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

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

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

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

In a Nutshell

In response to the heavy dose of speculation we've been seeing, both here and in the media generally, I've decided to one more time present the essence of my thinking on this case. Before I begin I want to stress that my approach was originally prompted by a situation very similar to the one we are now facing, which hasn't changed much over 20 years: since just about all the "evidence" is inconclusive, literally every theory based on the evidence is, of necessity, speculative -- based on little more than amateur profiling bolstered by a host of unsubstantiated assumptions.


Not everyone sees it that way, of course. No matter whom you might suspect, it's possible to claim that your theory is based on what you perceive as "the facts": it's a "fact" that Burke and JonBenet ate pineapple together, as evidenced by his fingerprints on the bowl; it's a "fact" that an intruder was present, as evidenced by the absence of any source for the tape or cord used to control the victim; it's a "fact" that Patsy Ramsey wrote the "ransom note," as evidenced by the long list of "matches" found between her writing and that of the note; it's a "fact" that John Ramsey could not have written the note, as he was "ruled out" by a team of "experts"; it's a "fact" that JonBenet was assaulted by a mysterious stranger, as evidenced by the three sources of foreign DNA found on her clothing; it's a "fact" that she was stun gunned, as evidenced by marks found on her body that could "only" have been made by such a device. One could go on and on in this vein.

Trouble is, these "facts" take us in all sorts of different directions and in any case there are serious disagreements regarding each and every one. What is a fact for you might well be seen as an assumption by someone else. So, in order to bolster your theory it's necessary to argue over and over again endlessly that this, that and the other MUST be the case, because, because, and because. Resulting in what I have called "the morass," an endless cycle of assertion and counter-assertion that has taken us all in circles for years and gotten us nowhere.

However: at a certain point I realized that not all the so-called "facts" were the same. There were "facts" that could easily be challenged, but there were also facts that could not be challenged, facts that everyone actually agreed on. And if one limited oneself to those facts and those facts only, then, remarkably enough, it was possible to make out a path that might actually take us somewhere.

We can start with the most important fact of all, the fact of the ransom note. No one can dispute the existence of this key piece of evidence. Nor has anyone ever disputed the fact that the paper on which the note was written originated in a notepad found in the Ramsey home. These facts alone tell us there could have been no intruder. Why?

A pedophile with a sexual interest in the victim would have had no reason to write a note. A burglar would have had no reason to write a note. Someone "out to get" the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a ransom note, and if he'd desired a note of any kind would have prepared one ahead of time. Someone entering the house with the intent to kidnap would have written his note ahead of time. Someone who'd entered the house with some other motive, but who decided at the last minute to kidnap JonBenet, would not have wanted or needed to write such a long, detailed note, dotting every i and crossing every t. Someone intending to "frame" Patsy or John by making it look like one of them wrote the note would not have written it in his own hand, however disguised, but attempted a forgery. Yet none of the professionals who've examined the note have ever even suggested forgery. John was "ruled out," and Patsy deemed "unlikely." Comparisons with Patsy's hand have focused on certain letter by letter "matches," but her overall style is radically different from that of the note, as I have demonstrated. I can think of no other motive -- nor have I ever seen any other motive presented by anyone over 20 years of heated discussion of this case. While it's possible to speculate about some diabolically clever person whose only motive was to sow confusion, that takes us well beyond the realm of reasonable doubt, as anyone accused of any crime could easily invent such a person, out to make him look bad.

Once an intruder is ruled out, then, as painful as it is, we have no other choice but to focus on the three remaining members of the Ramsey household: Patsy, Burke and John. And while the debate has raged for so many years as to which of these three could have committed the crime, or, indeed, whether all three were in it together, there is yet another fact, universally agreed on, that enables us, finally, to decide:

First thing in the morning, shortly after the ransom note is discovered, Patsy Ramsey calls 911, reporting that her daughter has been kidnapped. Fact! Patsy is the one who makes that call. John later claims, for good reason, that he told her to make it -- and she agrees -- but this is NOT a fact. That claim, which becomes their "official" version of what happened, is contradicted by a very different version, offered by Patsy when interviewed for an A&E special:

video

The rest of Patsy's statement has been cut in this version. Here is her full statement, from a transcript of the original documentary:
Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."
If the call had been made while the two of them were together in the kitchen, with him telling her to make the call, why would she later state that she told him she was going to make the call, and then "ran downstairs" to make it while he "ran to check on Burke," whose room was UPstairs. As is evident from the video, John is sitting right next to her when she offers this version, and does not blink an eye. We may never know which version is the correct one, or whether both are fabrications, but what we DO know is that there is no basis for concluding that John told Patsy to make that call. And good reason to conclude that she made the call of her own volition, and against his will. As we shall see.

We must move now from the fact of the 911 call to the logic behind it. Which returns us to the all important "ransom note." If there was no intruder (see above), then the only possible motive for writing such a note would be to stage a kidnapping. And the only way to stage a kidnapping is to get the body of the victim out of the house before the police are called. Clearly, therefore, the person who wrote that note would NOT have wanted the police called while the body was lying in the basement, waiting to be discovered. Thus the FACT that Patsy is the one who called 911 tells us she could not have been the one who wrote it. Nor could she have been involved in staging the kidnapping, or she would not have wanted to make that call. While one might be tempted to suggest that Patsy wrote the note and an innocent John, with no knowledge of what she had done, forced her to call against her will, on a little reflection it's easy to see the flaw in such reasoning: if Patsy had written the note she would certainly have resisted any effort on John's part to induce her to call 911, and in the face of such resistance there is no reason on Earth why John could not have picked up the receiver and made the call himself.

Thus: based on the FACTS, and clear inferences based on those facts, we can rule out an intruder and we can rule out Patsy. Burke was clearly too young to have written that note. Leaving only John as the mastermind behind both the note and the kidnap staging in general. And once we realize that the note could only have been written by John, with no involvement from Patsy, then the identity of the killer should be obvious. While it's been argued that Burke could be the one who killed his sister, with his parents covering for him, once Patsy is ruled out that theory becomes extremely unlikely. (For a thorough discussion of Burke's possible involvement see my blog post here.)

For me, this is the essence of the case. And while it's possible to raise all sorts of objections, based on this that or the other little detail which might seem to implicate Patsy, Burke or even an intruder, in every case we are dealing with assumptions and speculations, NOT facts. As I see it, the undisputed facts point in one direction and one direction only. All else is conjecture.

Could I be wrong? Yes, of course. However, in the immortal words of the legendary detective known to the world as "Monk": "I don't think so."

292 comments:

  1. Most of what you wrote above is far fetched speculation...not facts like you keep saying they are!!

    And why is BDI such a bizarre notion (your words not mine). I really dont understand.

    Out of three people in the Ramsey house, the facts and evidence points to John the least.

    Thanks to everyone for a great blog but I think my time is done here as to me the case is solved.

    Common sense says that BDI. The end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does that mean we're truly blessed not to ever have to hear from you again, or just not to ever have to hear from "Zed" again?

      Delete
    2. You are wrong, Zed. The whole point of my method was to get beyond assumptions and speculations. We've been through this before. A logical inference is NOT the same as either.

      Delete
    3. You have a blog so you must be the expert....

      You havent got beyond any assumptions or speculations...not even close.

      Unless new evidence comes to fruition ill stick with the most plausible theory that puts Burke and JB together and has both parents involved...which they most certainly were. Ill also listen to the experts with many years of experience..im glad they came to the same logical outcome as me.

      Anyway thanks for the blog, I enjoyed my time here and you're a good fella.

      Cyas!
      Zed

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

      Delete
    5. Good grief, Zed....you honestly mustn't have read a word Doc wrote.

      You don't have to agree with him - or anyone else here - but for God's sake, if you can't see the difference between assumptions, speculation and facts - with the differences CLEARLY being outlined above - then maybe this blog really isn't the place for you. That's something you'll have to decide for yourself.....but the problem I see is that your arguments are, for the most part, riddled with logical fallacies (particularly straw man arguments, circular reasoning, confirmation bias and more than the occasional ad hom thrown in for good measure), along with a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms "fact" and "logical inference".

      "You havent got beyond any assumptions or speculations...not even close."

      Oh really?
      So it is NOT a fact that Patsy dialed 911?
      It's NOT a fact the ransom note was written on paper that belonged to the Ramsey's?
      Because, from what I read above, these are the only points that Doc claimed to be FACTS, with the rest being LOGICAL INFERENCES drawn from said facts - no "far fetched speculations" whatsoever (two parents garroting their child after their son clubbed her IS speculation, however, as there is not one iota of physical or circumstantial evidence to support the claim. And it is more than far-fetched - it is absolutely unprecedented)

      You can argue with our premise all day long, but you can't alter the definition of the terms. What you claim to be a fact ("Fact: Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note") is not a fact, nor is it remotely a logical inference based on what we know - it is your opinion - and vehemently stating, ad nauseam, that it is a bonafide fact will not make it so.

      I believe Doc was trying to put things back into perspective, because many of us - including myself - seem to have lost it over this past month or two (I blame the CBS special, as things kind of devolved from that point). But your response didn't take into consideration anything he said at all. After all that time was spent clarifying things above, you still went the same route, which makes it pretty clear you're really not interested in civilized discussion.
      Arguing with someone who has an opposing view is challenging, but arguing with someone who refuses to listen to reason is exhausting!

      Delete
  2. This is a conjecture too:

    "If there was no intruder (see above), then the only possible motive for writing such a note would be to stage a kidnapping. And the only way to stage a kidnapping is to get the body of the victim out of the house before the police are called."

    Just for example, another possible motive could be to divert police from suspecting that the Ramseys could have had any knowledge that JonBenet's body was in the basement. If they thought she was kidnapped they wouldn't have bothered searching the house.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That isn't a motive. It's barely even a sentence. Your honor, please dismiss this juror.

      Delete
    2. Not sure if you're referring to the Ramseys or the police with that last sentence. The police would certainly have searched the house, eventually. And if the Ramseys were in it together, the note would have given them the perfect excuse NOT to call until removing the body. Calling the police with the body still in the house was NOT what you want to do when staging a kidnapping, and the combination of the obviously phony "ransom" note and the body hidden in the basement is what has convinced literally millions of people all over the world of their involvement.

      The only alternative would be that both are innocent and an intruder did it -- but that possibility can easily be ruled out, as I've explained.

      Delete
    3. I was referring to the Ramseys in the last sentence. Couldn't they have staged the kidnapping,
      not to dispose of the body later, but to have an excuse for not having searched the house themselves? If they could make it look like they didn't know she was dead that throws suspicion off of them and they still get to bury their daughter.

      Delete
    4. Why would they need an excuse for not having searched the house? Why not simply pose the body out in the open and report an intruder breakin? If they were in it together, what was gained by hiding the body in the basement where they knew it would eventually be found?

      Delete
  3. Nope, I don't buy it. And here's why. You don't stay up all night staging a crime scene and writing a note and then count on a crucial player - your wife - to not call the police by leaving a note right smack dab where she is going to be the first one up and see it - and knowing her like you do after all those years of marriage, hope to God she doesn't call the police. Presumably so that you can remove the body because you a. ran out of time the night before; and b. you are thinking she won't tell anyone what happened; or c. that there won't be any traces of decomposition smell in the basement of the house leading out to the trunk of your car or however you were going to dispose of the body - picked up on by a cadaver dog once a proper investigation is performed.

    Whatever nincompoops left in charge of this case did or didn't do, they did rule him out as writing that note. They didn't think she had had signs of prior abuse (hold on), enough to make an arrest. I agree, we have been going in circles in here and one of the reasons is we have been trying to make sense of an illogical act - the murder and sexual assault of a 6 year old. We've been trying to make sense of a nonsensical ransom note. We just can't fathom that it would be left in the house without having some kind of reason attached to it. This was an abnormal mind, a criminal mind, who would not be able to blend in successfully in normal reality. IDI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you make a good point about the risks of leaving a decomposing body in the house or car. If JDI, disposing of JBR's body that first night would have involved risks, but one could argue that leaving the body for longer involved great risks too.

      AMD

      Delete
    2. "An abnormal mind." Someone with no clear motive that doesn't leave any trace behind and decides "fuck it" to actually kidnapping the target. It must have been a boring Christmas for this ghost intruder.

      Delete
    3. 1) "YOU don't stay up all night .....etc...."
      Don't tell us each individually what WE would do Inquisitive. You don't speak for me, you don't speak for us, you don't speak for John Ramsey, and you don't speak for the "reasonable man". You speak only for yourself.

      2) Murder and sexual assault of a 6 year old is not "illogical" to the person who did it. It is only "illogical" in your mind that someone without a prior history of sexual abuse--especially someone as educated and culturally refined as John Ramsey appeared to be on the surface--could ever fall from Grace and do something as evil as what was done to JonBenet Ramsey.

      3) That "they" ruled him out as writing the note, doesn't mean a different "they" couldn't rule him back in. If not ninety, at least seventy-five percent of Ivory Leaugue college professors, television news journalistics, and other self-proclaimed celebrity "experts" ruled out a billionaire businessman with no "prior" political experience from ever possibly becoming President of the United States. If conventional wisdom can be wrong about something in one direction, it can wrong about it in the opposite direction.

      4) The ransom note makes no sense only to those who refuse to believe that a criminal mind doesn't have to be "abnormal" and is unable "to blend in successfully in normal reality." Normal, by whose definition? Yours Inquisitive, or some other so-called body of "experts"?

      Doc recently posted the following:

      "The evidence is there (again, review what's been presented all over this blog), but putting John on trial would certainly involve some risk -- because jurors are as likely to disagree on this case as much as those commenting all over the Internet, including here."

      I'm not so sure Doc is right on this one. I think CC could reduce the risk considerably in the jury selection process by ferreting out individuals who rely heavily on testimonies from "experts" at the expense of relying on their own good common sense.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    4. "....but one could argue that leaving the body for longer involved great risks too." AMD

      And I could argue that sexually abusing daughters then killing them is the greatest risk of all, but that doesn't mean John didn't have a plan to cover the smell. And I don't have to prove he needed such a plan to prove he committed the murder because people like Inquistive wouldn't be on my jury.

      Mike G


      Delete
    5. How do you "cover the smell" from a cadaver dog? A Glade plug in perhaps?

      Delete
    6. Well, here we are again, tossing out assumptions.

      You cover the smell by encasing the victim in a plastic garbage bag, which John could easily have done before placing it in the trunk of his car. Or possibly John never thought about cadaver dogs, but was focused exclusively on getting rid of the body. Regardless of how you want to speculate regarding any other aspect of the case, you can't get away from the facts and the logic outlined above. And yes, my logic could be flawed. And you should certainly feel free to challenge it - if you can. But speculations and assumptions over odd details of the case (aka nitpicking) won't work, you'll need to fight logic with logic.

      Delete
    7. I believe Casey Anthony tried that and decomposition was still detected in her car trunk.

      Delete
    8. Well, John had a college degree, so he would never have made such a mistake, would he?

      Delete
    9. his first mistake was not setting his house alarm

      Delete
    10. I did "laugh out loud" at the Glade plug in comment, I have to admit. :D

      Delete
    11. "We've been trying to make sense of a nonsensical ransom note. We just can't fathom that it would be left in the house without having some kind of reason attached to it."

      And you know what? Doc is the ONLY person in twenty years who has made sense of the seemingly, "nonsensical ransom note". His is the ONLY theory that gives it "reason".

      Yet you dismiss it anyway.....

      As far as I'm concerned, once you make sense of the ransom note, the author of the note - who is the killer, make no mistake about it, BDIs - is patently obvious.

      Delete
  4. Just wanted to add that I don't think this is the place to convince anyone of anything other than what they already believe, but it's been a great place to unravel for ourselves, or try to, the mystery that is this case. Nor is anyone going to reward us with stellar argument of the year. So if you do disappear for a while Zed, I just wanted you to know that I have enjoyed your participation in here, you have never gone off on anyone and you have tried to interpret this case to the best of your ability and remained fair and considerate in your arguments. Take a break, as I'm going to do, and we may see you back in here on the other side of that break.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Doc's theory is the most logical. I just wish someone in Boulder would open up their mind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zed,

    I agree with Inq. Take a break for a bit and come back, as we all do from time to time. I, too, believe BDI but unfortunately there isn't enough evidence to prove that any of them did it. All of the so called evidence is contradictory, at best, therefore making it impossible to prove anything against any one of the three involved. I do not believe an IDI but it's possible, I suppose.

    I do tend to agree with the GJ who said the parents were responsible, as they were negligent. I also feel that 27 visits to the doctor was excessive for one that age. Something isn't right with that, but unless those medical records are released, we just don't and won't know why.

    This is a case of unanswered questions, unresolved issues, peculiar behavior, contradictory expert opinions and conclusions, and uncooperative parents.

    EG

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Just wanted to add that I don't think this is the place to convince anyone of anything other than what they already believe..."

    Like I said, you won't see this type of "logic" used by the jury who decides this case, thank God.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And I've asked these questions of you several times before Zed (or J, AMD, KS, any PDI or BDIer), but get no answers. If John and Patsy were in on it together, why:

    . . . wasn't the RN simply block printed in the time-honored tradition of ransom notes everywhere?

    . . .didn't John and Patsy take the four months between the murder and their first LE interview to rehearse and align their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911?

    . . .didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple?
    CC. Sorry for the delay in response CC, I have not been keeping up as well here due to working a lot of hours. As far as the ransom note not being block printed, I honestly have absolutely no clue on this. I did see some nutjub on YouTube claiming that Jonbenet's killer was the zodiac killer. While I find that silly, I must say the handwriting looked similar. Not that I would ever buy that ludicrous theory. Aligning the story about the window Imo could be nothing more than 2 people who have too much to get straight. With the depth and amount of information that would have to be aligned in great detail you could have 20 years to do so and not get every detail aligned with someone else. Especially with not knowing what questions could pop up or what evidence there is. The pineapple to me is obvious, much like having someone admit to being the last person to touch a murder weapon, despite said person's fingerprints on it, it will often be denied. The story becomes a lot simpler and a new line of questioning can not be asked by just denying any knowledge of what was most likely an overlooked or not even known about, piece of evidence. Secondly, the original story of we came home and put JBR to bed and that was the last time that we saw her, would then have to be deviated from and a lie would have to be admitted in order to explain the pineapple. "If" the pineapple was even known about then it is much easier to deny and not put yourself into the time line which eliminates all that line of questioning. Always stick to your original story, you know this.

    ReplyDelete

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My take on these issues:

      The ransom note was not block printed because it's harder to disguise one's hand that way, while writing things out offers many possible variations, including the possibility I've already raised, of imitating a computer font.

      If the Ramseys had been in it together there would have been no need to delay questioning for months. They would have had their story straight from the start and would have "fully cooperated" with the authorities from day one.

      And if they'd been in it together, there'd have been no reason for them to lie about the pineapple.

      Delete
    2. I just gave you very reasonable, logical reasons, you can disagree, however, they make perfect logical sense. Sorry Doc but 2 people could not coordinate their story of this crime "overnight". On top of that the Ramsays got all kinds of evidence presented to them when they shouldn't have and I am sure this was their lawyers advice and would have have happened that way whether the guilty party was 1 Ramsey, 2 Ramseys or 3 Ramseys so you your point is totally irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. What's the evidence that John and Patsy lied about the pineapple?

      Delete
    4. The Ramsey's said they put Jonbenet to sleep right after The White's Christmas party. However, there were pineapple traces in her lower intestines closer to her death which contradicts their timeline. They both said they didn't have pineapple at the house, and pineapple wasn't at the party.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, I didn't know that they said there was no pineapple in the house.

      Delete
    6. Correction: no one ever said there was no pineapple at the house. I'm not sure where you got that from, Zachary, because your information is usually very accurate. What was claimed is that no one served her pineapple.

      Delete
    7. That's what I meant to say but I submitted my comment. This is indeed correct.

      Delete
    8. I wish we could edit our comments haha.

      Delete
    9. Me too! I've deleted so many of my comments for no other reason other than a misspelling or poor punctuation!

      Delete
  10. Doc, this is, I believe, your logic:

    1. The ransom note writer was staging a kidnapping.

    2. Someone who was staging a kidnapping would not call 911 with the body in the house.

    3. PR called 911 with the body in the house.

    4. Therefore, PR is not the ransom note writer.

    Good old Wikipedia says: "Logic is concerned with validity. Validity does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusions. A valid argument with a false premise may lead to a false conclusion."

    I think if the above represents your argument, then your argument is valid. If premises 1, 2 and 3 are true, then 4 is necessarily true.

    You want people to fight your logic. I don't dispute the logic.

    However, I think the first premise and second premise could be false. If the first premise or second premise is false, then the conclusion is no longer necessarily true.

    The truth of the premises needs to be considered separately from the validity or logic of the argument.

    You seem to take premises 1 and 2 as being established facts, but I don't think they are. You may consider them the most reasonable interpretations of the circumstances but I do not believe that they are the only possible interpretations.

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course there are other possible interpretations; we've discussed some here. The problem is the RN. Had the intention been to call 911, it need only be three short sentences. As it is, every line of that RN serves a purpose, is a blueprint, as Ms D likes to say - but only for John. I find that particular piece of logic irrefutable, and the real backbone of Doc's case. Gumshoe wrote an excellent line by line analysis of the thing late last year that's well worth reading if you can find it on one of the old threads - November or December 2015, iirc.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Thanks, AMD, for your totally reasonable critique of my logic. And thank you, CC, for your totally reasonable response.

      As I see it, AMD, what you call "premises" are logical inferences. Given the ransom note as a fact (or if you prefer, a premise), then, as it seems to me it's only logical to conclude that the intention of the note was to stage a kidnapping (assuming there was no intruder, natch). While this logic may not be iron clad, it certainly does seem more than reasonable to draw such a conclusion.

      As for point no. 2, "Someone who was staging a kidnapping would not call 911 with the body in the house," I see this also as a logical inference, because, for someone staging a kidnapping, calling the police while knowing that the body of your victim is still in the house simply makes no sense. Maybe the best name for this type of argument would be: reductio ad absurdum.

      The Wikipedia article you've consulted may be incomplete. What's involved is not so much the evaluation of a set of isolated premises, but a chain of inference, in which each logical conclusion follows from what came before.

      Delete
    3. I agree with AMD. I don't think it's necessarily a logical inference that "Someone who was staging a kidnapping would not call 911 with the body in the house".

      Delete
    4. "Of course there are other possible interpretations; we've discussed some here. CC"

      I was responding to Doc's original post above where he says that there is only one possible purpose:
      "If there was no intruder (see above), then the only possible motive for writing such a note would be to stage a kidnapping."

      Doc has modified that a bit (I think) in his reply:
      "While this logic may not be iron clad, it certainly does seem more than reasonable to draw such a conclusion."

      I agree that Doc's and your interpretation of the motive for the ransom note is "logical", in the sense that "logical" means a reasonable assessment of the note and circumstances. I also agree that some interpretations are more reasonable than others.

      But I don't think you can elevate that interpretation to the level of "irrefutable logic", especially if it means that other interpretations are dismissed as illogical. To me that just seems a backdoor way to present something as a fact when it hasn't been established as such.

      I agree that the note had a purpose, and that there was a reason that it wasn't just three sentences. We just don't agree on what that purpose was.

      AMD

      Delete
    5. I think it only logical to conclude that, once an intruder is ruled out, the only purpose of that particular note was to stage a kidnapping, yes. For one thing, the note is clearly a ransom note. I don't see how it's possible to dispute that. It's also not possible to dispute the FACT that, until the body was found, both Patsy and John reported that their daughter had been kidnapped.

      Any other interpretation that I've ever seen can easily be refuted on the basis of reductio ad absurdum. In other words, no other interpretation makes sense.

      Delete
  11. For those that plan to take part of the AMA reddit with the author Woodward, please come back and post or link what her responses were to your questions. TIA
    I'd like to know if she interviewed the Stines and Whites and their children.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It all becomes clear once you realize that the note was written to fool the other parent, not police. Even if I am JDI I am puzzled by Patsy' s behavior. Did she ever suspect anything? Was she in denial? She always seemed so cold, dettached and fake when expressing emotions regarding her daughter. Very strange mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see her as strange at all. Certainly not fake. The one who strikes me as cold and detached is John.

      As far as Patsy suspecting anything, as I see it, any suspicions she might have had would have been nullified by the decision to rule John out as the note writer. Since to her knowledge NO ONE ever questioned that finding, there would be no basis for her suspicion and certainly no point in voicing any such suspicion to either the police or the media, as it would only backfire on her. We can't, of course, know what was going on in her mind. But as far as her actions were concerned, it would have been a fatal mistake for her to voice any suspicions of John once he'd been "ruled out."

      Delete
  13. First off, I have NEVER stated it to be a FACT that it was Burke's pineapple. Doc, saying you only use logic a whole lot different than doing it. I am only going to reference the pineapple bowl, because you brought it up above.

    Burke's fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl
    Burke tells Dr. Phil he snuck out of bed AFTER being put to bed to go play with a toy
    Burke got super awkward when asked about this bowl of pineapple

    LOGIC says its Burke's bowl. Anything to the contrary is not based on any form of logic or reasoning. I'm guilty of this, as are you and many others on here, is the NEED to fit certain things into ones own theory.

    Also, I cannot disagree with you more regarding Patsy not suspecting John simply because he was RULED OUT as author of the note. She was his wife...she knows his handwriting, she would have known his writing style, so this absolutely doesn't fly with me.

    Why can we rule out Patsy as a contributor to the RN? Oh yea, we CAN'T! I respect your opinion, I really do, but don't go on a tangent about using only FACTS and then go on to spew opinions of yours as being factual.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ramseys lived in a shared household. There is no way to conclusively determine when Burke's fingerprints got on that bowl any more than it can be proved that the fiber from JR'S Israeli-made shirt found in JBR'S panties got there the night she was murdered. . .much as I'd like to draw that conclusion.

      Patsy's parenting choices and mothering skills were harshly criticized in the media and by the general public the minute those pageant videos were released two days after the murder. In addition, Steve Thomas's pointed questions left her in no doubt that she was the primary suspect. The woman was beleaguered on all sides, John seemed to be offering help and protection, and I believe she quickly developed a siege mentality, us against them, and it was this that led to her inability to view her husband as a suspect.
      CC

      Delete
    2. CC- IF it were just his fingerprints and nothing else, we may not be having this discussion. Living in a SHARED household doesn't account for his very odd reaction to the picture of the pineapple bowl. We know JB ate some pineapple shortly before her death.....she couldn't have gotten herself that bowl of pineapple. That leaves John, Patsy and Burke. Why is this so difficult? Im not talking in a court of law.....use LOGIC please!

      -J

      Delete
    3. The bowl of pineapple being Burke's doesn't mean John couldn't have still murdered her. BUT, I have yet to see any of Docs, yous, Ms D's explanation for how she ate the pineapple before John killed her. It CLEARLY poses a problem for your theory which is why it just cant be Burke's bowl of pineapple. My suggestion is that if you truly feel JDI, you better work that bowl of pineapple into your theory, because its a KEY part of this whole thing.

      -J

      Delete
    4. I am. Patsy had an "odd" reaction to the bowl of pineapple, as did John in LE interviews. Burke said he didn't prepare it; his parents said the same. It could have been left over from breakfast, there's no way to know. Stop insisting on something you cannot prove and maintaining it's the only logical answer- it isn't, and saying so only weakens your argument.
      CC

      Delete
    5. Oh well gee wiz, if Burke, John and Patsy said they didn't prepare it then it must not have happened right? They also said they didn't murder their daughter, so does that mean they didn't do it? Talk about weakening an argument

      Yes, the pineapple was leftover from breakfast. They cleaned up all the plates, glasses, etc, but just left a bowl of pineapple sitting in milk with a glass. I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to walk in my room because I can't get over these responses.

      -J

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry to resort to bludgeoning you with the law, J, but here's the bottom line, again:

      Under the law a child is believed incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit murder. The second count of the GJ'S indictments accuses both adult Ramseys of aiding an unnamed person in the commission of first degree murder. Ergo, the GJ found it WAS NOT BURKE.

      Logic, facts and the law. Can't beat it.
      CC

      Delete
    7. Ok, well this didn't address the pineapple bowl at all.
      You can use fancy language alllllll day long CC. None of it proves Burke didn't do it. Wrongfully accused people are put in jail every day due to a number of reasons. Arguing a prosecution against Burke is something I am not doing.

      The GJ also found Patsy as being involved, so IF thats the case then it really can't be JDI.

      Any defense attorney would absolutely destroy Doc's case against John. Does that mean it isn't true? No of course not. Johnny Cochran used fancy language and was able to get OJ off, but I think we all know who committed that crime.

      -J

      Delete
    8. If there was a point to that rant it got lost in your palpable annoyance. Just say "uncle" and move on, J.

      Delete
    9. "BUT, I have yet to see any of Docs, yous, Ms D's explanation for how she ate the pineapple before John killed her."

      That's simply not true, J, and you know it, because I've actually addressed this question numerous times - with you arguing against it every time! So I know you must remember me having answered it.

      One more time: the bowl could very well have been left over from breakfast - I saw what looked like other breakfast items on that very counter. Xmas was a very busy day, Patsy may have given the table a rudimentary wipe down - we know cleaning up after the kids wasn't her strong point. Or, alternatively, Burke prepared the pineapple sometime that day before they went to the Whites, with both John and Patsy being unaware he did so. That night when JB came downstairs, she grabbed a piece from the bowl. It's really quite simple as far as I'm concerned, and I've never denied Burke probably prepared that snack.
      I've answered this question several times now, so I don't plan on answering it again next time you say it hasn't been responded to (I'm pretty certain CC and Doc have said similar, but don't quote me on it). Believe what you want to believe in regards to the pineapple, but don't make statements that are demonstrably false - my answer is written there in black and white in previous threads for all to see.

      Delete
    10. Just say "Uncle" ...take it easy Scut Farkus
      Anonymous why don't you stop hiding and put a name on your ignorant posts so we can all have some fun.

      Ms D - My apologies for saying you didn't answer. You somewhat have, however ridiculous your scenario is. I just don't want to hear from any of you to say to argue logic when logic is inly being applied when it comes to anything bad John Ramsey has done. Any theory centered around Patsy, Burke or Intruder has been met with "you need to use logic" and "lets just talk about the Facts." Real double standard on here

      -J

      Delete
    11. That was me, J. Forgot to add my initials but was sure the "fancy language" would be a tip off.
      CC

      Delete
    12. I figured it was you ;-)

      -J

      Delete
    13. Correction, J. I didn't "somewhat answer" the question, I fully answered it. I even made a point not to trivialize the fact that Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, thus it is probably his bowl of pineapple. So to say I partially answered it is a load of bunk. My response is every bit as valid as your own musings. That you don't agree with my theory is not a justifiable excuse for saying I didn't answer it when you know very well I have done - several times.

      Delete
    14. Ms D - My point in all these posts regarding the pineapple bowl is simply that it was his bowl of pineapple that he was eating the night she was killed. You kept going on tangents about staging and everything else, when I simply wanted to focus ONLY on the pineapple bowl. It was really that simple. I think if the evidence was presented to a jury, they would also conclude it was his bowl of pineapple. That's all I was trying to say.

      -J

      Delete
    15. And I think I could persuade them it wasn't, that Burke's fingerprints were there because he helped his mother unload the dishwasher. Neither opinion gets us anywhere, and the bowl of pineapple is still evidence of absolutely nothing.
      CC

      Delete
    16. We will 100% agree to disagree on this. Unlike many on here, I would hope jurors have some common sense

      -J

      Delete
  14. I will say J I prefer your style of arguing to the two curmudgeons who enter here late in the evening and choose to hammer their opposition into submission with illogical statements and crude comparisons. So keep arguing J!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Inq - Its never personal, but I hate being told to argue with Facts and logic by people who aren't doing the same.

      -J

      Delete
    2. "Curmudgeons"? Sheesh.....I'd hardly go that far, Inquisitive. That term is totally uncalled for and untrue.
      As far as us wishing to beat our opposition "into submission" - NO. That is *not* our goal, and if you genuinely believe it is, why do you so willingly subject yourself to such ill mannered, bad tempered, boors?
      There was nothing illogical in Doc's introduction to this thread, and CC's posts only ever employ logic and rarely speculation (where did you get your law degree, Inq?), so you must be referring to me alone. I can't argue with that if this is the way you see it, but rest assured, I try and make my arguments as logical as possible. I think most here agree.....but you can't please everyone, can you?

      Delete
    3. Not to worry, Ms D. My Merriam Webster defines curmudgeon as a crusty, ill-tempered old man, so either Inquisitive is even more confused than usual or she's referring to poor Doc.
      CC

      Delete
    4. No, I wasn't referring to either you, CC, Ms D., or Doc. Not at all. If anything you have all three raised well thought out excellent points.

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

      Delete
    6. You'll be relieved to learn, CC, that DocG is not a curmudgeon, but a very hip, cool dude.

      Delete
  15. Ah yes. And the point of science is to disprove theories, not prove them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just to get away from the pineapple for a moment: Any thoughts of this?

    The one piece of evidence that I find most disturbing is the garrote. I've been giving this some thought and wondered how much information the "experts" were able to glean from it.

    I am sure it was dusted or tested for fingerprints, but I also got to thinking that wood expands and contracts reacting to moisture, heat, etc.

    Could they have tested that paintbrush to check if that was a fresh break (therefore the splintered wood inside the brush wouldn't be as dry as perhaps an old break)

    This would allow them to know if that garrote was made much earlier and might have been used for another purpose. I know this is a stretch but maybe the workers fashioned it to tie around the Christmas tree boxes to be able to carry them up more easily?

    And obviously if it was a fresh break, it was crafted that night.

    Whaddaya think?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tufts of JonBenet's hair were found entwined in the knotting, telling us it was constructed on the night of the murder, most likely after she had been rendered unconscious by the head blow..

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Doc, that answers that question.

      I had another thought about the 911 call. The operator said Patsy never hung up the phone but thought she did. What if she did hang up the phone but someone else was on an extension somewhere else in the house? Which would explain why the voices were so muffled as they were a distance away from the phone.

      These are just thoughts I have as I am trying to fall asleep at night. *L*

      EG

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

      Delete
    4. f someone were on an extension, their voices would have been clear. What the CBS "experts" heard was not only muffled but seriously garbled. It took me a long time to hear what they were hearing and only with real effort. It sounded to me more like crosstalk than anything else, or else just random noises. Sounds to me as though they were "hearing" more or less the same sort of thing people hear when they play a recording backward: the echo of their own expectations.

      Delete
    5. This case will get more press again since the anniversary of her death is almost upon us.

      Delete
    6. EG, I disagree that the garrotte can be time stamped. Certainly it was used that night, but cannot be proven it was constructed that night. Yes her hair was found on it/around it from the person twisting or pulling while it was around her neck and nape. But I don't believe the cord was wrapped and knotted around the paintbrush handle while being held close enough to her nape to pull the hair out during the construction. Irrc a housekeeper or other hired help stated she had seen something similar to the tying around packages in the basement. Whatever testing was done on the paintbrush then wasn't helpful enough to get an arrest. On that subject of knots, I saw a package of cards on knot tying at Academy last month when I went to buy a case for my rifle. Thought of how even a child of either gender that knows how to read could learn knot tying from those cards.

      Delete
  17. "For those that plan to take part of the AMA reddit with the author Woodward, please come back and post or link what her responses were to your questions. TIA I'd like to know if she interviewed the Stines and Whites and their children." diamondlil

    Could someone explain the steps required to participate in this question and answer session? Also, how did it get started? What is the authors background? Is she pre-disposed towards a family member or intruder...etc... Thanks

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look no further than DocG's posts on her book:

      http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-gospel-according-to-st-paula.html#more

      http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/09/more-on-woodwards-book.html#more

      Delete
    2. Thank you Zach.

      On a different note, while reviewing the second link you provided above, I came upon the following comment by Doc:

      "And once again, as we've seen so often, the possibility that John could have acted on his own, which was in fact the initial theory of the investigation, is never considered. She is satisfied with the fact that no pornography was ever found on John's computer and there was no evidence of any form of sexual deviation in his past."

      A month or two ago, an ex-FBI investigator posted a comment on this site. In it, he dispelled many myths regarding sexual predators, including the conventional wisdom that regards them as necessarily recidivists and/or pedophiles.

      It is one of those comments one wishes one could "bookmark"
      for future reference. Whoever posted it, could possibly make a great expert witness (or rebuttal witness?) at trial
      when the subject of motive comes up.

      If someone knows the comment I'm talking about, perhaps they can re-post it for CC and for those who "rule out" John based upon on his having no motive.

      Mike G.

      Delete
  18. The enhancement of the 911 call makes it evident that John said "We're not speaking with you." What Patsy and possibly Burke said is not clear at all. BDI love having a field day on this development, but it makes more sense to me that John and Patsy were discussing this serious matter and didn't want Burke involved. Why did they lie about Burke being awake? Possibly to shield him away from the media, and to distance him from the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If you are sure they say "We're not speaking with you" thats pretty darn interesting isn't it? Doesn't John reacting that way IN FRONT of Patsy tell you both parents are involved? Would John really blow his cover talking to their child that way in front of what all of you want to claim is an innocent Patsy?

    Let's walk through this. According to Patsy, she sees the note...she checks in JB's room and a sleeping Burke. At 5:52 AM she calls 911. So, if you hear John say "We are not speaking with you" then everything we know about that morning is a LIE. John just berated his supposedly innocent son Burke in FRONT of Patsy. Sure Burke could have stumbled downstairs and John was upset...but WHY?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we tend to overanalyze everything about this case. While you could be right, I also think the JDI still has credence in the sense that John could be doing damage control on Patsy, and then a curious Burke appears.

      Delete
    2. The important thing about the alleged post-hang-up portion of Patsy's 911 call, imo, is that it should never be allowed into evidence. I've learned my lesson from CC; I'm not an attorney, and won't feign to be. Maybe a prosecutor would PREFER to have it admitted; I don't know. And maybe the defense would prefer NOT to have it admiited. Any opinions?

      Mike G

      Delete
  20. I tried posting this, so if it posts twice, then my apologies.

    It definitely could be something as simple as Burke woke up during the 911 call, stumbles downstairs asking questions and John was upset. BUT, then why not just tell that to the cops? It would be such a silly detail to lie about. In that scenario, Burke still saw and heard nothing, yet BOTH parents lied about it. This would be just one of many lies told not just by John, but by Patsy as well.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  21. First of all an aerospace company analyzed the background noise of the 911 call. I'm willing to bet that what was played for all of the rest of us over youtube or some television show lacks the clarity of what a company trained to hear sounds with high tech equipment can come up with. So yeah, to us, it sounds garbled. However, J, if John and Patsy were discussing what to do and an eavesdropping Burke says something along the lines of "well, what did you find" then "we're not speaking to you" means just exactly that. Not, as you would like to believe, "we're not speaking to you" because you killed our daughter. You see? what was said can have different interpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  22. By the way, I caution everyone to notice when someone in here "replies" or gives a comment as to the time it was sent and posted. Not arranged here squeezed in right after several people have responded. In some instances it looks as if what is said is taken out of context, but if you notice the time stamp then you can put it into context. Incidentally I tried to find Gumshoe's interpretation of the ransom note as CC suggested, but what I found was a rather lengthy explanation of John exhibiting "psychopathic" behavior March 30, 2015 8:54 a.m. That he wrote the note on his plane, which he says he was cleaning and inspecting Christmas morning (and not spending time with his family). I find that interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I find Michael Yerkey's explanation of the note, divided into four parts, more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree that the voices are so garbled on the 911 call that we really don't know what they are saying.

    They protected BR that morning and I can understand parents doing that, BUT---BR would have been the first person I would have questioned, as a parent. We don't know if PR or JR ever asked BR if he heard anything unusual that night or saw anything. Wouldn't you ask your son that, who slept on the same floor as your kidnapped daughter? I believe they told police that BR slept through it all, even the arrival of the police, neighbors, 911 call etc. I suppose that is possible, but not probable, especially after running into his room yelling "where's my baby, where's my baby?" The sequence of events, as explained by the Ramsey's that morning, do not make any sense.

    I also don't believe JR walked BR back to his room using a flashlight. I suppose it's also possible, but not probable. The only time I guided anyone around in my house using a flashlight was when we had a citywide black out. It just doesn't make any sense. That house was enormous, no one would have been bothered by a light being turned on.
    AND if he walked him back to his room using the flashlight, then went up to his own bedroom, why was the flashlight back in the kitchen?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "AND if he walked him back to his room using the flashlight, then went up to his own bedroom, why was the flashlight back in the kitchen?"

      Indeed why? Perhaps because John used it for something else downstairs, as far downstairs perhaps as the wine cellar, before he returned it to the kitchen counter and went to bed?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Yes, Inq & Mike G. That is puzzling to me. The flashlight bothers me immensely. Not only the excuse for using it, but how it landed back down in the kitchen area.
      EG

      Delete
  25. Oh God, thank you EG. I mentioned this yesterday. Yes, what was the necessity of walking Burke back to his room using the flashlight when turning on a light would not have been a problem. And if Burke was downstairs putting together his toy wouldn't a light have already been on? And, as you said, WHY then take the flashlight back downstairs and leave it where it doesn't belong - the kitchen counter. John sounds, in interviews, like a stickler for things being in their place, knows when things are out of place, and remarked in interviews that he thought there was a flashlight in his glove box or otherwise in the garage, and one in the junk drawer in the bar area under the stairs. They both think it looks "dirty", and I don't think your eyes would be that good to have fingerprinting dust alter an object as seen in a photograph so much so that it could look dirty. Awkward sentence there. John also says his flashlights were all "dead" he thought, meaning needing new batteries. Did he put new batteries in the flashlight and wipe them down simply so Burke would have something to walk up and downstairs with? Makes no sense. Did investigators even check the junk drawer to see if a Maglight was there or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) A father using a flashlight to help his son to bed doesn't mean the same father later needs it to help himself back to bed from roughly the same starting point--the kitchen. Burke wasn't exactly the athletic type--it seems to me he was (and still is) physically awkward. As an ex-navy man, John could surely have "felt" his way back upstairs and to bed without turning on any lights to alert a potentially half-awake Patsy or Burke that "something" or "someone" was up.

      2) It is beyond a reasonable doubt that whoever murdered JonBenet used a flashlight to get her out of bed and down to the basement, then afterwards used it to write the ransom note.

      3) John was the last one in the family, by his and Burke's own testimonies, to have a flashlight in his hands that night. (Patsy testified going to bed before John, and not getting up until just prior to discovering the ranson note and calling 911.)

      4) Intruder theories have all been laid to rest.

      5) All other logical inferences from established facts in this case point to the father of the house being responsible for murdering his daughter. Therefore,

      6) John Ramsey murdered JonBenet Ramsey and so far has gotten away with it.


      Mike G.

      Delete
    2. "Wasn't the athletic type" The boy took golfing and sailing lessons as well as had a basketball tutor according to his mom's Christmas letter and was in the Scouting program. He is also shown in family photos on vacation where they were on snow skis. I consider that pretty athletic despite him having some spindly legs at the time.

      Delete
  26. "Gumshoe wrote an excellent line by line analysis of the thing late last year that's well worth reading if you can find it on one of the old threads - November or December 2015, iirc.
    CC"

    Thanks for the info CC. I've been trying to find it. There's one Gumshoe wrote on Oct 5 2015 under Open Thread Part 5 but it's mainly about the SBTC acronym. That might be the analysis you're thinking of? If you think there is another one I'll go searching again.
    AMD

    ReplyDelete
  27. Didn't realize it had been that long. No, that's not it. I think this was not long after the SBTC rant, maybe a month at most? Thanks for taking the trouble, A. If you find it, will you share it's date and time?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  28. And what an SBTC rant that was! Go ahead and look for it AMD, I'm going to stop looking. Hercule is an extremely good read, however.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I just spent thirty minutes scanning November and December and can't find it either, AMD. Perhaps Doc recalls, or has even written something similar somewhere in his archives, or maybe Ms D can paraphrase it for us - she was struck by it as well.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for trying CC.

      AMD

      Delete
    2. I think I have gone through all 2015, so I'll have to give up now. :-)

      AMD

      Delete
    3. Found two long posts by Gumshoe at the end of Part Eight, January 2016, dealing with the RN. Not what I thought I recalled, exactly, but interesting.
      CC

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately, I can't find it either, CC.
      I think I remember coming across it around 18 months ago, when I first discovered this blog (though I didn't start commenting here until more recently) and I have a feeling it wasn't actually a new post at that time.....though I could be wrong, it is hard to keep track!

      Delete
  30. John Ramsey's business website.
    http://flyredtail.com/2016/07/18/redtail-spotlight-john-ramsey/

    I wonder if anyone has stopped by his place of employment or called to harass him about this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now THAT would be an inviting a lawsuit! You can count me out!

      Delete
    2. Lmao I didn't say I was going to do it. I'm just curious if it has happened before.

      Delete
  31. I think PR's interviews reveal that she was involved in a cover-up, at least by the time of her 1998 interview:

    TOM HANEY: So you said it wasn't you and it wasn't John. Could it have been Burke?
    PATSY RAMSEY: No. It wouldn't have been Burke.
    TOM HANEY: Why couldn't it?
    PATSY RAMSEY: How do you believe you saw (INAUDIBLE) a ten-year old, nine-year old boy (INAUDIBLE). Plus the fact that he loved his sister.
    TOM HANEY: It's not unheard of for a nine or ten-year old child?
    PATSY RAMSEY: My child it is unheard of.
    TOM HANEY: And why is that? What would make him different from some other nine or ten-year old?
    PATSY RAMSEY: Because he was not raised in a family of violence. We are a very loving family.
    TOM HANEY: Could it have been an accident?
    PATSY RAMSEY: I -- don't know.
    TOM HANEY: Well you and I don't know because we weren't there?
    PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

    PR is asked if it could have been an accident, and she says, "I -- don't know."

    If the circumstances of the kidnapping/murder are taken at face value, how could this possibly be considered an accident? JBR was found bound and gagged with a garrote around her neck. She appeared to have been bashed over the head, sexually assaulted and strangled. There was a lengthy ransom note that included threats to behead JBR.

    PR's response makes no sense unless she knows that all is not as it seems. If she was totally innocent and truly believed it was an intruder, the question about whether it was an accident would have seemed ludricous and unthinkable.

    The fact that PR considers the possibility of an accident for even ONE SECOND is very telling, in my opinion.

    There is only one element of the complex scene that could have been an accident - the blow to the head - and so I assume this is what PR must be thinking of when she answers.

    I believe PR knew something about that head blow.

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I---don't know."

      Patsy by that time, aided by John's powers of suggestion, may have been contemplating the murder as a kidnapping "gone wrong". Or, she may have had repressed suspicions that John was involved but couldn't bring herself to accept the truth.
      The subconcious mind hears the concious mind hearing the word "accident", hoping for a split second it has at last found an escape from it's burden. But alas, and just as quickly, the concious mind says...down girl down!...a sexually-abused, strangled, and head-bashed-in JonBenet could not have died this way. Her pause or stuttering could have reflected the conflict between her conscious and sub-conscious minds wanting to believe two different things.

      Is there evidence of this elsewhere? Hell yes.

      1) Who, if anyone, told who, to make the 911 call.
      2) What did Patsy know or not know about the broken window.
      3) Patsy was highly medicated on Valium---no small thing, see below.
      http://drugabuse.com/library/the-effects-of-valium-use/
      4) See DocG--I'm sure he has other examples.

      Mike G.

      Delete
  32. Still no news regarding Lin Wood's CBS lawsuit. I have a feeling John must have persuaded him to leave it alone. While there is no proof of Burke's involvement, there is a ton of evidence pointing away from any intruder theory, so even if Lin were to "win" the case, the myth of Ramsey "exoneration" could be seriously damaged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's got 'til September 2017 to file, and I think he's hanging back, hoping to get more information he can use against CBS from deposing Spitz in the ongoing lawsuit. CBS will be a tougher row to how.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Hoe. Damned new phone auto corrects - incorrectly.
      CC

      Delete
  33. I just need to put this out here

    - IF JR was molesting JBR, it would have been the first child he did this to. There is no record of any others and nobody has ever alleged that he did any hard to them
    - IF JR was the murderer of JB, this would have been his first murder that we know of. There is no record of him ever having murdered anybody

    After reading thru so many of the post’s primarily from the JDI team, you would think John Ramsey is Jason Bourne. I joked about it before, but with some of the things I read on here, its becoming both scary and laughable that John Ramsey has morphed into some criminal mastermind.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  34. EG, I do not believe that flashlight was the murder weapon. It's far more logical to me to think that it was used in the commission of the crime to assist in revising the note, putting the notepad and pen back, and inserting the pages at the foot of the stairs. It would have been used after she was carried to the basement or when removing her from her bed. It possibly wasn't the Ramsey's flashlight. But it did need to be wiped down. There would be absolutely no reason for John to wipe Burke's fingerprints off their own flashlight, or his own fingerprints. Second assertion: it was not the murder weapon. The neighbor heard a scream and her husband shortly thereafter heard "metal scraping on concrete." The baseball bat was found outside by the metal grate and it had carpet fibers from the basement on it. The fibers were actually the same as the basement carpet. The bat was originally kept in the basement, and while the intruder/s were in the basement used objects of convenience. I believe a stun gun was used, which they brought, (really Doc, she picked up those equidistant circular abrasions by rolling around on her cluttered floor?)and the black tape and white chord. Flashlight, dime a dozen maglight, could have been anyone's. But her head blow was forceful and severe. Spitz said the flashlight fit the head wound, but did he try the baseball bat? No.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your the 1 who said it was the murder weapon.

      Delete
    2. Inq,

      It's hard for me to buy the IDI theory without there being a motive. If it was kidnapping, they didn't kidnap her and if it was to rob the house, they took nothing.

      And if they had the key, why use the window with the grate to get out. Why not leave the way they came?
      As far as the weapon, I guess either would fit the wound--bat or flashlight.

      EG


      Delete
    3. The one thing we can rule out is the CBS special as being truthful. ha. Any information imparted there is spurious to say the least. EG, the intruder knew the note would throw everyone off - the family, law enforcement. It was a sick joke written by a sick individual.( They say in the note they are "well acquainted with the tactics of LE" - maybe they really were, well acquainted. This note could have been a middle finger at both JR, and LE. I think they used a key to get in - either one that was given, one that was copied, or Patsy's key she kept in the yard (never recovered) and simply left the way they came in.

      Delete
    4. EG - bat found on concrete slab outside the house. Possibly having to do with sound of metal scraping concrete, but who knows. Someone could have been messing with the grate. Don't know.

      Delete
    5. " the intruder knew the note would throw everyone off - the family, law enforcement. It was a sick joke written by a sick individual.( They say in the note they are "well acquainted with the tactics of LE" - maybe they really were, well acquainted. This note could have been a middle finger at both JR, and LE."

      So it's pure coincidence that every, single instruction in that note happened to benefit John in some way with regards to buying time and an alibi?

      Delete
  35. What we need to be asking here is who would want to hurt the Ramsey family and specifically John Ramsey by entering his house and taking the life of their daughter. You are getting nowhere by painting John Ramsey as a psychopathic incestuous child killer, and haven't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you know so much about what "we" need to be asking, maybe you can tell us where "we" need to go.

      I know where you can go....

      Delete
    2. Curmudgeon- like reply Anony. Where the BPD needs to go is reopen this case, raise the money for it, have it be important enough for them to want to, widen the net to include those that would have wanted to harm the Ramseys, specifically John. Find out where the three missing keys went (6 out of 9 given out were recovered), look at someone other than the three family members, but don't rule them out, just shift the focus in order to get more information. If they think she was sexually abused in the past widen that net too - who else was in the home when the parents were not. Why would John Andrew's semen stained blanket be in a suitcase and not in the wash? How often was he sleeping in the bedroom next to hers? Who babysat there frequently. That is if you think she was sexually abused prior to Dec. 25. Takes money to reopen this case, but wouldn't it be worth it?

      Delete
  36. A stun gun wasn't used. She would have screamed bloody murder. It's not a device used to quietly subdue an individual. I'm not just saying this due to the CBS special. My cop buddy was tazed as a rite of passage before becoming a cop. He said there's no way a stun gun would be advantageous on a six year old. My friend's a big dude and he was screaming and in severe discomfort. He said that even by covering her mouth it would not be a quiet scene. Someone in the house would have heard something.

    It's bad enough we're supposed to believe this phantom intruder was in the house for hours without being heard, and didn't bring any supplies with him. A stun gun is just absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to clarify here, a stun gun is not the same as a taser. I own a stun gun and they are very loud. A stun gun was demonstrated on the adult in the CBS special. A taser has little "darts" ejected from the device with wires that stay attached to the taser gun.

      Delete
  37. So is accusing us of calling JR psychotic. No JDI has alleged he suffered from the hallucinations or delusions of severe mental illness. I thought you had recently morphed from
    an online researcher for P.I.s to a psych grad, Inquisitive?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  38. Herewith, an excellent article on "gaslightling".

    http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  39. Not a psych grad - B.A. in Psych, several semesters in graduate school (5 classes) - didn't finish getting the M.A., was interrupted by child rearing and single motherhood. Much later - several years ago, I did online research for two P.I.'s, appears on a resume but I don't consider myself an expert in that field. I was successful in finding what I was paid to find, for a rookie I think I did pretty well. Everyone in here has raised good points to support why they believe how they do. Nearly all of the puzzle pieces are there, they just aren't arranged in a way that makes sense - to me. To some it's a slam dunk, it's over, they are convinced. But I do have to wonder if you are so convinced, why didn't anyone in 20 years believe the same way enough to make an arrest, or reopen this case. People have come and gone in this blog forum too - Bluenote, (sp) Gumshoe, Hercule, still - no completion, no resolution just talk. It's fun, but I have no answers. So I will keep questioning until finally I will move on the way others have. And yes, Gumshoe called John a psychopath several times. As for stun gun, Smit believed if it was held against the skin it would not have made as much noise as if at more of a distance, and if she was already knocked unconscious and was coming out of it (two areas of wound on her body) there would be no screaming bloody murder. We do not have an accurate time of death, vitreous fluids were not taken from her eye which would have narrowed the time of death occurring. The coroner didn't even know the sequence of events. Wecht thinks strangulation came first. Yes Zach, that the house was quiet all night and no one heard anything is baffling. But the neighbors heard something, they also saw strange lights in the kitchen which would suggest a flashlight was used to light the scene. I heard four gunshots at 2 a.m. summer before last. When I asked the maintenance man here who lives here he said he didn't hear anything. The next day it was on the news - man shoots four shots into garage at the neighborhood directly behind mine. I had a better listening spot than he did. And I noted the time.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lots of folks misuse the term "psychopath", confusing it with "sociopath"; interestingly, only two I know of with an alleged background in psychology - you and your hero, Hercule, who also shares your penchant for posting misinformation.

    No one has been charged in twenty years? Sure they have. The GJ handed down indictments against John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999 but Alex Hunter failed to prosecute.

    Those indictments, by,the way, make your IDI position impossible, unless you want to try to persuade me that the Ramseys, jointly or severally, aided an unnamed party in the commission of the first degree murder of their daughter, as specified in the second count.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think the GJ got it right by handing down those indictments. However, I do have a question. Am I right in saying they found JR and PR guilty because they failed to properly protect JBR and therefore were negligent?
    I am not a lawyer, and am just trying to understand the charges that would have been brought against them.
    Negligence isn't murder, even if their negligence resulted in their child's murder, is that correct?

    “unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health,” which resulted in her death."

    What did they consider "unreasonable placed"? In a bedroom, in a house without the alarm being turned on? Someone please explain this to me. Thank you.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Child abuse resulting in death is the formal charge, and it covers a multitude of sins including things like inadequate diet resulting in starvation and other sorts of negligence. Impossible to say what the GJ was referring to without more information.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Thanks, CC. Can we assume the GJ was given information we don't know which resulted in their finding?

      I agree they were negligent for various reasons, but I'd be called an overprotective mother and probably thrown off the jury. To have JBR sleeping where she was to me, at her age was not only impractical, it was also negligent. She had a room that had a door which lead to an outside balcony. Not to mention the fact that they obviously couldn't hear if she was in any type of distress and she was steps away from the kitchen and the main doors to the house. She was the youngest child and yet slept the farthest away from the parents. If those children woke up and went downstairs the parents would have never known. JBR was 6 years old and often slept in her brother's room. She was probably frightened to death in that part of the house. It's no wonder she wet the bed nightly.

      EG

      Delete
    3. You're correct that he GJ did not charge the Ramseys with murder, EG. They were charged with child abuse resulting in death in the first indictment and aiding an unnamed person in the commission of first degree (premeditated) murder in the second.

      Since it's doubtful either or both parents would have aided an intruder in the murder of their daughter, and since Burke could not, under the law, be charged with murder, it seems the GJ could not determine which Ramsey did the deed, and elected to charge both with what they could and let a jury sort it out at trial. Unusual, but not unheard of.

      It could have worked, too, had Hunter not been so spineless. Had he charged both, exhumed the body and found still further evidence of sexual abuse, I believe the scales would have fallen from Patsy's eyes, she would have been appalled, and turned on John. Armchair prosecuting is a lot like armchair quarterbacking, and I haven't seen the evidence, but I like to think that's what I would have done.
      CC

      Delete
  42. Replies
    1. Thanks, Inq. I guess I am just trying to understand what the charges were and how they would've been charged. I am not a lawyer or an investigator of any kind.

      I think Burke knew more than he admitted to, just not sure what he knew, heard, saw, took part in, etc.

      I so want to believe an IDI, because to believe parents or a sibling could commit such a heinous crime is inconceivable to most "normal" people. However the IDI theory makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. It was neither a kidnapping or a robbery. It was murder, made to look like a kidnapping. You have to ask yourself why?

      EG

      Delete
    2. EG I think Leigh answers your question below, time stamped 11:24 a.m. 12/8.

      Delete
  43. I think Burke did hear and see something. Afterall, her bedroom was on his floor. The social worker said his behavior indicated he was very protective of his parents. His parents could have talked to him and let him know that they were under suspicion by the police dept. so whatever he saw or heard that night might have been something he thought could indicate his parents had a hand in it so he acted evasive. What might he have seen? A flashlight coming up the stairs, muffled noises, talking, footsteps on the stairs, sounds entering or exiting the house.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree. When Dr Phil asked him about that he bit both his upper and lower lips..as if he was being careful not to say anything..dont talk about it.. locking his lips closed.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The GJ lacks any credibility. They were exposed to media hype and police leaks, for over a year. Plus their names and pictures were on front page news.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The problem you all have with the RN is that you are attributing it to a normal, rational, well adjusted, average person writing it and not to a psychopathic killer..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No we don't Leigh.
      We attribute the RN to John Ramsey. And no JDI here believes he is rational or normal. Keep up.

      Delete
  47. Mike, you said upstream, "Patsy by that time, aided by John's powers of suggestion, may have been contemplating the murder as a kidnapping "gone wrong"."

    I agree it is possible that she may have been thinking about it as a kidnapping gone wrong. I believe that JR and PR actually staged JBR's death to look that way, so in fairness I can't rule that out altogether. I do think PR gets a little confused about what scenario she is meant to be selling.

    The reason I think that this is less likely here, though, is the context of the question. The investigator is actually asking PR to consider whether BR could have accidentally hurt JBR, and for a moment she allows that to be considered as a possibility.

    I agree with you that the Rs unwittingly reveal some of their subconscious thoughts. I think it is hard for them to avoid that given that they are discussing a very traumatic event.

    It is one of the reasons that I believe PR may have heard JBR scream that night - just from things that are said and not said in the interviews. However, it is purely speculation on my part of course.

    AMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The interview took place over a year after the murder, that's why I prefaced my comment with "by that time". Patsy needed to believe whatever it took NOT to believe John was involved; even if it meant believing a "kidnapper" either screwed up royally by either forgetting to take the body with him or the ransom note. That's far different than hypothesizing that "JR and PR actually staged JBR's death to look that way". Let's not pretend we're agreeing on anything here when we're not. I believe your theory is absurd for all the reasons that have been discussed a million times over.

      Mike G

      Delete
  48. CNN will be running a special report next Tuesday night. I noticed the advertising only tonight. For some reason the link has no audio, but everything else does. Maybe they will fix this over the next few days:

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/08/exp-cnn-creative-marketing-the-murder-of-jonbenet.cnn

    GS

    ReplyDelete
  49. I feel i have to speak after watching an after the fact "tell all" version of this case on OWN. First of all the investigation was fumbled from the start. What seasoned officer sends any family member in the house where any crime or abduction occurred to search the house without police presence. Then point out the fact that they found the child, that was an investigators job from the beginning. Obviously you didn't do your job it was a half assed search. That whole house should have been well searched. Then to accuse based on the parents not wanting to talk to police and lawyering up. Lets be real this is a family thats lives in a house so big that even the police couldn't properly search it, to just assume that their reaction is not right is absurd they are an eccentric family maybe but doesn't make them guilty. Then when the police do find plausible leads they do not investigate because you believe you have it figured out is a travesty of justice for that little girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd research this case before you form an opinion based off a biased special.

      Delete
    2. I see this was posted yesterday Jenifer York and I couldn't agree with you more. Whether you cling to one theory or another matters not. That investigation was botched. Which worked in the intruder's favor - a perfect storm of police ineffectiveness, investigator bias, political in-fighting, and Oh Holy Night (no one really minding the town store).

      Delete
  50. A new day, a new dawn. Just watched an msnbc video dated 7/23/04 with Deborah Norville interviewing John and Patsy Ramsey when John ran for State Representative in Michigan titled "John Ramsey Runs for Public Office." You would think he would not want the media attention back on him having just gotten away with the crime of the century, being the sociopathic child abuser and murderer painted here. Patsy states she just finished another round of chemo and is hoping for the best, is lucid, happy, certainly not cowed in any way sitting next to John, not foggy or drugged, not disoriented. Two people trying to get on with their lives after being totally devastated by their loss. And of course as we know there was more tragedy to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the comments I've read from others, Inquisitive, you're comment is misleading.

      http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?5061-Deborah-Norville-Ramseys-YADAYADA

      The evidence for John-as-narcissist-gaslighter just seems to be building IMO.

      Mike G

      Delete
  51. DR. Phil: "when you checked on Burke did he.. was he disturbed at all by that?"did he wake up at all by the scream? JR : no he was asleep still" didn't Burke tell DR Phil police came in his room shining light on him (flashlight )mother screaming oh my gosh my baby my baby? JR recently interviews now that he has been exonerated , tends to lie or forget, he told Dr Phil (I just opened the door and there she was" but didn't say I UNLATCHED the door , looks like someone else had latched it HMMM wonder who? wasn't he down basement at 10:am? I believe this case should be and can be opened all witnesses put on the stand , what the H*** is wrong with that Police Dept? its right under their nose who committed this crime , I have read many times that JR went missing that morning for about an hr ? where was the detective ? what the heck was she doing ? wasn't he questioned about his whereabouts ? what was he doing rearranging the crime scene? what about making more plans to travel To MI on the day of finding his daughter murdered ? is this true? he says it isn't . here is a man of intelligence and takes orders from a rooky detective to (search ) and find anything out of the ordinary " that was not his Job where were the Police? driving around Boulder looking for a killer? NAH!!! to many lies , he got away with too much. time to pull him in questioned again before he gets too old , Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  52. A agree Anony. more questions than answers. I don't know about police protocol but when something new occurs to an investigator they most probably have to get permission to re-question. And with John and Patsy lawyer-ed up it would have been one of the many roadblocks to the truth. For what it's worth I think JR found her body earlier, when he "disappeared". Then had a drastic change in behavior as observed by Det. Arnt. What does this suggest? It suggests to me that he DID NOT know what happened to her prior to finding her body. But he had a major suspicion. Once he found her body he knew that call for ransom was not going to be made. By 1:00 he grows even more agitated. They were all just sitting around, Patsy in the sunroom with her friends and pastor, John and Fleet, until Arnt tasks John to take one more look around. Might as well end the sham of "kidnapped daughter" and goes right to her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So let me get this straight. John Ramsey is completely innocent according to you, but just fiddled his thumbs while knowing jbr's body was in the basement instead of telling authorities immediately? That's innocent behavior? Hilarious.

      Delete
    2. Also if he had alerted Arnt "I just found my daughter," she would want to know why he thought to look there, in a room hidden from view. OR, finding the body confirmed his suspicions, that someone close to him had killed her - although I don't want to necessarily go there, that's for Hercule.

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

      Delete
  53. Not innocent of what? What we do know is he did disappear, out of sight from Det. Arnt. When he came back she reports that his demeanor changed. When backup still hadn't come he grew more and more agitated. So why did he sit and agitate for two hours and not tell Arnt: "I did your job for you, I searched my own house and found my daughter in the basement" - I don't know what was going through his mind. My hypothesis was that if he found the body himself on or around 11 a.m. and his demeanor changed then that suggests he did not know where it was or cause it to be there prior to finding it the second time at 1:00, when he went right to it - having already known where it was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can use evidence to fit my theory too Inquisitive.

      1) Fleet went in wine cellar earlier and did not see JBR.

      2) John disappears at 10:00 after kidnappers call doesn't come through. Runs downstair, retrieves JBR from corner of wine cellar and places her on the middle of the floor, setting the stage for what he now comes to believe with absolute certainty will be a discovery of the body today. Or perhaps, HE changed his mind and, because of the umbrella of suspicion he felt he was under, he saw no chance of the house being "unwatched" that night, and therefore no chance for him to dispose of the body without being seen. So he puts JB where Fleet checked earlier, right on the floor in front of any person who opens the door to the wine cellar and peeks inside, to cast suspicion on Fleet.

      3) He runs upstairs and outside to dispose of evidence he had intended to dispose of later that night.

      4) John returns at 11:00 A.M to looks of consternation from friends and police who were wondering where he was. Conceals his nerves as best possible, but even stone-faced John has limits.

      5) Between 11:00 and 1:00 John starts getting more and more agitated becuase now he WANTS the body discovered ASAP. (On top of that, he remembers having moved JBR from hidden corner to center stage without gloves on? Who know, only speculating, right?)

      6) At 1:00 Arndt makes her grand mistake and tells John and Fleet to search the house. John makes a bee line to wine cellar to "discover" John Benet and make her understandably "contaminated" with his bodily effluvia by bringing her upstairs even though Arndt told him not to touch anything he found that looked suspicious.

      7) John later calls John Andrew and makes a freudian mental slip of sorts by telling him he "discovered" JB at 11:00.

      Mike G



      Delete
    2. Yes, Mike G, he did tell John Andrew he discovered the body at 11. Glad you caught that. Which would, again, account for his not reacting when the ransom call didn't come in (Arnt)and his demeanor - which went from "cordial" (Arnt), to despondent, to agitated. Which only supports my theory that he did not kill her since he FOUND her. But that's cool that you are trying to think it through. I have to tell you last night I had a horrible nightmare about someone clubbing neighbors with a baseball bat, and chasing me up a road which was named "Burke Street."

      Delete
    3. Also Mike I've heard others in here say both John and Patsy contaminated whatever evidence would be gleaned from JB's body by a. picking her up or b. throwing herself on her but what could that be? Even the touch DNA found on her longjohns didn't belong to John or Patsy.

      Delete
    4. thank you Mike G, I am trying to figure this out with out reading any more of Johns lies , early that morning Police arrive, he {Policeman) goes to basement and did a half hearted attempt to open the W-cellar door and was not aware of the latch , why didn't this officer ask John to help him open it? or why didn't he kick it open ? in the mean time JonBenet body was inside? at ten in the morning John goes back down the basement with friend apparently he was able to unlock and open the door and did not see anything ? but when JR goes back down the basement@ 1:30pm he {Unlatched} the door according to his interrogation, ,is when he said he found JonBenet, so he must have latched it after Fleet had looked in? he must have been tampering with crime scene
      When he went missing for about an hr , why didn't Linda A take off looking for him ? did he leave with his vehicle and discard of the evidence? or was he on the premises .
      Every inch of that house should have been searched for clues even after the body of JonBenet was found, wow! what a botched investigation , gotta send the R.C.M.P down there they always get their man , kidding.
      Well I'll tell ya Mike they don't need Sherlock Holmes to solve this case,
      his house alarm was not activated , he claimes it was too loud , I have a house alarm Yes it is loud its suppose to be loud. this was a chance to go in and out of house with-out being detected , sorry for the rant , I get so angry because this little girl cant get justice, she is happy and with pretty angels like her . RIP sweet heart , we will find the culprit someday ..

      Delete
    5. "Also Mike I've heard others in here say both John and Patsy contaminated whatever evidence would be gleaned from JB's body by a. picking her up or b. throwing herself on her but what could that be? Even the touch DNA found on her longjohns didn't belong to John or Patsy."

      The problem in this case, IMO, isn't so much the contamination itself, but the impropriety by which the crime scene was handled. It has been an unecessary (again IMO) stumbling block to the BPD/DA making an arrest, and will likely be a major hurdle for the prosecution, if or when, the case comes to trial. I realize this flies in the face of the "theory" I outlined above, but I was just trying to demonstrate how fitting facts to theories is little more than confirmation bias.

      I think John was a lot more up to date on available forensics of the day, and where it was headed in the future, than the police were careful to observe those same state-of-the-art crime-scene handling techniques. While this has obviously contributed to buying time for John, like Doc, I don't believe it ensures his future exoneration.

      I'd like to hear what CC has to say about this, since he's the lawyer here, not me. In other words, CC, if you're reading this, let's hypothesize that John had done what Arndt had asked him to do. He finds his daughter, but doesn't touch her. The police come and nothing more or less is discovered forensically speaking than what was discovered after John finished "contaminating" the body upstairs. (I think the last "contamination" act was his throwing a blanket over her.) How much differently would things have gone in this case had that been the scenario that played itself out?

      Mike G

      Delete
    6. Anonymous:

      From what I understand, the arriving policeman was merely looking for potential ports of entry since he had no reason to believe a "kidnapper" would kill and leave behind his hostage. (I'm sure this case has since changed such police assumptions, but I digress.)

      Fleet White, however, WAS looking for a JonBenet who may have been hiding because his daughter had played a similiar type trick on him and Priscilla a few days earlir. That explains why he at least opened the door and peered inside.

      Much has been written about what he actually "saw" when he looked in. Doc is better versed on all the conflicting testimonies than I am. Some believe it was the time of day that made the room particulary dark. Others say the time of day contributed to a lag time for White's eyes to properly adjust to the light conditions, so that while he did peer in, he was unable to see anything. I'm still uncertain what tests were later conducted by investigators and what conclusions were drawn.

      However, had White seen the body, he would have surely said something. To the best of my knowledge, this is the "official" version of what he saw:

      "Mr. White also opened the door to the wine cellar room, but he could not see anything inside because it was dark and he could not find the light switch. (SMF P 29; PSMF P 29; White Dep. at 159-61.)" (Carnes 2003:14).

      From: http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682461/December%2026

      There is on the same site, testimony about a "chair" blocking some door, but I don't see how it fits in. (Doc?)

      What I find interesting is John's conflicting testimony as to when he first searched the basement ALONE. It seems he tries vehemently NOT to remember that time as being bewteen 10:OO A.M. and Noon.

      continued on next post....Mike G

      Delete
    7. "Between 7:00-8:00 AM John Ramsey Searched Basement. "at around ten a.m., Mr. Ramsey also searched the basement area alone. He testified he found the broken window partially open. (SMF P 30; PSMF P 30; J. Ramsey Dep. at 30.) Under the broken window, Mr. Ramsey also saw the same suitcase seen earlier by Mr. White. Mr. Ramsey testified that the suitcase belonged to his family, but was normally stored in a different place. (SMF P 31; 16 PSMF P 31; J. Ramsey Dep. at 17.) *1331 Mr. Ramsey then returned upstairs. Plaintiff Chris Wolf theorizes that Mr. Ramsey actually found JonBenét's body at this time. (PSDMF P 57.)" (Carnes 2003:14]. Internet poster Bluecrab claims he did more than just check the window. It appears that Carnes may have this time wrong. In his 1998 testimony, John Ramsey provides several different times for when he searched the basement on his own. He first states "It would have been that time period: seven to nine." (p. 155, lines 19-20) and later reiterates "it was probably some time between seven and nine" (p. 157, lines 12-13). When asked whether it was before or after Whites and Fernies arrived, John stated: "I think it was after, because they came fairly early" (p. 174, lines 1-2). He then reiterated: "The best I can do is, it was, I believe, after the police came. Because they had gone through the house before I figured out what I'm going to do. It was before ten o'clock. They had already done some preparation before that. So it would have been before. Probably before nine. So then somewhere between seven and nine." (p. 174, lines 5-11). But when reminded that the RN said a phone call would come between 8 and 10 AM, NOT 10-12 AM, as John had supposed, John made clear that he had visited the basement prior to that time since "When we were ready for the phone call and I was prepped about what I was going to say and I was getting the family ready. And so between that period of time we were just waiting for the phone call and I was near the phone. And I was either in the study or on the first floor. I just waiting for it." (p. 174, lines 22-25; p. 175, lines 1-3). In response to a query from Mike Kane, John Ramsey confirmed that his trip to the basement "would have been before that time period." (p. 175, lines 6-7). However, Internet poster Amber believes John must have visited the basement before either Fleet White or Officer French since he found a chair in front of the train room door and there's no good reason to believe White or French would have re-blocked the door with the chair after they entered the train room (which both did according to their own accounts). If so, John's trip would have been before 6:00 AM." (Ibid)

      continued on next post...Mike G

      Delete
    8. last post on this topic....I promise!

      The conventional wisdom is that John mysteriously disappeared between 10 and 11 A.M, yet the site I'm referencing makes no mention of this, whereas other sites do. So why would John not want the time to be after the phone call---sometime after 10 but before 1:00 PM?

      Because soon after the call did not come through, MOST people left the house, including ALL investigators except Linda Arndt! What a perfect time to disappear for an hour, stage JB's body in the wine cellar, and dispose of evidence!

      As to why Arndt didn't go looking for John during that hour, I don't know. Very little is known about all the things that happened between 10 am-1 Pm. If John did tamper with the body while he was gone, I would think he would have wanted to make sure Fleets testimony that he couldn't find the light switch" meant nothing more than that. He either talked to Fleet in private just before he disappeared, or he overheard what Fleet reported back to the police earlier that morning, and took the chance that seeing nothing because of darkness included the floor a step or two away from the door. Only two people know the answer to this so far as I know...Fleet White and John Ramsey. While that opens the door to F&JDI theories, rediculous as they may sound, I think Fleet is publically holding back on SOME testimony best kept private until it is heard in court for the first time. Potential smoking guns lose their smoke when exposed to too much oxygen.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    9. I agree with most, if not all, of your theory, Mike.

      Inquisitive, I'm having dreams about the case also, unsettling aren't they? By the way, I used to work in "Burke Street", it's the main strip in Melbourne's CBD.....us Melbournians even have a colloquialism dedicated to it. :P
      Sorry for the interruption......do carry on!

      Delete
    10. John touching, moving and covering the body probably had no impact, Mike. After all, a fiber from his Israeli-made shirt was found in JBR'S panties, and that has to be disregarded, as all trace evidence in a shared home is useless in court, given the daily physical contact between householders.
      CC

      Delete
    11. OK, first of all: "Others say the time of day contributed to a lag time for White's eyes to properly adjust to the light conditions, so that while he did peer in, he was unable to see anything."

      Actually it's the opposite. At that early time of day it would still have been dark, so Fleet's eyes would have been dark-adapted, making it easier for him to see in the dark. By 1PM, on the other hand, John's eyes would not have been dark adapted, making it harder for him to see into that very dark little room.

      John's story about the chair blocking the door makes little sense, as becomes clear as he is questioned on that topic. Sounds like he was most likely improvising at that point, i.e, blowing smoke.

      As for the shirt fibers, they were found in a brand new pair of panties, straight out of their plastic container. Not on, but IN. Not easy to explain how they could have got there on their own.

      Delete
    12. As for the timing, John testified he saw the suitcase flush against the wall, and the window open, which means he must have been down there before Fleet. I think he was probably down there doing damage control while Patsy was phoning her friends.

      Delete
  54. And by the way Hercule, I've given you an opening here and I think you can guess why.

    ReplyDelete
  55. We can all guess why, you're hardly a cipher: you've fallen under the spell of that poor fraud and are about to embrace PDI and his ridiculous Poopy Pants Theory. You were due to change theories, and what else is left?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harumph. If you want to argue that John did not find the body around 11 a.m. that's fine.

      Delete
    2. Not going to bother. It's as silly as most of the rest of your pronouncements.

      I do think you should respect Herc's Thanksgiving message that he's been in poor health and fighting for his life and leave him the hell alone - he'll come back when he's ready, and he'll be welcome.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Yep, that I will do from here on out.

      Delete
  56. It's the holiday season folks! You know what that means! A theory change from Inquisitive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just giving Hercule an opening. We should take a straw poll in here though - "how many people have changed their minds in 20 years, and how often." Then we can out everyone.

      Delete
    2. We could include Mary Lacy as well - she went from Bill McReynolds, to John Mark Karr, to unknown intruder.

      Delete
    3. Every time you change theories, Inquisitive, you always ask "How many people have changed their minds in twenty years?", when what you should be asking is "How many people have entertained EVERY, SINGLE theory in the space of three months?" And your answer will be zero.
      In twenty years, I've changed my mind once. I went from IDI - because I initially didn't have enough information about the case - to JDI. Why would I change my mind again, since no compelling information has come to light that points elsewhere? Why would *you* when you still have no more information than you did last week when you were firmly IDI? I personally don't know of anyone who has gone from RDI to JDI to BDI to IDI to PDI in the twenty years since the crime, let alone in mere months. It says a lot about how easily swayed you are, making everything you say worthless, because next week you'll be peddling a new theory. If there was someone else here who changed their mind as often as you, I'm sure you would be one of the first to call them out as being insincere, so surely you can understand our skepticism.....

      Delete
    4. Because someone says I'm changing my theory does not make it so. I am not. I was originally Patsy, as most people were having been influenced by the tabloids, rumor and innuendo. I did no research on my own other than buying the occasional book to come along. Hearing Burke was being interviewed on Dr. Phil jump started my interest as well as reading Kolar's book several years before. Which then lead me to this blog. I thought Doc had an interesting theory, plausible even, but as I became more engaged here I began to rule certain theories and VERY subjective reasoning out. Which led me back to an IDI, with caveat as I explained months ago - not as Smit presented - but as someone with a key. Then I had to examine why. What was the motive. Why leave a note. So what I believe to date has evolved. I've been taught to think. And to consider possibilities. I am not trying here to convince. I appreciate everyone's point of view. What I don't appreciate is someone sitting back and making sarcastic comments (not you) instead of asking "can this be so?" I do not believe you are skeptical of my thinking at all. I believe you and a few others have made up your mind, and a closed mind will not solve this case, and hasn't. Some in here prefer to keep an open mind. Oh how Gumshoe went off on tangents! Yet, that was acceptable because he was trying to prove JR did it. His comments were not met with dripping sarcasm the way Hercule's was. When Leigh and I agree we shouldn't be engaged!

      This place is even bigger than a place to unravel a mystery, Doc. It's a sociological environment to see what we think, why, how effectively we can argue what we think and how we treat others viewpoint if it differs from our own. This is how I work out conundrums. I consider all sides. You don't have to believe the messenger Ms D, just consider the message.

      Delete
    5. The message is, as usual, garbled.

      If you posted facts rather than a constant stream of misinformation and displayed some sort of intellectual rigour, I would not be so critical. As it is, ya' pays your money and ya' takes your chances when you post online. We're a lot more benign than most blogs, and I tried to help you several times at the outset, but you simply will not desist from posting "how [you] work out conundrums". I'm sorry, but your every random thought is neither interesting nor helpful, particularly when couched in untruths and false assumptions

      And don't presume to understand what passed between Herc and I. He too posted many misstatements, and insulted, bullied and disparaged those who disagreed with him. I called him on it, repeatedly and successfully, and will do so again - and he'll expect nothing else.
      CC

      Delete
    6. The case is solved, just apparently not to your satisfaction.

      While I do not believe I have been sarcastic, I have been and continue to be "skeptical of [your] thinking" and critical of your frequent misstatements and outright untruths. I tried to help you when you first began here, but you persist in posting nonsense, then back pedaling furiously when corrected. Your posting of every random thought lacks intellectual rigour and, while it may further your process, is less than fascinating to the rest of us and actually diminishes anything you may actually have to contribute.

      And do not presume to understand what passed between Herc and I. He too posted misinformation, and bullied, insulted and denigrated others who disagreed with him into the bargain. I called him on it, frequently and successfully, and when he returns he'll expect nothing less.

      Ya' pays your money and ya' takes your chances, Inquisitive. Wise up.
      CC

      Delete
    7. Thanks for your well thought out reply, Inquisitive. I must admit, I do prefer debating with a person who is willing to reconsider their position after reviewing the evidence, rather than one who will never change their stance simply as a matter of principal.

      Delete
    8. The case has been solved, Inquisitive, just not to your satisfaction.

      While I do not believe that I have been sarcastic, I have been and continue to be critical of your frequent misstatements and outright untruths; when corrected you backpedal furiously, but nothing changes. While posting your every random thought may help your process, it is less than fascinating to the rest of us, lacks intellectual rigour, and diminishes anything you may actually have to contribute.

      Do not presume to understand what passed between Herc and I. He too posted much misinformation and bullied, insulted and denigrated others who disagreed with him. I called him on it, frequently and successfully, and will do so again when he returns - and he'll expect nothing less.

      Ya' pays your money and ya' takes your chances when you post online, Inquisitive.
      CC

      Delete
    9. I have cited where I get my information every time. I have quoted directly from news sources or websites, I have listed book page numbers as confirmation. Odd that you use the word bullied. Look in a mirror CC

      Delete
    10. Thank you Ms D. You have said things that have made me stop and ponder. Many of you have been in here for five years. I have to wonder if this case is solved as CC says, why keep debating the issue?

      Delete
    11. Don't embarass yourself any further. Go back to September and make a list of your misstatements, with and without attribution. They occur on every thread, virtually every day, Doc chided you for them early on, and I'm hardly the only one who has remarked upon them.

      While you're about it, make note of the fact that I tried to help you several times at the outset, hardly the act of a bully.
      CC

      Delete
    12. Don't embarass yourself any further.  Go back to September and make a list of your misstatements - with and without attribution. They occur on every thread, virtually every day.  Doc chided you for them, and I am hardly the only one who has remarked upon them.

      While you're about it, make note of the fact that I tried to help you several times early on, hardly the act of a bully.
      CC

      Delete
  57. John Ramsey/BPD interview June 23, 1998:
    Smit, Mike Kane, Bryan Morgan, David Williams:

    Smit: You must have a mental picture of the type of person this is. I mean, in your mind. I know I have a mental picture of various people that I would look at. But I'm sure you think about this all the time.

    John Ramsey: Oh, absolutely, every day. You know. Of course, my first instinct is, it was a man. Because of some of the similarities, apparently in Patsy's handwriting, I wondered if it was a woman. The ransom note seemed childish, in terms of a young person. I think this person was very sick or trying to be very clever. You know, if they really wanted to do this, hurt us and walk away, why did they go to the trouble of leaving a ransom note? When Mike Bynum said (thank God they left a ransom note) you know, why is that? And it finally dawned on me what he meant. They left us a piece of evidence. They were clever enough not to leave much else, apparently. I think it's somebody that's very sick, thinks they're very clever, is playing games.

    This may answer your question EG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting how John never talks about the sexual abuse unless it's brought up by an interviewer. Even then, he always sides with those interpreting the autopsy as "inconclusive". Unless, of course, he has a chance to magnaminously express regret that he and Patsy allowed JBR to participate in beauty paegants that were magnets for "intruders"! What a snake this guy is.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. "The ransom note seemed childish, in terms of a young person. I think this person was very sick or trying to be very clever. You know, if they really wanted to do this, hurt us and walk away, why did they go to the trouble of leaving a ransom note?"
      ---John Ramsey

      Yeah, John....very "sick" because they are young and childish, not old and abusing six year old girls.

      Mike G

      Delete
  58. Lost one that showed as "published" at about 3:20 EST, Doc. Will you please have a look?
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing came into my email with that time stamp, CC. Not sure what the problem is, but some posts do seem to be getting lost.

      Delete
    2. It would be easier to track something down if you didn't post anonymously.

      Delete
    3. Again! Just now.
      CC

      Delete
  59. RE:

    AnonymousDecember 7, 2016 at 12:36 PM

    If you are sure they say "We're not speaking with you" thats pretty darn interesting isn't it? Doesn't John reacting that way IN FRONT of Patsy tell you both parents are involved? Would John really blow his cover talking to their child that way in front of what all of you want to claim is an innocent Patsy?

    Let's walk through this. According to Patsy, she sees the note...she checks in JB's room and a sleeping Burke. At 5:52 AM she calls 911. So, if you hear John say "We are not speaking with you" then everything we know about that morning is a LIE. John just berated his supposedly innocent son Burke in FRONT of Patsy. Sure Burke could have stumbled downstairs and John was upset...but WHY?

    -J


    _____

    J - you are taking anything that JR, PR, and now BR say at face value. You can't trust any of them.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Inquisitive, the Ramseys recently admitted that the flashlight was theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Inquisitive, the Ramseys recently admitted that the flashlight was theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Does anyone from memory recall if LE was able to subpoena phone records, specifically cell phone records of the Ramseys? As didn't John use his cell that day at the home? I wonder how cell reception was in the basement? All those trips to the basement John admits to making has me wondering if he made any calls that he didn't want others to over hear. It's been mentioned here how Arndt noticed a change in demeanor with him. Some good theories posed. I wonder if he phoned an allie and asked that person to call the house and pretend to be the kidnapper, and the person said no way. Or said yes but then had a change of heart and didn't follow thru.

    ReplyDelete
  63. No wonder John Ramsey has given up this will ever be solved. He's certainly not going to spend any more of his money on it, but for keeping Lin Wood around. I'm usually on the side of law enforcement but in this case....As I've said, they need money to start over.

    ReplyDelete