this type of behavior in young children was due to emotional detachment and issues with parents and family... jealousy etc. Seeing as his dad was a busy businessman and always traveling and his mom was preoccupied w JBR and her pageants (both parents were drawn in his family portrait as detached and small and not close to him, not to mention JBR not even in the photo) - why isn't it possible that he was abusing her?
ReplyDeleteI really would like help from the JDI's on this one - why is Burke ruled out as a suspect but JR could be the abuser? To me, he acted in a fit of rage, hit her on the head, poked her w the tracks and prob realized she was dead, and the parents either aware of his prior abuse (paugh family had given PR lots of books on how to deal w children at risk and why johnny can't tell right from wrong) and were worried it would turn up in autopsy or that Burke himself admit it? That would seem like an adequate reason for the gruesome staging and cover up by one or both of the parents - how would they look and their business suffer if their son turned out to be abusing their daughter? Its a big deal but not that big of a deal if ur son mistakenly hit your daughter on the head by mistake like children sometimes roughhouse. Please help me understand why Burke can be ruled out as the abuser or at the very least, the cause of the head blow. Thanks and happy holidays, E
You'll never understand this case if you stay fixated on motive. Burke could not have written the ransom note. A kidnapper wouldn't have left one behind with his hostage dead in the basement. And Patsy wouldn't have called 911 if she had written it. That leaves only John. Had Burke hit his sister or killed her, the parents, individually or as a team, stood nothing to gain for themselves or Burke by staging a kidnapping. Patsy wouldn't have called the police if she had murdered her daughter. And if she was covering for John, she would have waited until the next day, after she and John had disposed of the body. Ergo, John Ramsey murdered JonBenet Ramsey.
DeleteCase solved. All doubt that it isn't is unreasonable.
Mike G.
Burke was interviewed by LE and child psychologists and they didn't spot any abnormal sexual pathology, which would have been patently obvious for someone so disturbed - that's a big reason I don't buy BDI. Don't you think people trained in the field would have picked up on it? It's not something one can hide, especially a nine year old who's guilty of murder.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the parents would have known JB was still breathing after Burke throttled her on the head, and there's just no way they would have decided they'd end their daughter's life to save their son. To believe BDI, you have to believe Burke meant much more to his parents than his sister did, and I just don't buy that. One more thing, it doesn't account for why they would stage a phony kidnapping - they would have just gone with the crazed pedophile intruder. The ransom note became an incriminating piece of evidence once police realized the body had never been taken from the house and the Ramseys would have known this wouldn't look good from the outset.
So, whilst the idea of Burke having sexual assaulted his sister is certainly not out of the realms of possibilities, everything else about the crime is.
*Sexually assaulted. Damn I hate not having the option to edit! :D
DeleteThank you Mrs D and Mike G for giving me the other side of the argument - which is also sound. Kolar did note that he exhibited signs of distress when asked about sexual behavior tho, by rubbing a board game on his head. The second time he was asked he put it in front of his face. When he was asked about some of his relationships w his family, he curled up in the fetal position. Ugh this case is going to give me an ulcer
DeleteA nine year old reacting uncomfortably when asked about sex is not abnormal. Think about how you would have reacted when asked - by a stranger - about sex, at the same age. That is why his, probably very typical reaction, never rang any alarm bells with anyone who knew what to look for.
DeleteBurke did not commit this crime, and the only thing more disgusting than John Ramsey getting away with murdering his daughter is that he continues to allow the public to believe his wife, or nine year old son, were responsible. This man is evil personified.
Happy John Ramsey got away with murder holiday everybody!
ReplyDeleteAnd a Happy hopefully you're wrong and John soon will be caught New Year to you too, Zach!
DeleteMike G.
Ms D...you still don't understand us (and by us I mean those who are adamant that BDI).
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Burke was interviewed by LE and child psychologists and they didn't spot any abnormal sexual pathology, which would have been patently obvious for someone so disturbed - that's a big reason I don't buy BDI. Don't you think people trained in the field would have picked up on it? It's not something one can hide, especially a nine year old who's guilty of murder."
Why would they spot anything about Burke? This was an accident as we have been saying all along. Burke didn't purposely kill his sister. Anyone can potentially become a murderer by accident. Saying that, Burkes interviews are definitely abnormal from a normal child his age...I dont care what anyone says. And smearing feces is also not normal. Does Burke need to be prosecuted? No. Does John and Patsy for covering? Absolutely.
Zed, I was responding to Anonymous, who said that Burke may have been sexually abusing his sister and smashed her over the head - there was nothing accidental about the premise I was responding to. Not every BDI believes as you do.
DeleteWe understand what you're saying perfectly, Zed. It just makes no sense. Surely the parents' first response to an accident is to call for medical help, but if for some bizarre reason they decided to stage the death instead, why not arrange the body at the foot of the stairs?
ReplyDeleteThe poop smearing happened while Patsy was being treated for Stage IV cancer - I would assume a child might act out in a number of strange ways faced with the loss of his mother.
Patsy is beyond prosecution and the statute of limitations for accessory charges expired in 1999, making John safe as well. It's murder or nothing.
CC
The poop smearing happened while Patsy was being treated for Stage IV cancer - I would assume a child might act out in a number of strange ways faced with the loss of his mother.
ReplyDeleteThe poop smearing was quite obviously still happening or most ironically only on the night that JBR was murdered, as there was feces on the box of chocolates in JBR's room and poopy pajamas on thr floor You are usually the most logically correct of the JDI, I would however, expect to here something ludicrous from some other of the other more illogical JDI like "We do not know for sure" whose feces it was in JBR's room or the usual backwards type logic like "it must be JR's feces because it has someone elses fingerprints on it. Lol .Logically this puts BR up and with JBR again that night, The ridiculous notion that BR was just a normal child with no signs to us that he had some mental illness is just agenda-like denial.
Please print your sources for the fece smeared box of candy and poopy pjs and show me where it was proven to be Burkes then we can talk about whose illogical.
DeleteI'm going to have to agree with Anony here, KS. As far as I can determine, the three search warrant returns do not show a box of chocolates or pajamas, poopy or otherwise. Please post your source for this information; otherwise we're going to be forced to assume it's just part of the apocrypha that surrounds this case.
DeleteCC
I wonder, does the allegation about Burke source back to Kohler's book? Because apparently the stained pajamas and underwear are among the crime scene photos that I've read about, but the other sources say that it was JonBenet who had this problem.
DeleteMy thinking (theory) was that this was the actual trigger that set Patsy off on JonBenet that night.
I come from a large family of children, none of whom suffered from this problem. Neither did any of my children have issues like this. But I have cleaned up after one who has been sick, and it is not pleasant.
If the bedwetting was a near nightly occurrence, its hard to imagine that Patsy just mildly accepted it and cleaned it up with no verbal repercussions.
That's why I believe that Burke most likely was used to hearing something like this going on in the middle of the night.
GS
Why do I think that Burke did not do it? In addition to the ludicrous idea that his parents would stage to allow him to escape suspicion?
DeleteI just look at him. He has not yet reached puberty in the Christmas photos. He's addicted to his Nintendo, which I've known many a young boy that way. They can't think of anything else.
A year later, in the interview, there is a Burke who has experienced that growth spurt of entering puberty, but not at the time of the murder.
He just seems like a dorky kid to me that Christmas. And I don't believe John and Patsy would have covered for him.
GS
Happy an evil intruder/close friend/neighbor did it soon to be apprehended for the heinous crime holidays, everyone! RIP JonBenet Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteZed and kaiser - I'll answer. The poop in burkes pjs found in her room and her candy box were captured by csi and were documented by Kolar in his book when he was reviewing evidence for the case. Nedra Paugh also told their old housekeeper (also from Kolar) to clean the smeared feces Burke had put on the wall of his bathroom once.
ReplyDeleteMrs D I double checked on the three prong train track and though you are right, Kolar and others point out that the pins were very loose on the tracks and one could have easily fallen out.
RIP JBR we will figure this out somehow from the madness!
E
Here's what Kolar wrote, as quoted by "Cherokee" in an old Forums for Justice Post:
DeleteFrom Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70:
------------------
Quote:
"I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny – housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.
There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.
Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body.
I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.
I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenét’s candy would have been smeared with human excrement."
Do you see how adroitly Kolar manipulates the reader into assuming the feces found in the candy originated with Burke? First he quotes a legitimate report concerning feces smeared on a bathroom wall, which does appear to have been done by Burke, while his mother was fighting for her life as a cancer patient and he was obviously in a deeply disturbed state of mind.
He then reports on "fecal matter" in pajamas found in JBR's room, too large for her and thus most likely belonging to Burke. Now I wonder how many parents reading here have ever found "fecal matter" in a child's pajamas or underwear. I'm not a parent so I wouldn't know for sure, but I'd imagine it's a pretty common occurrence. Note that he doesn't mention feces, just "fecal matter."
Finally we see the reference to the box of candy smeared with feces, and on the basis of NO evidence whatsoever, leads the reader to assume this too must have originated with Burke. And as we know, this has been a common assumption for many years, backed by literally NO evidence that I've ever seen. If there were any, I feel sure Kolar would have mentioned it.
As I see it, if this is something found in JonBenet's room, the most likely assumption would be that it originated with her. And if we have reason to believe she was being sexually molested, as we do, it's not difficult to see how this act could have been an expression of contempt for whoever gave her that candy. I'd think it would be just as important to learn the source of the candy as the source of the feces. One wonders whether the feces was ever tested for DNA, but to my knowledge that's never been determined. To simply assume it came from Burke because Burke is your principal suspect is yet another example of the confirmation bias that has pervaded discussion of this case from the start.
Doc you make a good point as usual. Kolar doesn't state that they actually came from Burke. Why wouldn't the fecal matter not have been tested by CSI? If I was investigating a crime scene and found feces in two separate locations in the victims bedroom I would investigate, no?
DeleteUgh I wish we had access to everything from the beginning... E
The 12/27/96 search warrant specifies ". . . cloth or clothing with . . . trace amounts of blood, semen or seminal fluid. . ." Cops may not exceed the parameters of a search warrant, and so could not collect and subsequently test the box of chocolates or the pajama bottoms.
DeleteCC
Thanks CC as usual your knowledge astounds me. I had no idea how limited search warrants were - too bad. Thanks! E
DeleteWriting 'em is almost an art form and is often a collaborative effort between detectives and an assistant DA: too broad and a judge won't sign, too narrow and you take the chance something significant will be missed. Glad I could help, E.
DeleteCC
I just watched one of the latest JBR Whodunits. In it they stated one of the DNA samples came from a drop of blood from JBs panties from 1997. Then later, sometime in the early 2000s after DNA testing had advanced (touch DNA), they decided to check the waistband of the longjohns thinking that would be a likely location DNA would be left behind. The samples matched. Unidentified male DNA. This can't be summarily dismissed.
ReplyDeleteA
I wanted to start a new thread with my comment but I tapped "reply" instead of "add comment"...sorry.
DeleteA
The DNA in two spots was most likely transferred from Jonbenet herself. That's how sensitive touch DNA is. The source DNA's origins are unlimited. She had six UNIQUE samples on her. If an intruder was there they wouldn't have left composite, artifact, degraded DNA that wasn't even a full profile.
Delete"The samples matched. Unidentified male DNA. This can't be summarily dismissed."
DeleteNothing about the DNA has been treated summarily. On the contrary, the sophistication by which it continues to be approached marks it as one of three recurrent red herrings used to justify not prosecuting the case, the other two being the impossibility of John being the writer of the ransom note and a one-time incestuous pedophile.
Mike G.
I know DocG theory on this but if the Ramsey's or one of them were the one responsible why did they choose to call 911 that morning?
ReplyDeleteIf you knew my theory you wouldn't ask that question. Please read the first three posts.
DeleteI cant think of a reason someone would call the police, but there are people that think Patsy did it or both. I know you believe John did it and Patsy had nothing to do with it.
DeleteIf you read the first few posts on this blog, Anon, your questions are answered in detail.
DeleteIt doesn't make a whole lot of sense to comment on a blog you haven't read.....and clearly, you haven't read it, because you're asking about the key factors Doc's entire theory is built around (which are, essentially: "who wrote the ransom note, what was it's purpose and why call 911?")
If you genuinely want the answer - read his entire hypothesis.
Cheers and merry xmas! :)
Can hardly believe it's been 20 years tonight since this happened. Thinking of Jonbenet and hoping she's at peace. I also hope however this crime went down that it was quick and as painless and unscary for her as possible. I think people get so caught up in this case that we forget that a little girl had her future ripped from her. Will light a candle in her memory. -SM
ReplyDeleteHello. Since you are all fine mystery solvers here, I was wondering if any of you all could give me some opinions on these pics I posted on my new page. And help solve a new mystery.
ReplyDeleteAny feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Oops. Here is the link with pics needing some opinions.
ReplyDeletehttp://therandommemo.blogspot.com/2016/12/opinions-on-pics.html
Or you could write your opinions here too I guess...
Delete""Don't forget, the main reason was not to protect Burke, the main reason was to explain the opened and injured hymen. That was the point of staging the body."
ReplyDeleteIf that were the case, The Ramseys would have merely staged the scene to look as though a pedophile had broken in and killed JB, they would not have bothered with a kidnapping for ransom, would they? The fact the crime was staged in two very different ways means the perpetrator had to change his plan, which would not have been the case if the Ramseys were in on it together. They would not have called the police until they had decided on what motive they were going with - kidnapping or sex crime."
It is a good question. I think it involves some awkward change of plans, like you all think. But there could be some twists on that. Maybe it was not the original plan. Maybe they thought there was some benefit in doing it the combo way. Not sure what though.
When, do you suppose, they did all this thinking?
Delete"I think it involves some awkward change of plans, like you all think. But there could be some twists on that. Maybe it was not the original plan. Maybe they thought there was some benefit in doing it the combo way."
DeleteOr.....it could all just be as straight forward as JDI.
There is no need for the mental gymnastics, SC, there really isn't. You're trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, when you've been offered a perfectly shaped, round peg to fit that hole. But, if you feel the need to complicate matters, go ahead, by all means. Merry Christmas. :)
Well, hope everyone had a Merry Christmas. Or HH. I've read some of your comments while away, but also went over every possible scenario with someone close to me. We argued it all the way one day, refuted it all the next. Finally came up with the following points. And by the way I'm operating under an assumption here that we are "allowed" to think and rethink and refute and argue and change perpetrators if we so wish. Having said that, I'm going to mostly address this to J and Zed when the time comes. May have to do a few posts so as not to exceed the 4,000 plus letter limit. Here is why we refuted the IDI:
ReplyDelete1. The note was too specific. An intruder would have to have known absolutely everything about the family, especially the whereabouts of Dec. 25 had they chosen to enter the house that afternoon (and hide) or night (and kill).
2. They would have to know that the house alarm was not going to be set that night. Even though someone intimate with the family might know that John rarely if ever set his house alarm, an intruder would have to COUNT ON IT that night. That's just not possible.
3. An Intruder would have to know the dog was being pet-sat across the street, and have to COUNT on that as well, would have to know a barking dog was not going to be returned to the house until after the holidays, and specifically that night.
4. Had the Intruder wanted to "stage" a phony kidnap for ransom, murder is what happened. He could have removed the child - instead he cracked her skull and strangled and assaulted her. Not likely they would have removed the child and counted on the family actually "making the drop" and returned the child. Even though the child was well hidden, she would have eventually been found, so murder was the goal so the note was completely phony.
5. Big house, what are the chances of absolutely no sounds. Even accounting for key in the lock, bringing the note in and laying it in plain site, a murder was committed - possibly in the kitchen, and then down in the basement. Intruder has to then exit without a sound. If Burke had come downstairs again, John, or Patsy, he would have been found.
6. If note was intended as a giant FU to John Ramsey, the note was too detailed and specific - killer would have to have been privy to a lot of information such as bonus amount.
So we finally after two days ruled IDI out. However - (next)....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNext:
ReplyDeleteWe believe Patsy wrote the note. 100%. We also believe that John suspected Patsy wrote the note. We came to these conclusions:
1. Does anyone think JB would have gone downstairs late at night (and had her one or two pieces of "fibrous fruit" on her own? For no reason? She likely checked, as was her habit (read any number of books on the murder) to see if Burke was in his room. Her habit was to either wet the bed and crawl into his bed (much to his disdain and anger - again, read any number of books and articles on this murder) or get into bed with him to be close to him, stay warm, or whatever reasons you want to assign her behavior to.
2. She found him not in his room that night. By his own admission he was up late, then snuck back downstairs. I have asked if he attested to this last fact on the record and it seems that someone in here quoted him as not remembering if he had gotten back up or not. Sorry, it was over a week ago. Likely though he was up, and was not in his room when she checked. That is the only motive to me as to why she went downstairs that night, long enough to grab the fibrous fruit.
3. She angered him in some way, or he thought he was playing. In any event he hit her hard enough to render her unconscious. Train tracks were likely what he used to prod her awake. Or it could be any toy. I don't believe for a minute it's a cigarette burn.
The rest - pick your "enabler." Patsy's odd quote after that day to a friend, "we didn't mean for this to happen." And of course all of the rest, which I'm going to exceed the 4,000 characters. This was indeed an accident, and then a coverup. Zed, I agree with your 12/25 3:10 a.m. post.
Inquisitive, first of all I want to stress that all points of view are welcome here. Unlike other Internet forums in which I've participated, no one is going to be banned for disagreeing with the person running this blog (me), nor are any posts going to be deleted simply because they challenge my view of the case. I will delete offensive posts and personal attacks, and I will delete superfluous posts where someone keeps repeating ths same thing over and over. But that's IT. And if you've been here for any length of time you'll know that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem some of us have with you is not simply that you keep changing your position, which you are entitled to do, but that each time you arrive at a new theory you decide that this HAS to be the absolute truth and then proceed to ridicule anyone who disagrees, even when you totally agreed with that person a few days ago.
Now as far as your latest theory is concerned, I see nothing new there, nor do I see any real evidence or even much in the way of logic backing up your scenario. Phrases like "Does anyone think JB would have gone downstairs," etc. are nothing more than expressions of opinion. Sure, lots of people might well think otherwise, why wouldn't they?
And no, train tracks were NOT likely for Burke to have used on JonBenet. Just because those items belonged to him and the marks on JonBenet seem to have been consistent with the abrasions on her body does NOT tell us he probed her with those items. It's a possibility, nothing more. Just as a stun gun is a possibility. Those wounds could have been caused in any number of ways, and, if we assume the tracks actually were used, there is NO reason to assume the person who used them was Burke. They were sitting in the basement and whoever was down there with her could have used them. Which should be obvious!
Thanks for reply Doc. The logic backing up my scenario as to why JB would have ingested the fruit is that she had visited Burke's room many times over, as discussed in books and transcripts, either after wetting her bed or for comfort. He admits to being up later that night. Your idea that John lured her out of bed and gave her a piece of pineapple is just as speculative, as to why she would have gone downstairs. But I made a mistake. I see now as I have suspected earlier that this blogsite is totally YOURS. That it is about agreement. It is about being right and defending being right. I have never laid claims to pretending to know what happened. I assumed this was a discussion site. My mistake.
ReplyDeleteInquisitive, I'm just a reader here and an infrequent contributor. I cannot stay silent with you anymore. First of all, this IS DocG's site. What made you think it was not? Secondly, you sound like a pouty child. You have had numerous conflicting opinions, and frankly I don't care about yours or anyone else's opinions. I have opinions too, but they DO NOT MATTER. In order to move this case forward, what is needed is logic, a dose of common sense, and for the BPD to step away from the DNA case, because as Stan Garnett said, this is not just a DNA case. I read everyone's posts here, but I just skip over yours. Here's why: you seem to be thinking out loud, and not taking the time to put together a cohesive set of thoughts. Its just a brain dump from you to the rest of us. I don't mean that to be rude at all, just trying to let you know how your posts come across. The ridicule is, however, rude. So please, don't mistake discussion for brain dump-ridicule-change mind-next brain dump-repeat. Its beyond annoying.
DeleteI saw Stan Garnett on television but what I heard him say is what he said years ago. That the Ramsey's should stop hiding behind their lawyers, etc. Is there anything new?
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/12/14/us/jonbenet-ramsey-new-dna-testing/
DeleteThanks Anonymous, I had read that snippet from CNN. Saying that he didn't think new DNA testing would show anything new, but would have to be viewed in the context of everything else they have. I just hadn't seem him on camera since the comment about hiding behind lawyers.
DeleteNot sure how you got there from Doc's reply Inq...
ReplyDeleteHowever, if PR was involved in a BDI cover up, where is a logical reason for her calling 911? If she did pen the note as you say at 1.07pm, why make such detailed instructions if the "plan" was to always call 911?
-Sisu
Oh Sisu, you have to wait til she has another discussion with her friend and then comes back here to rehash her private discussion. But don't be surprised if it has nothing to do with the last post.
DeleteGood point Sisu. And of course it's crazy to think any parent would carry a head injury all the way to a strangulation and sexual assault. And why. Yet why would she hit her over the head with such force. (If she acted alone). The two are not related. So yes, dilemma. For me to embrace a JDI theory I would have to believe he had he time to chronically abuse her, in absolute secrecy, write a note with the express purpose of alarming his wife so that he could get her out of the house, and then leave the note in plain site for her to read and hope she would not react with fear by calling the police. And, she did. So all I can think is Patsy took it upon herself to cover for either her own actions or that of another person and that other person admits to being downstairs later than the others and sneaking back downstairs at least 45 minutes before pineapple was ingested and a headblow occurred.
ReplyDeleteHow is Patsy covering up for someone else by calling police? Why can't you accept that John could have abused JBR in the past? We don't know if it happened 5 times or 50 times; doesn't matter. She was only 6 and this could have started when she was 4 or 5. It would only take one time when the abuse went too far in order to damage her hymen. So, do you not believe abuse could have happened at all? That he could not have done it in that big house? He's a controlling man. Controlling people think others are going to act according to their will. I honestly believe he thought Patsy would not call, but that if she tried, he could stop her. He underestimated his ability to control a woman whose fear for her daughter outweighed her concern for his will. Its really that simple -- I would have called, too.
DeleteLet’s return to the original logic of Doc’s case, Inq. That is what convinced me when I originally read it. But to do so, let’s forget everything we know of the case.
DeleteSo – four people in a house: Parent A, Parent B, and two minors. One of the minors is killed by a combination of head blow and garrotting. To make it simple, we will assume that one of the other people in the house committed the murder.
Scenario 1: the remaining minor was the killer. Possible only if assisted in a cover up by one or both parents (who wrote an involved ransom note, hid the body in an out of the way place).
So: Parent A was the sole person involved in the cover up. However, this parent rang the police, rang friends, was then in the presence of friends and a police officer up to the finding of the body.
So: Parent B was the sole person involved in the cover up. This parent was not in the line of sight of friends or a police officer for the entire morning, found the body and then moved said body, arranged for the family to board at a friend’s house, denied interviews with the police. This parent had control of the narrative due to the other parent being sedated (heavily).
So: Both parents were involved in the cover up from the get go. However, Parent A still calls the police, whose subsequent presence destroys the (hoped for) established narrative, i.e. that the killed minor was abducted.
Lastly: Parent B was originally solely responsible for cover up, but told Parent A after the phone call to the police was made. This is possible and fits the “logic” of the situation, save for the fact that the remaining minor (who was the killer) has remained undetected by teachers, friends, psychiatrists, the police, etc.
Scenario 2: Parent A was the killer.
So: Parent A killed the child, never told the other spouse. Does not fit as it was Parent B who had missing time when not in the line of sight of others (thus continuing the cover up).
So: Parent A killed the child, Parent B assisted with the cover up. This is possible and fits the “logic” of the situation. However, Parent A still calls the police, whose subsequent presence destroys the (hoped for) established narrative, i.e. that the killed minor was abducted.
Scenario 3: Parent B was the killer.
So: Parent B killed the child, never told the other spouse. Does logically fit as it was Parent B who had missing time when not in the line of sight of others (thus continuing the cover up).
So: Parent B killed the child, Parent A assisted with the cover up. However, Parent A still calls the police, whose subsequent presence destroys the (hoped for) established narrative, i.e. that the killed minor was abducted.
Thus logically we have 2 possible scenarios: Patsy did it, with John’s subsequent involvement and the illogical (and potentially damning) of calling 911 prematurely; or John did it, without Patsy being any the wiser. My money is on the latter.
-Sisu
Thanks Sisu for netting it out. We can fill in the blanks all day long with opinions about poopy pants, pineapple, pageant mommies, psychologically disturbed kids, and so on. Its not how crimes are solved. That little girl had been sexually molested in the past. Someone did that to her. Was it JR? Pasta Jay? It comes down to who had access to her and who had a LOT to lose if Patsy found out.
DeleteSisu nailed it.
DeleteAll scenarios presented must be dismissed due to the glaring inconsistencies and total lack of logic. The only one that is remotely plausible (highly probable, in fact, once you realize you have no choice but to throw out the other scenarios) is Parent B. being the sole killer.
A simple process of elimination.
The JDI theory, for me, seems just too obvious. It's like when you watch a movie and all clues, signs, fingers point to that one suspect and then at the end of the movie, there's a twist.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's what it is. JR is so obviously the one who was most likely to be the top suspect--adult male in the house, opportunity, motive(cover up of possible sexual abuse.) He is a cold calculating, emotionless man who ruled the roost. PR seemed to tiptoe around him and her job while he was home was to keep the house quiet so that he could work. He was controlling, driven, successful and distant.
Is there a twist here or is this it? Could it be THAT simple?
EG
The simplest explanation is usually the right one.
ReplyDeleteMovies are designed to keep you guessing.....this is not a movie.
My thinking on this is, if it were Patsy, how was she going to explain to John that JonBenet was missing?
ReplyDeleteThe ransom note directs away from searching the property for her. It might as well say "Do not look for her in the house, John. She is not hiding. We have her. Go get some money. We'll call you later."
As I pointed out before, John is so very helpful. After allowing the calling of the police immediately after Patsy finds the note, he hands over the notepads and handwriting samples, and arranges for the ransom money to be raised. He seems to believe what is happening and tries to cooperate.
He even finds the body and hands her over to the police.
I do believe he found her earlier, at 11:00, as he told John Andrew. At that point, he had no reason to lie about it. He just didn't know how to tell the rest of them.
So where are the previous employees who can testify to how controlling and emotionless he was? Where are the women he controlled and propositioned at work?
It seems to me that he and Patsy led separate lives, and he never got in the way of anything she wanted to do, as evidenced by all her extra-curricular activities.
I look at him and see a dorky man who was wrapped around Patsy's little finger. Some one he had taken a vow with.
He had no choice but to believe her and support her, however he could.
That is the scenario that makes the most sense to me.
Just my opinion.
GS
John is clearly guilty, because he closes the basement window that morning, and or says he closes the basement window, and does not tell police about it until hours later.
DeleteNo innocent person does that. Period. He was guilty of something. At least abuse. Now whether PR also was involved is up for debate. I think she was somehow.
And the statement by the disguised Grand Juror who said, "Is there any evidence that this was a sexual assault at all?" He said something to that effect.
ReplyDeleteGS
Well, you know the prosecution was incompetent. How much did they emphasize what the coroner and six other experts who were given access to the case found? Geez, if the grand jury had been conducted properly, we wouldn't be here, 20 years later, discussing this case!
Delete"As I pointed out before, John is so very helpful. After allowing the calling of the police immediately after Patsy finds the note, he hands over the notepads and handwriting samples, and arranges for the ransom money to be raised. He seems to believe what is happening and tries to cooperate."
ReplyDeleteOr, he knew he'd written the ransom note on Patsy's paper, with Patsy's pen, and was actually, eagerly throwing her under the bus.....though, the more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that he simply didn't know the pad could be linked to the RN.
To accept Patsy wrote the RN, I'd have to ignore everything else I know about this case.....
"He even finds the body and hands her over to the police."
And you think that actually points away from his involvement?! Most would disagree, and find it very suspicious. Linda Arndt sure did. John knew just where to *find* the body because he put it there, and he probably wished to contaminate the crime scene as much as possible. Many murderers actually "discover" their own victims, GS, so your point is moot.
I think both parents both knew and or did the abuse. It is not uncommon for abuse to be done by one, and accepted and almost facilitated by the other. So if you start with that basis, you need to come up with a new twist to the theory.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, thinking about it, it would be good sense for an abuser to blackmail the other parent. Like, allow some twisted behavior from the other parent, to keep them under control. One parent could have had some dirt on the other. So they knew they were both going down, if it got out.
btw just curious. I am wondering why no one wanted to give me some opinions on these pics. This is a new real life mystery I am dealing with. I would have thought you all would be interested in tackling some other mysteries. Any word on why you are all steering clear?
ReplyDeleteMs. D? Doc? Inquisitive?
http://therandommemo.blogspot.com/2016/12/opinions-on-pics.html
I don't see in the pics what the outlines have traced.
DeleteOkay thanks.
DeleteQuestion, what does it look like to you, in the center area of the first pic? See that orange-ish spot there. In insert, in middle of pic? Do you think that looks like anything? Or do you think it is supposed to look like anything?
DeleteI really don't know what I'm looking for, sorry I can't be of any help, SC.
DeleteYes GS, I tend to agree with your logic (posted 12/26 7:50 p.m.). By writing a note pointing to a kidnapping, and hiding the body in the wine cellar room a "hunt" for her will begin primarily centered around a phone call - that won't come of course. I think it's very possible John did not fully put it all together until he did some looking around on his own. He couldn't exactly confront Patsy about his suspicions while she was surrounded by friends and under the watchful eye of Arnt. Yes, he hands over the pad, the pad that also had a practice salutation started. If he wrote the note he would have remembered that he had started it one way and then finished it another. Also Burke was kept away from any and all questioning for quite some time. One could say he has evaded formal investigative questioning for 20 years! He was however, seeing a psychiatrist for a full two years - Patsy's idea she says when a friend told her it had helped her child. This interview is on a candyrose somewhere.
ReplyDelete