I will preface this by saying what you all know already…I am a believer that BDI. That being said, I want to try and break the case down to things that I am absolutely confident about without a shred of doubt in my mind.
1) This crime was committed by either BR, JR or PR. No intruder was inside the Ramsey home that night, therefore no intruder committed this crime. 2) The RN was NOT written before that night. A) the note wouldn’t have been as sloppy B) Because this crime was committed by a Ramsey, they wouldn’t have used paper and pen from inside the house 3) This crime was NOT premeditated. See point 2 for main reason, but also no clear motive has ever made sense which is why my conclusion is that whoever committed the head blow was done so by ACCIDENT 4) After hearing all arguments on this issue, I am 100% convinced Burke was by John and Patsy as the 911 call was made. It doesn’t prove anything other than John and Patsy absolutely lied about him being in bed 5) I’ll make this point brief, but the bowl of pineapple on the table was Burke Ramsey’s pineapple bowl that was taken out AFTER the Ramsey’s got home from the party 6) Patsy Ramsey was involved in the staging process at some point. WAY too many inconsistencies with her testimony
Those are things I am confident about. One topic that has always gotten debated on here is whether or not there was prior molestation. I have always contended that it is inconclusive and regardless, we can’t be sure if it was done by Burke or John which made it somewhat irrelevant. But, after seeing the clip of the pediatrician, his saying that there is no way there was prior molestation (obviously not the quote) was compelling. I think one of the keys is whether this was premeditated or not. The reason being, that IF it was premeditated than that in itself eliminates Burke. The problem is there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it was thought out before that night. A lot of the mistakes that happened that night seem more easily explained if it was because there was panic with a short time frame to do everything.
When working backwards, I just don’t see the molestation as a motive. If molestation isn’t the motive, then there doesn’t seem to be anything else that would make sense as a motive. If there is no motive or no want to murder her, then we have an accident. If we have an accidental head blow…WHO makes the most sense and why? Patsy being upset over bedwetting…….that is just ridiculous. John trying to molest her and getting upset? Again, NO evidence that he was a pedophile, no evidence he was molesting her and would seem like a terrible night to do so with them getting on a plane so early the next morning. PLUS would John risk doing that while they would be with family and he couldn’t necessarily watch her closely to make sure she didn’t talk. This leads me to Burke. Since I don’t believe this was premeditated or intentional, Burke hitting her over the head is much more plausible than John or Patsy getting upset over something small like bed wetting.. I know that I will be met with staging questions. Yes, the staging is horrific, troubling and a head scratcher. No matter who committed the crime, the staging just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Honestly without absolute and pure speculation I just don’t know the sequence of the staging and why what happened, did happen. I just know this wasn’t all done by one person.
With all due respect. Why dont you see molestation as a motive? I would use the word abuse, rather than molestation. This case is a typical case of child abuse. Had it happened in a non prominent family and JB would be probably alive because this is not news for the common people but for the Ramseys, it would have meant the loss of everything. So, I believe, this case can be understood clearly if we contemplate three of the capital sins which were at the center stage in this murder: Lust - Pride and Greed. In that order...just my opinion. Martha from California
Noted on Abuse vs Molestation. Will do moving forward....hate talking about either, but the case involves it
My point regarding it being the motive is simple. I believe in order for that to have been the motive, it would have had to have been premeditated which I don't believe there was any premeditation. Also, there is absolutely nothing typical about this case on any level.
Thank you for the response. I agree with you that nothing in this case is typical. I was just referring to the abuse and the escalation of violence that culminated a child's life. Martha
Just because John wasn't exposed as a pedophile doesn't mean that he isn't one. Rape victims don't always expose their rapists. Not to mention JBR was six.
"No matter who committed the crime, the staging just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."
I'm glad you brought that up J, as the *only* way the staging makes sense is if John committed the murder. Here's why: The note - whose main purpose (though not limited to, of course) was to keep Patsy (the only *immediate* person who posed a problem if his kidnapping scenario was to be executed successfully) from searching the house for her daughter, and from calling for outside help - was all the "staging" that John was going to need to do. If his plan succeeded, her body would have simply been transported and buried - no duct tape, bound hands or garrote would have been necessary (though I believe John strangled her with the cord, I'm not convinced he used a garrote to do so - I feel that was possibly an extra "flourish" added later in order to fit with the intruder-with-a-sexual-perversion theory), the rest of the staging we see was ONLY done once he realized that JonBenet's body was going to be discovered that day in his home - hence why it doesn't make sense - instead of a plain, old kidnapping, he had to improvise by doing a little vaginal penetration (in the hope of covering up prior abuse, as his initial plan of JB's body not being located, or at least decomposing before she was found, isn't on the cards anymore). He has no choice but to use items that are in the basement because LE are right upstairs! Ideally, he probably would have preferred not to use items that linked any Ramsey to the crime (I believe he was going to dispose of the ransom note if his original plan worked), but Patsy's paintbrush is handy. So is a strip of duct tape, possibly from JB's doll (it would certainly explain why the doll was never located, along with "rest of the roll" of tape - there was never an entire roll of tape). John is no idiot, he knows the cops aren't going to buy the kidnapping story now that JB's body is going to be found inside the home, so he has to make it look like an intruder with a fetish instead. I suspect he knew it was a long shot, but what were his options? This is why the staging - which can't seem to decide whether it's a kidnapping gone wrong or a sex crime - does not match up with the ransom note, which appears to be a straight forward ransom for money. Had John and Patsy wrote the ransom note together, however, the staging would have been consistent with the contents of the note - which would have consisted of probably no more than five lines, as anything involving attaches, beheading, earlier delivery, being denied remains for burial or being well rested would not have been necessary.
So you see, the staging doesn't make sense only if you're an IDI, PDI, RDI or BDI. To the JDI, it makes perfect sense. One of the very reasons I "switched teams" :)
"I'm glad you brought that up J, as the *only* way the staging makes sense is if John committed the murder."
Ms D, sometimes I think Doc has gaslighted you because you repeat the exact same phrases :-)
Zach - My point on the prior abuse is that there is nothing definitive. People who have looked at the autopsy are inconclusive. Yet, the actual Pediatrician who looked at her concluded that there wasn't prior abuse. Nobody has ever come forward to say John Ramsey molested them, nor is there anything in his past or present that say he was abusing a child. Could he have been abusing JB? I guess anything is possible, but again, there is nothing definitive to ever say he was.
Ms D - My whole point on the staging not making sense is that even if John did it all himself, It MAKES NO SENSE! I don't for a second believe it was premeditated....so why didn't John call 911 after the head blow? Why didn't John say he was startled and struck her over the head thinking she was an intruder? Also, one of many reasons I don't believe this was John was because the 2 separate acts (head blow then strangulation) There is no way I will ever believe that John Ramsey would have bludgeoned her over the head with a Flashlight as there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that he would have known there wouldn't be blood. If this was deliberate to cover up his sex acts, WHY WOULD HE RISK A BLOODY CRIME SCENE? Ok, now to the RN. IF the only purpose of the note was to fool Patsy then she is NEVER allowed to make the call. It baffles me why this is so complicated. The JDI's portray him as the psyco, Ninja, manipulator who got away with the crime of the Century...YET he just allows Patsy to call 911. This would have been the conversation in his head (I abused JB, I hit her over the head, strangled her, then wrote a 3 page RN but you know what...Patsy wants to dial 911, who am I to stand in her way even though Im about to go to jail). Honestly, its laughable to me. He could have clubbed Patsy over the head if he had to and used the RN's instructions as to why he did so. John being sole killer = no 911 call is made by Patsy
Also....has anybody seen ANY of the interviews or interrogation of Patsy? Ok...does she seem like some little meek woman? No of course not...she looks like the bulldog...she looks like she wore the pants in the relationship. She doesn't seem like somebody who was just glaslighted and manipulated to help cover up the heinous acts of her husband.
"Ms D, sometimes I think Doc has gaslighted you because you repeat the exact same phrases"
Seriously? Says the guy who copies/pastes the same ole' spiel about Burke's pineapple on a regular basis? The truth is, we all repeat ourselves, because there's nothing new in the way of evidence, so we're just rehashing what we already know and trying to convince each other how obvious it is that our theory is the right one. ;)
The truth is - whatever you believe - if John wrote the note, then the details in the note do make sense, like it or not. Anyone else writing it, and the contents don't make sense, you're right.....so what should that tell you? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. (And, yes, I think I've used that one before too!)
I just found this reading interesting. I would not label JR as a pedophile but, I do believe some of these factors were present in the Ramsey household making the incestuous relationship probable.
"Incest, as we have seen, has no single cause and can be understood only by looking at the interaction of certain conditions that act as predisposing and precipitating agents. For Father-Daughter incest, these include: 1. The father clings to a fantasy of an all loving mother and sees in the daughter a chance to pursue it. 2. The father is bombarded by stress, much of it coming from multiple changes he and his family are constantly making, and seeks a source of comfort and nurturing. He often starts drinking more. 3. The father and mother stop having sex and his source of physical intimacy and affectionate strokes dries up. Why my wife cut me off. 4. The mother starts work at night, gets sick, or in some other way arranges to leave the father and daughter alone together. The mother "abandons" both the daughter and husband. 5. The daughter is hungry for attention and affection and is willing to rescue her father from his unhappiness. 6. The sexual climate of the family is lax, loose, or repressive"
Thank you, CC! And, you are right. I forgot to mention the source. Its from the book: "Broken Taboo: Sex in the Family." By Drs Blair and Rita Justice. Its not a new book but the authors surveyed over a hundred families were incest ocurred. It has a lot of interesting info. Martha
"Also, coming from the person who won't admit its Burke's pineapple bowl, you can spare me on the looks like a duck spiel"
Oh my God, J, seriously? How many times do I have to tell you I believe that was Burke's pineapple?! You accused me of not having answered your question in relation to the pineapple only last week, and I reminded you I'd answered it several times already. I then alluded to the fact you would ignore it yet again. And, true to form, you did.
Stop making shit up, there's enough bogus information on this blog since the CBS special, without having to wade through intentional b.s. I seriously don't want to come off as harsh, but I don't know how many more damn times I have to answer your pineapple question before it registers.
Ms D - Hey, I just want to apologize to you. I honestly had a brain cramp and just forgot you did say that about the pineapple bowl. So, my apologies and look forward to more spirited debates with you :-)
Lesson #1 J, don't "concede" anything. It will not win you any brownie points and it will only show a weak link in your theory. If you believe how you believe, stand by that. Argue it to the death.
Thanks - No Im not conceding anything. My apology was in reference to calling out Ms D for not admitting the pineapple bowl was Burke's....but she actually did concede that so I was out of line.
Don't worry, I haven't wavered on my theory at all
Did anyone see the CNN account - believe it aired either Sunday or a day or so ago. It looks to be basically a "re-do" but there were a few things mentioned I didn't know. Accurate? Don't know. But it was aired. 1. John Ramsey had his own white lined pad, he had his, she had hers. 2. Kolar said he didn't think this will ever be solved but that he would call another Grand Jury and question Burke. 3. JB's body lay in the living room where Linda Arnt moved it (under Christmas tree) for nine hours until the Coroner removed it. Don't know if any of this is relevant, it's just interesting.
Also just as an experiment I wrote my name with my left hand. Since I'm right handed it wasn't easy! My lines were squiggly, much the way the note looked. When I looked at my right- handed printed name I noticed something different. I print both "e's" in my name differently. And remarkably, even though I did the same thing with my left hand, the "e's" were also different. Lower case e in first name, upper case E in last name. Now I'm no handwriting expert but it led me to a few conclusions: 1. It is very difficult to disguise your handwriting. Imagine how difficult it would be composing a 2 1/2 page note! So I believe this note was composed in advance of the crime. And practicing would be a logical inference. 2. It's tiring. I believe this is why you see more discrepancies toward the end, such as weight applied to the pen, or a change of pen might have occurred. 3. I do not think the ransom note writer had "MS" as suggested in the facebook page, but that if you switch to your opposite hand, you get shaky lettering. But try it yourself, see what happens. And lastly, LOVE "Salt Peanuts!"
The signs of sexual abuse is the give away in this case. Along with the note to fool Patsy. I believe it's possible Burke was awake in the 911 call, but he was told to just keep quiet and say he was asleep to keep him out of the spotlight. If you read Doc's posts about Johns Johninsims, its clear as a bell that his language is throughout the note.Also, the fact that he is a known deceitful liar having affairs over the course of years, kinds proves he has some sort of abnormal sexual appetite. Plus he's emotionless and cold as ice. John was trying desperately to cover his ass not his sons. If Burke did it, the parents would try to save their daughter not garrote her to death and no one would be in trouble or risk going to prison for the rest of their lives. John was going to go to jail if JBR talked and lose everything so he rolled the dice and killed her instead.
The video of JBR's room/bathroom bothers me, it doesn't seem like a child's room, it looks like there is makeup in the bathroom and lady's items. Children normally have children's shampoo and maybe kid's tub toys in bathroom. I don't think a child (Jonbenet) would be concerned with "looks" unless an adult was putting serious pressure on child. It seems like someone was trying to treat Jonbenet like an adult instead of letting her be a kid. Kid dress up is normal, but it looks like JBR's entire room was dress-up/costumes/trophies and tiny space of bedroom was dollhouse, and then dolls squeezed into far corner next to her bed. Poor little girl, it didn't even look like dollhouse items in her dollhouse either. Note the red jumpsuit was right outside Jonbenet's room on ironing board with a stain (why/where/when did stain/jumpsuit end up on ironing board) (it also looks like above cabinet opened). And there's an attache right by the spiral staircase at bottom of stairs. Jmo/
She had American Dolls and they weren't cheap. One is over $100. She also liked to watch videos. The floor was littered with the things she liked to do, like the little loom toy she got for Christmas.
American dolls that weren't cheap, but seemed to be hidden next to her bed in the corner, while Jonbenet's crowns/trophies prominently displayed front and center. That may have been Jonbenet's preference, but imo as someone who had many dolls, toys, costumes and won trophies for different things as a child, I would have much rather had my room filled with toys and dolls, and my dress ups in the closet. Another thing to mention is that children act out real life with dolls/toys, so I wonder how dolls if any placed in dollhouse, and why Jonbenet would have put her dolls in a corner. They may have been the last things she played with too, so there may be perpetrator's prints on items. and there is a pillow on the floor underneath bed right next to the dolls. Jmo/
I also wonder what happened to the Santa Bear. First they didn't know where it came from, then it disappeared. Plus the weird note from Santa Bill in the wastebasket. That Tudor house, that looked like a gingerbread house with it's candy canes in the front yard gives me nightmares.
"If Burke did it, the parents would try to save their daughter not garrote her to death and no one would be in trouble or risk going to prison for the rest of their lives."
Bingo. I have been saying that all along. Sometimes a little bit of logic goes a long way! This is the one point IDIs and I agree on.....that it is utterly implausible that two, otherwise, loving parents ultimately decide to end one child's life in order to spare the other.....it's unprecedented and completely illogical, even if it's believable that Burke whacked her in the head.
What if john/patsy/whoever strangled her thought she was dead already and the strangulation was for staging? I'm not saying I believe that, it is something that just popped into my head. I agree that it's very hard to imagine what you described. Miss D. Ugh, it's all hard to imagine!
PR and JR were both involved in enough of Jonbenet's pageant life to remember specific pageant outfits/colors that JBR wore to specific events and she had to practice for her pageants/talent (from their past transcripts/interviews). Did PR/JR help Jonbenet practice her pageant "talent" or did they specifically hire instructors for her? Has it ever been determined all involved in coaching JBR?
I just read the following post of yours, dating back to November 25th, for the first time:
"I think he is a narcissistic, sociopathic monster with a sense of entitlement when it comes to sex, and an unhealthy preoccupation with beauty pageants - he married a beauty queen, abused a tiny one, allegedly had an affair with a woman in Arizona he had dress up in gowns, and has now married a woman who designs pageant costumes. I find nothing benign or forgivable about this guy, and unlike Doc, have no trouble believing he used Patsy's paintbrush deliberately, may have mimicked her handwriting, and encouraged his socially impaired son to appear on Dr Phil, knowing exactly how bad it would make the boy look, particularly in contrast to his own well-spoken, urbane facade. Perhaps Doc has not known enough monsters; I spent three years prosecuting nothing but."
I never knew you were so utterly convinced of John's guilt and I wanted to acknowledge that.
Jeez, Mike! That was actually part of a dialogue with Ms D regarding Mindhunter and it's influence on JR, and my theory of premeditation and motive. It looks so vituperative as a stand-alone remark.
But yeah, I'm utterly convinced of JR'S guilt and the value of Doc's theory, even though we sometimes disagree on details. CC
CC It was very enlightening to me when you explained your theory of how he premeditated the murder 8 days in advance-after the last calls to her pediatrician. It really makes sense that the situation evolved to a point of no return for him and the decision was made. I follow your comments with much interest and got to understand better this case thank DocG and people like you who use a good dose of logic and a lot of common sense. Martha from California
Thanks, Martha. Doc has provided an invaluable service by the seemingly simple device of re-including John as a suspect and allowing us all to do our own research and attempt to bolster his theory. CC
How long does it take for DNA results to come back? Three months? On the news they said they have better technology and newer types of testing than they did in 1996 and are going to retest everywhere they found the male DNA they couldn't identify. Then we'll see where we are with this.
Hey all! I just wanted to actually leave a comment for once and say how much I enjoy reading here- especially the comments. Not to sound weird, but reading your comments is a nighttime ritual of mine. It's one of the only things that relaxes me enough to fall asleep. Crazy, I know!
Anyway, you are all very persuasive! (Except IDI, sorry!) Unfortunately I have not been able to get 100% behind any theory. You're all too good at arguing your points and I can see validity in so much of what is said- even when you're arguing opposites points.
My biggest problem with the "logic" arguments is not that the arguments aren't logical- sure they are. I just don't think anyone in that house was thinking logically that night! Many of you will disagree with me, and that is fine. Just giving my perspective.
I've thought long and hard about what I truly 100% believe about this case...
1. There was no intruder. 2. At least one of the Ramseys (possibly all three) know what happened. 3. One or both of the parents wrote the ransom note. 4. John lies in his interviews. It's obvious. 5. The crime was not premeditated.
That's where I'm at now! Obviously, I could be wrong... And I don't think anyone will ever truly know what happened that night, but boy do I hope we find out someday.
I may post more, we'll see. Some of you scare me. ;)
Oh, don't let any of us scare you! We're just passionate.....and each of us is convinced that ours is the only correct theory! But I think everyone's theory is valid (even J's, Keiser's and Inquistive's.....lol, I joke!) and we welcome yours. I think it's wise you haven't formed any definite opinions yet. Just absorb the information and take it wherever it may lead you. Good luck and welcome to the asylum!
Love your thought process, especially #5. The crime NOT being premeditated matters very much and at least you have the courage to make that decision unlike many on here. I also don't believe it was premeditated at all.
So, I have questions for you, since it wasn't premeditated.
1. Do you believe it was a moment of rage by JR, BR or PR? 2. Do you believe it was a horrible accident? 3. If you had to pick the person you think committed the head blow, who do you think it was?
Believing the crime was premeditated has nothing to do with courage or lack thereof, where did you come up with that? So those of us who believe it was premeditated are cowards? Please explain.....
I have to say Ms D, you crack me up! As for J, it has to be premeditated. It's so obvious why you don't think that J, since in your world Burke hit JB with the flashlight for really no reason at all so his parent or parents had to strangle her to death and compose a note to cover up for their "wayward" son. The tip off he was somehow "off" in his 9 years was that silly smile and preoccupation with his gameboy. Sorry,J, but I don't see any logic to the BDI theorists other than you can't believe his parents would do such a thing. But I can't completely fault you, I was there. In fact, some would say I've been everywhere. I just think we're all going to be in for a big surprise when they retest the DNA.
Hi J! To answer your questions... I lean towards accident because I don't see a motive. (I include Burke hitting her as an accident because I don't think it would have been his intent to kill her.) Many see sexual abuse as a motive but since there have been different opinions from different doctors it's hard for me to know what to believe. If there was prior abuse that doesn't mean it had to have been John. Right now, if I had to choose who delivered the head blow I'd say Burke. But I wouldn't wager my cat's life on it.
Megan prompted me to write my first-ever post on a blog! As strange as it sounds, I too read this blog (and sometimes Websleuths) as I lay in bed trying to wash all the stress of the day away. Weird, isn't it? Like, who does that as a way to relax??
I began as RDI, then moved to BDI after I read Kolar’s book. Recently, I have transitioned to JDI as it makes the most sense to me.
These are some of the questions that don’t fit easily into my JDI theory:
1. If Patsy was asleep while John was doing this heinous act, why did her hair and makeup appear to be still intact from the night before? Nowhere have I read that she even brushed her hair before going downstairs. (If she truly slept all night and awoke to nearly perfect hair and makeup, I would love to learn her secret!)
2. Why does Patsy’s side of the bed appear to be not slept in?
3. I think we all believe that John would have been occupied with the crime for quite some time (hours?). Wouldn’t Patsy notice that John was out of bed for a good portion of the night? I’ve read Doc’s suggestion that men his age get up frequently to use the bathroom. I notice when my husband is not in bed and I just fall back asleep, but I would certainly notice if he was not in bed for a significant portion of the night. How could that have gone unnoticed?
4. JB’s final resting position with her arms outstretched over her head also bugs me. When I was BDI, the position of her arms made sense because I pictured him dragging her by the arms into the WC, leaving her arms over her head. My JDI theory struggles with this aspect.
5. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I think that if John’s entire purpose of writing the RN was to get the body out of the house (which does make the most sense to me), I find it odd that he wasn’t able to convince Patsy not to call 911 “for the sake of JB’s safety”. You’d think he could at least get her to hold off making the call for a while.
Keep the posts coming! I find this absolutely fascinating!
Hi Megan! Welcome board! Im a newbie too ...at least regarding leaving comments because -like you- I do enjoy reading this blog/comments on a daily basis. I agree with a couple of your ideas but I stand firm on JDI camp. DocG's theory is the most convincing and logical. :) but you have to approach it w/o any kind of bias.
I think Patsy had to be in on something, or she would not have been as evasive as she was in the interviews. Both parents were evasive.
Btw, is there any chance JonBenet was drugged earlier on, by the parents, at the Christmas party, so she would keep quiet? Before she ate the pineapple. Perhaps then she suffocated in her sleep because of the drugs. By the time she died, the drugs were out of her body?
Another thing could be, someone pushed her in her chair when she ate the pineapple, she fell back and hit her head on the ground. Although I don't know they would stage all that, just for that. They would just say it was an accident. No that would not work. So never mind!
I wondered a while back if she had been drugged, but her toxicology report didn't show drugs of any kind. The crack in her skull is indicative of blunt force trauma being inflicted by a massive blow to the head - I think a fall has all but been ruled out. But you make a good point about there being no need to stage an elaborate cover up for an accident, as that is what PDIs and BDIs theory hinges on.....good to see some common sense!
Patsy may have had chemo brain, which would explain her inconsistencies. I truly believe she was innocent. And I don't know if this will sound strange but has there ever been any record ever of cancer patients committing murder? The idea that this intelligent woman would write a ransom note on her own pad doesn't even make sense.
Agree. Remember, the title of Doc's book is Ruled Out. Once John got himself ruled out by the so-called handwriting experts, Patsy was all alone. Steve Thomas was coming after her. Think about it, if you knew you didn't kill your child, your husband was all but ruled out, and the police were making absurd implications that you were able to commit murder over a bedwetting incident, you would be sorely afraid. Her husband was getting the best lawyers for himself. Wow, I don't know about you but I would feel as if I were being framed. Combine that with grief, shock, fear for your son, confusion over your husband's cold and calculating behavior...well, I know what I would do. I would continue to insist that I did not kill my daughter. I would not trust the police. I would become suspicious of everyone. I would go along with the story my husband was putting forward because what other choice would I have? With chemo brain, I'm sure my husband could convince me to support our cause with little white lies that keep them off of "our backs" and focused on finding the real killer.
I do not think this crime is a crime of rage for several reasons. Patsy was a cancer patient and thanked her lucky stars to be alive and cherished every moment with her children. It was Christmas so I would presume it was a happy time around the house(for most). And the garrote proves that someone wanted this little girl dead. It wasn't Patsy, if BR hit JBR the family would have tried to save her not kill her. "And hence", So that leaves us with a cold, calculating, rude, ex-navy who knew how to tie knots, deceitful cheater who didn't want to lose his money or lifestyle. Of course it's only a 1 in 188,000 chance it's him. he loved the number 18 and 18,000 and used it often in his speech. I would say it's a 1000% chance it's John Ramsey.
Yes I think if Burke hit her, even if he did it intentionally, the family would try to make up a story and say it was an accident. He was swinging the bat, did not see her, etc. He's 9, so it should not have been too hard to do that. It is a lot easier to do that, make it an accident, than to make up a whole kidnapping story. So it had to be something worse.
Exactly, SC. If the parents wanted to draw attention away from their son, it was counterproductive to stage a sexual assault and a kidnapping.....the sexual assault would have guaranteed LE would be looking at the males in the house, whilst the kidnapping was sure to involve the FBI, which would probably not have been the case had they simply staged an accident. A cover up like this makes no sense whatsoever and no one would do it - in fact, no one ever has, because it's ludicrous.
I was reading this interview from 1997 and JR's account for the broken window was the following:
"Steve Thomas: OK. When you had previously broken that basement window to gain entry to the home when you had been locked out, can you approximate what month that was?
JR: Well, I think it was last summer. Because Patsy was up at Lake (inaudible) all summer, and it would have been July or August probably, somewhere in that time frame."
I find it odd that Patsy was spending the summer at their lake house and Burke was with John.
DocG posted in Oct 25, 2016 (BR Dr. Phil interview)
'And now for something completely new: Burke explained how his dad, John, broke the basement window once when they got locked out, so they could enter the house through the basement. . . "One time we did get locked out and there are - this is the basement but there are two windows to the basement, and my dad had to break the window and go around and unlock the door."
VERY interesting. It's possible, of course, that Burke could have been coached into telling that story, but to me it appears genuine. Which tells us that John was probably being truthful when he referred to breaking in via that window on more than one occasion. Does that make the rest of his story more likely to be true? Not really, no -- not as far as I'm concerned -- but it does make him a tad more credible, I suppose. It would be interesting if Burke had said something about noticing if that same window had been broken again -- and left broken for months afterward -- but he wasn't questioned on that.' DocG posted the above
We don't know how many times JR used the basement window to access his home. In interviews, JR can't remember exactly how he broke it. We don't know if it was broken more than once or how many times JR used it as access--he has said more than once so is that two? or several (3+)? Even if the window was repaired, JR could have broken it to stage the crime for PR. After PR called 911, JR may have realized he didn't do enough staging for the police so he tried to unstage or restage.
If the window had been repaired by ANY PERSON I would think they would have come forward within the last 20 years. Also, the housekeeper's husband cleaned the windows around Thanksgiving prior to the murder and didn't report or notice any broken window. The person hired to clean your windows would remember a broken window. Kat
I must confess I don't know what to make of Burke's story. He mentions an incident when John supposedly broke in via a basement window, but this supposedly happened while Burke was there, so this could not have been the incident John was referring to when he claimed he'd broken the window the previous summer while Patsy was out of town with the children. One would assume that Burke would also have mentioned that incident, as he would certainly known about that as well. But he mentions ONLY the incident that he himself witnessed at first hand. Why?
I wonder whether Burke had been prompted to tell that story, and got it mixed up, or whether it's actually true and for some reason he neglected to mention the more relevant incident that would have happened later. In any case, Burke's report on the alleged earlier breakin has no bearing on the truthfulness of the story John told the police, which is patently UNtrue, for all the many reasons I've already provided.
Just read your book and have a couple of questions. Regarding PR making the phone call, how easy it would have been for JR to say something like "the note says not to,call the police. They will hurt her. Let's just get the money." Given the fact that the note stated she would be beheaded and not returned for proper burial, I don't think it made sens efor jzohn not to keep PR from calling the police. Weak link in the Theory.
Next. You never mention how and when JR got rid of glass, where the duct tape came from and where the rest of the cord went. He must have discarded those items somewhere after the murder and before the morning. That is another weak link in the theory.
Third. As far as I know, JR would not have had just one victim on his lifetime. He must have offended before or even after. There must have been a way to reconstruct when and how he had access to his daughter, when they were alone given the fact he worked a lot and PR was always around.
I believe e that a person can fool many people, of not all, and I don't put anything past anyone. The fact that he was a savvy businessman and had lots to,lose, speaks volumes but those three questions above keep nagging at me.
Hot Damn, I'm no longer alone! Thanks A. Burt. John Ramsey had an affair. How many married men have done that. Does that make them incestuous child molesters? Many people had keys to that house. The investigators originally thought there were 30 outstanding keys, but narrowed it down to 9, and recovered 6 out of 9. When they questioned Patsy's housekeeper and alcoholic husband (who was the occasional handyman for the Ramsey's they confiscated 3 rolls of black duct tape - one of them used, white cord including one wrapped around a stick, 3 pads of white lined paper one the housekeeper said came from the Ramsey home, and 3 black sharpie pens. They had no alibis for that night, but their handwriting didn't match the ransom note. So most probably on that alone, they were ruled out. There were at least six on the suspect list that were very familiar with the Ramsey's, who also did not have alibis, but since the investigators were looking for a handwriting match, all were ruled out. Including John by the way. There's more, much more, if the net were widened. But the bottom line is you have to believe that the autopsy results showed signs of prior sexual abuse and that the abuse was not isolated to either what a paint brush handle could do, or infections due to chronic bed wetting and soiling plus what a paint brush handle could do. Because without interpreting the ME report as chronic or at least previous (and rather violent) sexual abuse, there isn't anything else that points to John. And you would think if he wanted to throw suspicion off himself he wouldn't admit to breaking the window or use a pad and pen from his own house. We will continue to go round and round about this for another 20 years until they can get a match to the unidentified male DNA found comingled with the spot of blood in her underpants and along the sides of her white longjohns.
The theory in the book is based on facts and the logical inferences that can be concluded from them. Theres a lot of details that are unknown however they do not make the theory weaker or stronger, in my opinion, at least. John could have tried to convince her but she could have done it anyways regardless his effort to stop her. They offered many versions of what happened that morning after Patsy found the RN. Even Burke described her mother as going psycho in one moment. She could have done it when he went to get dressed. The elements for the (staged or not) assault and the strangulation could be easily taken from the basement, like the paintbrush. JR went one hour AWOL in the morning before the body was discovered and he could have hidden/disposed of any incriminatory item in that hour. I personally believe that he used elements that happened to be handy at the basement. There could be no remaining cord or tape. Finally, JR is not a serial killer or a sexual predator. But again, speculation, imagination vs facts. The fact that Patsy (not John) called 911 is a key piece in thie whole puzzle. Either way, would be nice to hear from Doc.
Yes, thank you Martha. It may not make sense to some that John would have allowed Patsy to make that phone call -- but if they'd been staging a kidnapping together, then calling 911 at that particular time makes no sense at all. According to Patsy's version, as presented in the A&E documentary, she told John she was going to call the police and then she ran downstairs to make the call. If that's actually what happened, and in my view it's probably very close to the truth, it's easy to see how John could have been caught off guard. What she doesn't say is why she'd have needed to run downstairs to call when there were phones on every floor. It's possible she ran downstairs because she was afraid John might try to stop her.
John could have gotten rid of the glass very easily. The hole in the window is small and there wouldn't have been that much to get rid of. He could easily have collected it in a paper or plastic bag and hidden it in some dark corner of the basement where it wouldn't be noticed. Later, when Arndt was preoccupied upstairs, he could have come down again, smashed the glass into tiny bits with his foot, and flushed it down the toilet.
As far as other victims are concerned, I doubt that any will ever be found, because this was probably just a one time thing for him. Many women have reported molestation by their fathers and in most if not all cases no other crimes of that sort were ever reported. I don't see John as a criminal or psychopath, just someone who gave in to temptation and found himself trapped by his own moral weakness.
Inquisitive, even if a DNA match is some day found, there will be no case, because this person's lawyer could easily bring up any or all of the many problems with the intruder theory that make it totally absurd. "Why would my client wait until he was in the house to write his ransom note? Why would he want to make it so long and complicated? Why wouldn't he have actually kidnapped his victim? Why would he have wanted to hide the body in that remote basement room? It's been said that his handwriting resembles the note, but, according to several experts, so does Patsy Ramsey's. Touch DNA could have gotten onto her clothing in any number of ways. Maybe she petted a dog that he had petted or used a water fountain that he had used." Etc., etc.
As for the remaining cord and tape there probably wasn't any. It was very likely all used up by John during the crime. Why in any case would an intruder bother to stuff rolls of tape and cord in his pockets before leaving? I think that would have been the last thing on his mind.
"it's easy to see how John could have been caught off guard. What she doesn't say is why she'd have needed to run downstairs to call when there were phones on every floor. It's possible she ran downstairs because she was afraid John might try to stop her."
Maybe that explains her agitation when speaking with the 911 operator. And the sudden hang up...
Yes, Martha, thank you. Of course it's easy to see why she'd be agitated regardless of anything John did. But the sudden hangup could have been John's doing. He would most likely have been furious at her for making that call.
Here's my theory. It accounts for following testimonies:
1) that Patsy said she "screamed" then ran upstairs to look in JB's bedroom. 2) that John heard the scream, then later said that discovering JonBenet missing was like "getting hit in the stomach". 3) that John said he read the ransom note then "searched around the house a bit". 4) that Patsy said "we" ran to check in on Burke. 5) that Burke initially testified that Patsy came into his room acting "psycho" while he pretended to be asleep. 6) that Patsy said she ran downstairs to call 911, leaving the impression John remained upstairs reading the note. 7) that John said Patsy was standing by the phone when he told her to call 911.
Patsy reads the ransom note, screams, then runs upstairs to look in JB's bedroom. John hears the scream and runs to rendezvous with Patsy at JB's bedroom. Arriving together, almost at the same time, an hysterical Patsy hands John the ransom note and he begins to read it. Patsy insists the police should be called immediately. She is so hysterical, John feels his plan slipping away. However, he also senses that Patsy may have stopped short of reading the part warning John not to call the police. So, to give her time to settle down and make her amenable to not calling the police, thus potentially saving her daughter's life, he says something to following effect:
"Patsy, before we call the police, let's check the entire house and make sure this isn't some kind of joke (like what Fleet White's son did to his parents?). You go check in Burke's room and the rest of the upstairs, I'll go check the garage and in the basement, then meet you downstairs."
Patsy runs to Burkes room and John (still in possession of the ransom note) runs to the basement where he pauses to consider that he might not be able to prevent either he or Patsy, because of her hysteria, from calling the police. He doesn't want to mention to her the broken glass on the floor when he meets back with her in case he IS able to prevent her from making the call. He can't afford her searching the area where ostensibly a "kidnapper" entered the house and left behind a dead and sexually abused JonBenet. If the "intruder" got in another way, or with a key, he still has a chance to make his plan work. So he picks up the glass on the floor and closes the window. He works fast knowing he needs to get back upstairs to control Patsy, but when he at last arrives, it's too late; she's already on the phone making the call.
This scenario makes it possible to understand how, without much difficulty, John would be able to gaslight Patsy to believe and agree upon a version of events that would be credible to the police, yet not invoke any suspicions she might otherwise have regarding her husbands involvement. Though calling the police wasn't his intention, by agreeing to call them after the house was searched, John unwittingly set the stage for a white lie that proved to be indispensable to him yet seemingly innocuous to Patsy. And true to his testimony, John would have been right by the phone when Patsy made that call. In fact, just as she began speaking,one can almost hear him saying in background "call the police", softly enough not to be overheard by the operator, but loud enough to register, perhaps even subliminally, with an hysterically distraught Patsy, primed and ready to begin gaslighting.
"It's possible she ran downstairs because she was afraid John might try to stop her." Maybe that explains her agitation when speaking with the 911 operator. And the sudden hang up..."
It also may explain why, at the beginning of the 911 call, Patsy says, what could be, "We need em" - which she doesn't appear to be saying to the dispatcher, as the dialogue between the two of them hasn't yet begun, and her voice sounds (to me) as though her mouth is somewhat away from the receiver of the phone. I can imagine John is yelling at Patsy from upstairs, telling her not to call for the police, but she's steadfast in her resolution to do so, says to him, "we need em!" and he just can't get to her fast enough to stop the call, or I'm certain he would have.
i just heard the call one more time. Yes! She says: "We need them" before the operator initiates conversation. I understand it as, either she was responding John or she was reassuring herself that calling the police was the best route. But I believe she was speaking to herself, most likely.
Thank you, Ms D. This is something new to me. They were fighting, that is clear now, at least, for me.
I don't think John did not want Patsy to call police. The whole thing was staged TO call police. I think John or Patsy wanted to write a note, to divert attention. But you can't write a note, like, hey I just killed your daughter. You instead have to write a kidnapping note. Plus that does give them a little more time to hide things they needed to hide. Perhaps AFTER they called police, John had second thoughts. Or even right after he wrote the note. He was not sure he staged the right way. So he went down to check and restage.
As to the duct tape and cord, I am also unsure about that. Maybe he had it in the house, just to use for this occasion. Maybe he had a whole S&M ritual planned out. Or maybe it was just around the house, new, never used, and he hid it after.
You know thinking about this, it could have been pre-planned. Where did the large Christmas Wednesday underwear come from? Where did the duct tape come from and the cord? All of it was new. It seems to me that the items needed for this murder, were all bought new. The large underwear were bought by JR, and he did not know sizes, he just knew day of the week. That seems a little odd to me that it was all new.
Try this as an experiment. If you are right handed use your left hand, if you are left handed use your right hand. Use a black sharpie pen. Write the first paragraph of the ransom note. First print it with the hand you usually use to write with. Now write the first paragraph with your other hand. See if you were able to completely disguise your normal printing or if there are similarities. Also notice how irregular it looks with your "weak" hand. Notice how tiring it is to do just one paragraph with your weak hand. Now imagine you have just killed someone. Do you honestly think you could compose a 2 1/2 page disguised note or is it more logical to guess that the ransom note was not only practiced but done in advance. And if so, then the murder was premeditated.
I'm not ambidextrous, I did it. It's tedious, you can't hide how you print, and it would take a long time to compose a whole 2 1/2 page letter. Did you even try it to see how far you could get? Or prefer to remain pigheaded.
If I were John, and I were the author of that note, I would not have pointed the finger at myself by addressing it, to myself, and mentioning my bonus money. I would have tried to pin it on someone at one of the pageants.
Whoever wrote the note tried to point a finger at John.
As for the DNA evidence, isn't there some seriously lacking DNA evidence showing that this crime had anything at all to do with sex? I mean, what is the point of a sexual assault? By a male, I mean. I think it was staged to look like a male committed a sexual assault, just one key piece of evidence missing. So, actually, doesn't appear to be a male perpetrator at all.
The housekeeper and her husband would be a good second choice.
However, the thing that did it for me, is, John closed the opened window in the basement that morning. After police got there. The other guy looked in the room early, said the window was closed. But John said the window was open that morning, and he CLOSED it! AND did not TELL police about it! Right there, the man is guilty. If that is in fact true. No one just innocently closes an open basement window, right after a kidnapping, and "forgets" to mention that little fact to police.
Also no millionaire does not fix a broken window, for months. In Colorado even. It does not pass the smell test. So no matter what else, John is guilty. Maybe there are more, Patsy, or someone else maybe. But John is guilty.
Yes, precisely. Since Fleet found the window already closed, John was most likely down there first, meaning he was there very early, most likely even before the police arrived. And his failure to report it should have been a huge red flag. He later claimed he DID report it, but that's not what he said initially. I've read the police reports and there is no mention of John telling them anything of the sort. To me that's a clear sign that he was UNstaging his previous staging in the wake of Patsy's unexpected call.
Either way, whether he reported the open window or not, you do not CLOSE an open window after a kidnapping. Any idiot knows that. You leave it open so evidence is not disturbed. So that is guilt right there.
John was already molesting JBR for some time, off and on. PR knew about it. This has happened in crime lore before, where the wife turns a blind eye.
That night JR planned a molestation at midnight. PR caught him out. Got angry. She lost her temper. Not on Christmas, she said. She was angry at both John, and also the daughter, in some fit of jealousy. Hit both John, but missed and then hit JBR in the head, with the flashlight, knocked her out, possibly unconscious for a while.
They panicked. They thought she was dead or dying. They knew if she woke they would both be in trouble. PR wanted to get rid of JBR because of her jealousy. They both agreed to stage the crime to cover for themselves.
If that's what happened the 911 call would not have been made when it was, while the body was still in the house. That's NOT how you stage a kidnapping. Why is it so hard to imagine that JOhn could have done this all on his own, without Patsy's participation or knowledge?
The reason I am thinking Patsy might have been involved is her attitude later. She seemed so evasive. She also was like, yeah, I don't remember when he broke the window, and I don't remember how JBR got the big underwear. That does not seem like a helpful attitude of someone who is not involved and really wants to solve the case. Plus the note seems to have feminine traits, plus the handwriting match. Also how she hung up on the 911 call. That is not normal either. People stay on the line to give info. It sounded like the call was pre-recorded by them on tape and just played. So just a lot of stuff. But I guess no hard evidence.
Although you could be right, and it could just be John. It is defo John, whether it is someone else too, hard to day.
I don't see her as evasive at all. Her testimony regarding the underwear makes perfect sense. She's obviously confused because she doesn't understand the point of all those questions about oversized underpants and tries to make sense of it by offering possible explanations. There was also no reason for her to change JonBenet's underpants even if we assume she was guilty. So why would she have needed to lie about that? Her story about cleaning up the window glass is another issue entirely, which I've covered several times. I don't see any instances of her being evasive. There are some things she could not recall. Could you recall everything that you experienced several months ago?
And the notion that the note has "feminine traits" is a myth due solely to confirmation bias. The note is filled with references to films aimed at male viewers and the vocabulary contains many terms used far more often by men than women.
"Plus the note seems to have feminine traits, plus the handwriting match. Also how she hung up on the 911 call. That is not normal either. People stay on the line to give info."
I don't see any feminine traits, quite the contrary, in fact. Lines from movies males tend to watch (Dirty Harry, Speed, Ransom etc.) were used, along with terms like "beheading", which doesn't scream "female" to me.
"It sounded like the call was pre-recorded by them on tape and just played."
Is that what you're suggesting? Why in the heck would they even do that, lol? Also, answer me this....if it were pre-recorded, how did Patsy manage to answer the dispatcher's questions?! Sorry, you really entered the Twilight Zone with that last one. ;)
One more point I forgot to address in my above post - "the handwriting match". It wasn't a match. In fact, on a scale of 1 - 10 (1 being probable, 10 being unlikely), Patsy scored an 8.5. That Patsy's handwriting was "a match" is just another myth the media perpetuated. Have you read Doc's chapter on comparing the handwriting in the note to John's? If handwriting analysis has any merit at all, I see many more similarities between the note and John's writing. Along with the "Johnisms", which the note is littered with.
"If that's what happened the 911 call would not have been made when it was, while the body was still in the house. That's NOT how you stage a kidnapping. "
Not necessarily. They staged a kidnapping because they wanted to write a note that (they thought) would point to other people. They could not just leave the body in the basement. Because no killer writes a note AFTER they kill someone. So they came up with this idea to stage a kidnapping. So the plan was to call police. Patsy seems rehearsed. I don't remember the call too well, but seems like she barely said anything of note on it. That, is not normal.
Also later on they asked her about other conversations at that time, around 911 phone call, she says she can't remember. I don't believe that. She says many times about a lot of stuff, oh I don't remember. No. If your daughter is kidnapped, you remember these things.
No one has yet mentioned the obvious influence of Stravinsky's "Ebony Concerto" on this performance of the jazz classic "Salt Peanuts." Nor has anyone expressed astonishment at the extraordinary virtuosity of all these great musicians. What's the matter, folks? If you have no appreciation for great music, then how can you possibly hope to solve this intricate crime?
Good point you made about further DNA testing queering the pitch for John vis-a-vis his "exoneration". One can only hope Charlie Brennan stays on top of the story, and that the wires will pick it up and give it national coverage. CC
Hi. I'm new here, but I've been reading the comments for a while now. DocG's theory makes more sense of this case than any I've read yet. I'm not completely convinced, however, that John was the murderer. I do believe he did the staging of the body and deliberately contaminated the crime scene by picking up JonBenet's body. Obviously he lied about the broken window and several other things. And why did he use a flashlight when putting Burke to bed? That seems suspicious. I think something happened shortly after the Ramseys arrived home from Fleet White's house -- child abuse by a parent (most likely Patsy), -- and JonBenet received the head injury. Thinking she was dead, both parents staged a fake kidnapping because the truth was too embarrassing and might get them sent to jail. They thought they were smart enough to fool the Boulder police, and perhaps they were right.
"Child abuse by a parent (most likely Patsy), -- and JonBenet received the head injury. Thinking she was dead, both parents staged a fake kidnapping because the truth was too embarrassing and might get them sent to jail."
Why do you feel the abuse that occurred was "most likely" inflicted by Patsy? If you have no problem accepting that John most likely staged the scene, lied about the window and the flashlight, then is it really such a leap to presume he's also the murderer? What evidence do you see that leads you to Patsy? As far as thinking she was dead, I am pretty sure that before making a decision to tie a garrote around your daughter's throat, you would make absolutely certain she wasn't still breathing, which isn't very difficult to do. If the kidnapping ruse was concocted in order to avoid prison, they would have staged an accident - such as a fall down the stairs perhaps - staging a kidnapping/sexual assault guarantees her death is now going to be investigated as a crime rather than an accident, which is only going to draw more attention to themselves.
If you want to discuss the late great Miles Davis with his astounding recording of his sextet on "Kind of Blue", I'm there man. Best line up of musicians in my lifetime, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, Bill Evans, (plus Wynton Kelly, James Cobb and Paul Chambers)all of them chosen carefully, none of them had played the songs Miles had written just shortly before, and they do it in one take. "Flamenco Sketches" will break your heart in two. Transcendent.
You should know Doc I think you're cool. And yes, I am ALL ABOUT jazz. I have been since I bought my first Cannonball Adderley album. But don't get me started on "Trane." I tear up.
Back to the case. We're all working at cross purposes so how could we solve this case anyway? Anything that was left is interpreted in here as part of your own scenario with your perpetrator. Anything taken away fits your own scenario. Nothing will get solved in here. It's just a place to discuss, and if your theory is different from the majority in here they certainly aren't going to change their minds, so why should you. Are you suggesting Doc that after committing murder on his own daughter John devised a scenario where he would need white cord that just happened to be in plain site, black duct tape again, handy, sat down and composed a long note using his weak hand with a few false starts (and 17 missing pages from the notepad) which he crumpled up and hid somewhere until Patsy wasn't looking so that he could make one trip to the dumpster outside without being seen with all of his crime scene evidence, left a note right where she would see it as soon as she goes downstairs before him and hopes to God she gets to the word "beheaded" and doesn't run up to her room and starts screaming, hopes to God she doesn't decide in an instant the best bet is to call the police, and hopes to God he remembered to break the window, close it, and goes back down to sweep it up but oops, he left a shard of glass - well he's screwed now, he can't carry the body which is decomposing out to his car trunk now, what a cool calculated well through out incestuous murderer he is! He thought of just about everything. Just about. Just the fact that they are going to re test the unidentified male DNA again with better technology than we had in 1996, and just the fact that it's there and where it is, may give us some answers. May. The possibility of it. If it comes to trial that's something else entirely.
Hi Doc, noticed the Bird's moniker on the disk label right away, since my son was encouraged by his grandfather to study Parker as he built proficiency on his tenor sax. Developed love of jazz and skills on other horns and woodies along the way. Ah, the blessings of true music.
Shout out to CC...I'm here reading every day. Been in your theory camp most of the way, but will add I find it totally believable that JR would have blamed Burke if he needed to, thereby allowing the enlistment of Patsy, if we have to someday accept she wrote the RN. However, I am easily persuaded JR wrote the note...misspellings using the double s's, Doc's account of Johnisms and his excellent handwriting comparison. I do believe JR even thought adding hats to his a's would help disguise his hand, and if it pointed to Patsy, an even better assist. If Burke got the blame, good reason to snug him up in his bed, then later whisk him off to the White's. From all we've seen related to Burke, he is the perfect example of a victim being gaslighted and manipulated through narcissistic abuse from the get go.
It's difficult for most reading here to genuinely understand that a true Narcissist, which I believe JR to be, can't connect his mind to what we perceive a normal heart to feel. It's like something "short circuited" in their hard wiring early on in life, but the circuit created a new path of completion bypassing the intended genuine emotions of the heart. Everything JR has said and done through the years demonstrates his only agenda is his own comfort and success. If all else displayed to the public fails, the "indignant grandstanding" technique gets pulled out, as it did last on CNN, with his "that's absurd" comment leading to the edited cutaway and commentary. (btw, CC, I wondered if there followed some off camera body posturing by JR that often accompanies the indignant blowoff)
We now must sit and wait patiently through this lovely holy season to see what the new interviews tonite disclose, amd while the extensive DNA testing is processed. If I am correct in my interpretation the new Y chromosome identifier technology can pinpoint a specific male donor to their sample.
I wish I could personally hug Charlie Brennan. He is as close to a hero as we have hoped for in JB'S cause, and I hope he never gives up digging into the case using his journalist skills and connections.
JR, as you become more intensely driven to display your innocence before a camera, my cheshire cat grin widens. You can fool some of the people all of the time, some of the people some of the time and some of the people none of the time. I am in the last camp, and until I hear a confession from one of Kolar's circus midgets, my bet is on JR, the Pretender extraordinare. MWMM
Glad to have you back, Midwest Mama, it's been a while.
Charlie is a dogged investigative journalist in the Woodward and Bernstein tradition, and I don't think he'll ever let this go - just wish he had a wider audience. CC
Tsk Anony. Not easy being in a minority, is it. Would be easier if I went along, got with the program, agreed. In the majority opinion after 20 years still no arrest. Think about it. It may be well thought out, but no one has moved on it. When there could be more than one perpetrator with a few outstanding keys out there, it takes more investigatory work. Have you ever wondered why the man who kidnapped Bill McReynold's daughter and her friend was never apprehended? Look on the unsolved case index for Denver and Boulder, starting in the 60's to 2000. I mean it would be so much easier for me to just acknowledge JDI but I can't go against what makes no sense to me. The timing makes no sense for starters. And I don't buy that she was going to tell at their family reunion. She could have told numerous other times. (If there was prior abuse.)
I'll just leave this right here. Yes, I understand it's just one persons opinion, but it gets added to the very large pile of reasons I know Patsy was involved in the staging.
I'm not saying her expert opinion is the end all be all, but what I will say is that the large majority of experts who have spoken on this case have concluded it is more similar to Patsy's. I think this is a gigantic problem for JDI and you know it.
It really isn't. Handwriting analysis is largely inadmissible in court because it isn't science and the so-called experts are not uniformly trained, are often poorly qualified, and their opinions are entirely subjective.
I got nothin? CC - Doc isn't an expert...he's a blogger. Actual forensic EXPERTS have concluded it's Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. I don't know that that is nothin. More people have concluded that Patsy wrote it than John....not to mention there are many other reasons I believe Patsy was involved and this just gets added to the pile.
The JDI community HATES the handwriting analysis because it's a huge problem for John "Jason Bourne" Ramsey doing this crime all by himself.
This IS the "JDI community", J, and we don't hate it and don't find it a huge problem because HANDWRITING ANALYSIS IS CRAP. Not science, not admissible in court. Crap. Useless as a bowl of pineapple. CC
Thank you CC for proving my point. The JDI community includes Doc does it not? Ok thanks because I have seen 50 different blog posts from Doc trying to analyze how John could have written the note. I don't care about being admissible in court, though if this case did ever go to trial I would promise you that the pineapple bowl would 100% be in court.
Doc has, I believe, addressed the inadmissibility of the handwriting analysis. I'm always puzzled by his fascination with it, and can only conclude that it's his personal hobby horse, as the prior sexual abuse is mine.
Really? On what basis could the bowl of pineapple be introduced as probative evidence, when it cannot be conclusively proved when or by whom it was placed on that table? CC
To save this blog from seeing me post on this again, I will make this brief
Burke's fingerprints are on the bowl. Burke in his own words said he snuck downstairs that night. JB has pineapple in her stomach. The case can be made that Burke was up with JBR.
That's an entirely fallacious leap, and compares apples to oranges to, well, pineapple - the circumstances are entirely dissimilar in the three.
If I were prosecuting I assure you they'd find Burke's fingerprints were there from emptying the dishwasher and that JBR helped herself to a piece of pineapple from a bowl left on the table at breakfast.
"If I were prosecuting I assure you they'd find Burke's fingerprints were there from emptying the dishwasher and that JBR helped herself to a piece of pineapple from a bowl left on the table at breakfast."
I'm not going to continue with the back and forth on this. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude it was Burke's pineapple bowl. Also, for a lawyer, you seem to have a lot of time to comment on a blog :-)
I'm sorry J but you can't make a case that Burke was up with JB. Not based on that pineapple bowl. Because it could have been served at any time. It could have been poured the day before Christmas, Christmas morning, Christmas afternoon, or midnight. Absolutely any time at all. Reminds me of a line from Spinal Tap - "how do you dust for vomit?"
This is "one person's opinion" also, J: "It is also important to note, because of that preposterous CBS documentary and Burke Ramsey’s offputting interviews, that police have ruled JonBenet’s brother out a number of times during the investigation. They interviewed him three times — once for three straight days — without the parents being present. The interview was videotaped, and yet neither the FBI, nor the CBI, nor any of the detectives at the time suspected Burke of being involved in the murder." (http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/15/jonbenet-parents-still-look-guilty/)
Burke was interviewed for three, consecutive days. As a nine year old, I guarantee he would have not been capable of concealing his guilt. I worked with kids for eight years - I learned that, when trying to lie, they inevitably give themselves away in a variety of very noticeable ways.....but for the most part, they're usually pretty honest, especially around authority. LE are trained to look for signs of deception and knew very early on it wasn't Burke. Hence, he was ruled out a number of times and was NEVER a suspect.
I watched part of the interviews of Burke. It didn't look like intense grilling to me. They let him off the hook. To me he looked like a creepy kid with absolutely no emotion about his sister dying. Nor did he seem scared at all that somebody would come for him. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Well, that is merely your opinion, J, and you're not a detective, nor are you a child psychologist, thus I am more inclined to trust their expertise in the field rather than rely on someone's unsubstantiated musings regarding a subject they have no experience in.
So Burke has a dark passenger in the form of a ghost John Ramsey to curb his urges? One thing is for sure, the investigation went downhill quickly, just like Dexter <3.
Absolutely true. Which means I can't get away with simply voicing an opinion. I have to actually dig into the evidence, analyze it, and come up with a meaningful argument.
Doc, forgot to mention...I had to chuckle at your trust that you didn't need a penny on the arm head of your record player to make sure it wouldn't skip or drift causing a dreaded scratch across your prized vinyl. MWMM
Every time I type the word "narcissist" I think of you, Mama, and your remarks last year. Tell me more about what you alluded to earlier, about JR's likely off-camera reactions. Is this a narcissistic thing? CC
The two NPDs in my life almost always ended up demonstrating disdain when unable to refute a challenge put to them by "huffing" about: slamming doors, using snide obscenities, name calling, shaking a lifted fist, or ultimately shunning the conversation by dismissing the dialogue, then walking away.
A couple of other observations...in a face to face conversation, the NPD will rarely use an open or extended palm gesture. They rarely are first to offer a handshake, unless they have you "targeted" as a fresh supply. They are very eye-engaging, but usually with what appears to be a cool, almost non interested look. When sitting in a chair during conversation, they will often lean back and stretch somewhat taller at times folding their arms across their chest, or even shift somewhat sideways, which signal they are putting you further away from them. If thry lean into a conversation, it's when they expect you to pay attention to what they think and say, because they believe you will accept whatever they are saying is the ultimate truth and of supreme importance.
I could go on for paragraphs, but those who question JR'S personality being narcissistic would probably see it easily simply by googling traits of a narcissist. MWMM
I was revisting a few past posts and reread one from September, 16, 2016. It was written by CC and it really offers key information that would be good to keep in mind as we continue discussing this case. The following is an excerpt:
"They observed, among other chronic injuries, a hymen that had been eroded over time and a vaginal opening twice normal size for a six year old."
We can argue all we want about the autopsy results and if there are different interprations or views that make those results inconclusive. However, there is some very physical evidence observed by them ALL and that was the size of her vagina opening. Other injuries could or could not have been caused by the alledged vaginitis - which was the cause of multiple visits to her pediatrician. Some other injuries could have been caused by the assault on the day of the murder. But neither one, vaginitis or the last assault could have caused the opening of her vagina to grow bigger. That was certainly caused by the stimulation of the area over a period of time. So, I insist, JBR was killed because of this undeniable, inexplicable mark left on her body. Not because of what she could be telling others on the cruise but because of what a doctor would ask them after a physical exam on her body.
I don't know where you are getting that word "eroded" to describe the injuries to the hymen and whoever "they observed" were they were not the ME, who used the word abrasion multiple times in the autopsy report. It was also refuted that there is a "normal" sized hymen for a 6 year old that would be deemed of abnormal size in this particular case. And in any event, we cannot ascertain based on this autopsy report by the ME who did the actual examination, that she had been sexually abused previously and that her injuries sustained were not from a rape with a paintbrush handle.
Disregard Inquisitive, Martha - the rest of us do. She is, as usual, wrong in all but one respect: Dr Meyer didn't refer to prior abuse in the autopsy report. CC
CC is very condescending Martha, I wouldn't pay it much mind - if you want more proof of that go back to her dialog with Hercule - I believe it was 2012. He called her out on it but of course there's no cure, it's learned behavior and would have to be unlearned, possibly with some aversion conditioning, you know, SR-, an old operant conditioning term. Only one scientist actually examined JB - the ME. All of the rest were spectators, and so the word "chronic" and "eroded" took on a power that wasn't factual. But you go ahead and speak for everyone CC.
Thank you, Inquisitive. I dont mean to be rude or offend anyone with my comments. i read and inform myself about the case as much as possible.I also enjoy reading all comments and participating and would love to continue doing so. I respect your position and enjoy reading your posts because they are entertaining. However, I honestly believe there was a victim of sexual abuse in this case, who was silent in a horrific way. By not seeing that, I feel we keep silencing her and it is painful, to me, at least... One of my precious sisters was abused by one of my uncles. Noone believed her at the time when she finally opened up about what was going on. Even my father did not believe her. If that had happened, it was because of the way she was, he would say. The stronger, older, fitter, smarter wins in these cases, most of the times. I only hope justice is met for this little girl. Martha
that's sad Anony. I hope she finds her power some day, that we all live in an unreal world and that the real world is one in which we are free of our past and people who didn't contribute to us in a way that lifted us up or inspired us, and when we see that we know we can choose, choose what's right for us. Over all of these years we had so much misinformation and now there are books on just about every take you can take. When Leigh comes back you may find her one line answers abrupt at first but everything she's said has been accurate and I miss her. She has been at this longer than I have and has answers I don't have, if she will come back.
Thank you, CC! That is a great post, btw. I appreciate we can have it available here. It's true Dr Meyer doesnt refer to prior abuse in the autopsy report, I checked it out. But, that could have been because the acute sometimes can mask the chronic...and I believe the killer counted on that! . Either way the panel of experts' opinion is also valid and its worth considering, given that all people participating had experience in the field, being one of them expert in child abuse.
IMO this is the way the death of JonBenet happened: The Ramseys arrive home from the Whites around 9:30 - 10. JonBenet is sleeping but soon wakes and begins playing with her new toys. Burke is playing with his toys also. John and Patsy tell the children to get ready for bed, as they are leaving for their trip to Michigan very early in the morning. The kids begin to whine and complain and ask for a snack. Patsy gives them a bowl of pineapple, but they eat only a couple bites, then start playing again. John has gone up to his and Patsy's bedroom and she is left to deal with the situation. She begins to get irritable and raises her voice, demanding they obey her. Burke takes one of his toys with him and goes to his room, but JonBenet stomps her feet, pouts, and talks back to Patsy. Angry at JonBenet and overly tired, Patsy grabs JonBenet by the neck of her blouse and begins to drag the child up the stairs. JonBenet struggles to get away but is unsuccessful. Once in JonBenet's bedroom, Patsy tries to dress her for bed and discovers JonBenet has soiled her panties. Suddenly Patsy slaps the JonBenet -- slaps her with all her strength -- and the child falls hard against furniture, a corner of the wall, or perhaps the bathroom sink. JonBenet loses consciousness immediately and Patsy is horrified at what she has dfone. She shakes JonBenet to try and wake her. She wipes her face and body with cold cloths, all to no avail. To all appearances the child is dead. Now Patsy calls on John to help her. He attempts to revive his little girl. After a while, with JonBenet exhibiting no signs of life, the parents begin discussing what should be done. If they call 911 and JonBenet wakes, she will tell what happened and Patsy will be arrested for child abuse -- perhaps John, too. If she dies, the charge will be murder. They will lose everything if that happens. Their standing in the community, their luxurious lifestyle, and their millions will disappear. Neither will they be around to raise Burke to adulthood. After consideration of all this, the Ramseys decided to stage a kidnapping gone wrong. They never intended to dispose of the body of their daughter, however, for they did live JonBenet and could not bear to have her buried in some remote, unmarked grave.
No. It has to be worse than that. Because they could just lie and say it was an accident. Oh she fell backwards, Burke scared her, blah blah. I think they had to stage this because there was evidence of sexual abuse in JBRs hymen. There had to be some sexual abuse first for them to want to cover this up. Then an accident maybe. Or a deliberate act. Also they were afraid that she would tell about the sex abuse if they took her to a doctor.
SC- If it truly was an accident and they were sure the abuse would be discovered, then they would have agreed on a cover up...that is possible. But then, you are saying Patsy knew about the abuse? If she knew and was willing to follow any plan to cover up and conceal the abuse, why did dhe call the police and foiled said plan?
I think the plan was to write a note to divert attention from themselves. They did not just want to leave body in the basement. They thought they were so clever, that by writing a note, they could fool police better. So the plan was to fake a kidnapping.
Or- maybe John wanted to get rid of the body. But Patsy did not want to. She wanted to bury the body. So she came up with the note idea on her own. As an excuse to call police. Against John's wishes. As in, she discovered the note, she called police. Otherwise she would have to find the body in the basement first before John. And maybe he would not let her go down in basement. This way she could do it earlier.
Not sure really, but those are some possible ideas.
Ok...we can all say BDI,IDI or PDI. But at the end of the day we post on this site instead of the other sites. Why is that? Because in the back of everyone's mind we know Doc has figured it out. JDI... PLAIN AND SIMPLE
I personally post on this blog because it has intelligent posters. I had to leave Facebook groups, and Websleuths for the oversaturation of ridiculous theories, and misinformation.
Giving you all a heads up on ABC's 20/20 tonight there is a JBR special. There is a segment regarding a juror who speaks out as to who they think killed JBR based on evidence they were privy to. This should be interesting.
EG- I think they're bringing back that so-called handwriting expert that Doc talked about (and discredited). It'll be interesting to hear what the juror has to say! Love this site and the commentors! Thanks, Doc! -Candy
Ms. D. -- thanks for your response to my comment. Sorry I didn't express my ideas very well. I am still vacillating between PDI, JDI, and BDI. Shortly after the JonBenet Ramsey case made news I thought JDI. It was easy for me to believe he molested his daughter and murdered her to prevent her telling because I used to work in a rape crisis center and know that rape by a family member is not uncommon. However, after John was ruled out as having written the ransom note, and after hearing that Patsy could not be ruled out, I began to view her as the number one suspect. The handwriting in the ransom note does look very similar to hers, and some of the language is such as she is known to use. Patsy's writing style is different than the style of writing evident in the ransom note, though that may be due to the use of partial quotes from movies. Also, Patsy was the primary caregiver of JonBenet and as such would have been the one to bathe and dress her. And John said Patsy tucked JonBenet into bed after he had laid her on the bed when they came home from the Whites. She was the last one known to see the child alive. Additionally, Patsy was evasive when answering questions regarding that night, and, like John, she changed parts of her story time and again. Oh, and on the morning she reported JonBenet missing, Patsy wore the same clothes she'd worn the previous day. Her friends said this was unlike Patsy. I know I would be wearing my robe to go downstairs to make coffee.Still, suspicious as all this sounds, she may be innocent of any involvement in her daughter's death. I certainly hope she is.
of all the possible scenarios Anony, this was the one I thought the longest, mostly because I wasn't thinking about it every day like I do in here, but I believed alot that I read. Although I thought the motive was she caught John and JB in a compromising situation and had the flashlight with her as it was late, John wasn't in bed, she goes down to JB's room (or John Andrew's) and there they are and she starts swinging. I thought that was how it had to be, then when she didn't come to, they devised a plan to cover for each other. I'm simply IDI now because so many had keys they lost track. Their house was on the Christmas parade of homes circuit, people knew their floorplan and their business. Not everyone loved them. Then we had the incomplete investigation, which focused in on Patsy primarily so we the public didn't know what else they had. So I've been where you are, not sure which is complete. And...none of them are. So just keep thinking for yourself until it makes sense. And tune out the bullies.
9PM (EST) tonight, Saturday, Dec 17th repeating at 11PM(EST) on REELZ.
Not sure if anyone caught last night's special where the Grand Juror spoke. Nothing much new except that handwriting expert that wasn't allowed to testify. She said in her opinion, Patsy wrote the RN.
Other than that, and the Juror saying he thought he knew who did it but wasn't going to share that information, there wasn't much else. I am not sure where the Juror was going with that remark, and wondered if he meant BR. He did agree with Alex Hunter in that they wouldn't have been able to get a conviction based on the evidence they were presented with.
hi EG, yes saw the abc special with the Grand Juror. I'm not going to speculate on what he knows, but it would suggest Burke, so J, you're still in this! I hadn't seen that picture of Burke as a young adult sailing before, surrounded by "capsized square knots" :) I also didn't know that the unidentified male DNA was in two spots - as you could see - the longjohns and the leg of the panties. I had thought they were referring to touch DNA only on the sides of the longjohns where one would pull up the garment. So, learned something new from this. Anyway, will try to get REELZ tv, thanks EG.
Hi Inq....yea, I think that Juror was pointing to Burke as well, but not sure. I think I had read where the DNA was present on two items of clothing, and that it matched and was called "touch DNA". We will see what the one on Reelz has to say tonight.
The comments from the Grand Juror have very much sealed it for me that IDI should be excluded. The jury was presented evidence from the office of prosecution and from Smit, took a great deal of time weighing it all, and brought back probable cause true bills against the parents. If Hunter would have gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity to develop and present even more evidence, if not forensic, then certainly strong circumstantial evidence, which DOES sometimes lead to a conviction. We must remember that IIRC, the jurors were instructed to be able to get beyond reasonable doubt with probable cause indictments, WHICH THEY DID DO.
IMO, ABC clearly wanted to implicate JR by replaying a portion of Arndts interview. Now that Garnett and BPD are proceeding with further DNA testing, why should we keep BDI in the mix of theories? Spending more taxpayer money over the millions already spent could not be justified if this case could be closed by a judiciary statement according to Colorado statutes which is a determination that JonBenet died from actions taken against her by a youth under the age of ten years old, whose identity will remain undisclosed according to Colorado law. Of course, immediate public speculation would then fall on BDI, with assist from parents to cover up. Tsk, tsk, public hoopla interspersed with sympathy for the shame of it all, The Rams slink off into crime history and an innocent child has justice.
No folks, this crime isn't BDI or IDI. Doc put his thumbprint on this long ago, and if JDI gets "ruled in", as a lone perpetrator who will stop at nothing, including using his own family as his fall guys, this case will be closed quickly. MOO MWMM
DocG – Just finished reading your book, and after reading several others that have been published, I have to admit that your theory makes the most sense (based on facts, logic and common sense). However, you do lose me in Chapter 13 – Section V, where you describe your theory on Johns’ activities the night of the murder (i.e. he killed her to shut her up about the molestation). I hope you will put some more thought into that.
You say “He strikes her over the head with a powerful blow from a Maglite flashlight with a heavy rubber tip, knowing that such an object is not likely to draw blood.” -- How could he (or anyone for that matter) possibly know that a strike like that would not cause blood? I would think if he was going to kill her (premeditated) he would have done it in a more humane way such as overdosing her with sleeping pills or some other drug. He could have also just come at her from behind and strangled her with the rope, or held her down and smothered her with a pillow. Bashing her over the head with the flashlight just doesn’t make sense unless he loathed her, and to insinuate that method is merciful is ludicrous. And how was he to know (for sure) it would knock her out?
You say “Noticing that she is still breathing, he decides to complete his task by strangling her. Reluctant to do this by hand, he constructs a garotte-like ligature device and strangles her with that.” -- I think she was strangled originally just with the rope, and the garrote (stick) was added after the fact to make it look more gruesome, hence why her hair was entangled in the knot, as it had to be constructed close to her head.
You say “Noting that some of his sperm can be seen on her panties, he goes upstairs, finds a fresh pair, and redresses her in those. He then deposits the original pair in the laundry hamper.” -- Were the original panties found the hamper? If so, and you are correct, then JR’s DNA are on those panties and that would be a smoking gun. It doesn’t make sense, if he’s trying to get rid of all of the other evidence, that he would carelessly leave sperm soiled panties in the house. It also doesn’t make ANY sense at all that if his intent was to kill her to shut her up, that he would be sexually aroused during the murder of his child. That goes beyond incest.
I have to admit I was in the BDI, but after reading your book am working my way over to the JDI camp. I have to give more thought to what actually happened as far as the actual murder goes though.
I do have one unanswered question: Patsy says she only read the first few lines of the note. So, then, how did she know who signed the note when asked by the 911 operator? Even if she just glanced at it, it is highly unlikely that she would remember that acronym during her frantic 911 call.
At the outset of Chapter Three I stated that my recreation of what happened is "frankly speculative" and I saw no reason to repeat that elsewhere. What I wrote in chapter 13 is based on what seemed most likely to me. The actual sequence of events and motivations may have been different, we will probably never know. These are details that have no bearing on the essentials of the case against John.
Of all the items JBR could have been struck with, the maglite was certainly the least likely to draw blood, so it occurred to me that this could have been why John chose to use it. A baseball bat or golf club would have been far more likely to draw blood, imo. John had been in the Navy and it's possible he'd had contact with sailors who'd had Navy Seals type training and might have shared some tips on how to disable someone without drawing blood. Again, that's pure speculation, but that's the sort of thing I had in mind. If the head blow was a purely spontaneous act, then he might have just gotten lucky. Of course, a certain amount of blood would not have been inconsistent with a kidnapping, as the kidnapper could have assaulted her before removing her from the house.
It seems to me that, of all the ways one might kill or disable someone, a single, sharp, head blow is the most merciful, though it might seem more violent than the alternatives. Smothering someone with a pillow might seem "gentler" but would definitely induce both panic and pain, whereas a head blow with a heavy object, if administered properly would have knocked her out instantly, with no pain, no fear, no discomfort of any kind.
The ligature was embedded deeply in her neck, which is consistent with a garrote-type device that produced more pressure with every twist. I think she must have been strangled with it after the head blow, which would explain the hairs entwined in the knotting. If she'd been conscious her struggles would have made it impossible to construct that device while lying right on top of her.
I think the device was constructed either to enable him to strangle her without actually touching her or as part of an erotic fantasy. I think it's naive to assume the attack did not have an erotic component, even if it had been premeditated. By that time his relation with his daughter would have been intensely erotic or things would never have reached the point they did. (Again, I am speculating -- we have no direct evidence of this.)
What I see time and again in John's actions is a gift for misdirection, and I see the oversize panties as yet another example. If some drops of his sperm got onto the original pair and he didn't make any effort to get rid of them after the 911 call, then his goose would have been cooked for sure. And if he simply removed them, what would he have done with them? The missing panties would have triggered a thorough search of the house and all the panties found would have been tested for sperm, DNA, etc. Flushing them, even after cutting them up, might well have clogged the toilet. And dropping them in a neighbor's garbage could easily have backfired. So I think he decided to just take another pair labeled "Wednesday" and substitute the fresh pair for the original, which could then have been dumped in the laundry hamper. And I think that's what happened. All the panties were probably collected by the police but I strongly doubt that anyone would have thought to test them for sperm or anything else. Again, this is purely speculative, but I can't think of any other reason why John would have wanted to redress her in a fresh pair of panties. Can you?
As for Patsy and the note, she could easily have glanced at the bottom of the last page when asked who wrote it. No need to read the whole thing in order to find the "signature" at the end.
I too found it difficult at first to imagine John Ramsey murdering JonBenet in the ways that were used. Aspects of many if not most murders often go unsolved even when the right person(s) are convicted and sent to prison. To this day, no one knows how or why Scott Peterson murdered his wife Lacy and son Connor.
As you follow the case and witness John's body language and expressions during interviews, it becomes easier to see a monster behind a myth---a myth that perpetuates cultured, wealthy, and educated human beings as less capable of committing heinous crimes. The one time John almost fooled me was in his most recent CNN interview with Jean Casarez, but his huge lie at the end of the show betrayed the seemingly genuine emotion he expressed beginning of it. It then dawned on me how John has been hearing for twenty years now how cold, stonefaced, and emotionless he appears public. That's a long time to work on your weaknesses.
A hit on the head IS actually a merciful way to kill someone. And while his hope would be that her body would never be discovered, his plan would nevertheless have to account for that possibilty. A body discovered by police buried in the woods by a cruel and greedy pedophile makes sense in light of JonBenet's participation in beauty paegents where pervy onlookers are probably a dime a dozen.
Doc can confirm that I was also bothered by no panties discovered in the hamper. I dedicated a whole post to that issue. Any JDI theory also has to reasonably account for no shards of glass found at the scene, or remants of duct tape and cord that, by all accounts, had been part of the house inventory long before the murder occurred. John's own disappearance for an hour before the body was discovered provided reasonable opportunity for him to get rid of the evidence. As to when, where, or even if John ejaculated that night, that is just speculation. The original panties having more blood on them, or non-visible incriminating hairs or fibers, may have been the reason they were changed.
Finally, that a father who murders a daughter whom he loves yet has had incest with, is entirely consistent with a father who afterwards wraps her dead body in her favorite blanket, changes her underwear, wipes down her genital area, and maybe even draws a heart on her hand. I can't cite a particular source to support this assertion, but if watch enough crime shows on television I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusion.
That was my takeaway as well, Midwest Mama: Arndt's inclusion was a clear message; had the GJ believed the Ramseys aided and abetted an intruder there would have been a third true bill returned against "person or persons unknown"; had it been Burke the second true bill would not have specified first degree murder. Someone is, finally, looking at John - hope it's Stan Garnett. CC
While I can't be sure, to the extent the Grand Jurors heard testimony regarding who wrote the ransom note, my guess is they heard from no one opining it was, or could have been, John Ramsey alone.
Non-JDIers can rest assured that if Burke, an intruder, or even Patsy, albeit posthumously, ever stand trial for JonBenet's murder, the defense attorney will be prepared to argue, not only that it was John who wrote the note, but that it was John who acted alone in killing JonBenet.
IMO I think Detective Arndt lost all credibility the moment she asked JR to search the house. Her second mistake was doing that interview, which made her look like she was either on heavy duty medication or needed to be.
The RN is key here. If an IDI the note would have been short and to the point AND of course, JBR would have been kidnapped. I think we can all agree, it wasn't ever a RN in the real sense of those words. So then, what was the purpose of it? If you believe BDI, it's a cover up by both parents to distract and divert--send the police on a wild goose chase interviewing tons of suspects(which they did). However, if JDI, it was as Doc said, to stop PR from calling the police and also, making it sound as if PR wrote it which of course points the finger her way and away from him, even going so far as to using her pad and pen to write it.
I am curious to see what tonight's special brings to the table. I think it's from the perspective of the FBI agent, so it should be factual. We shall see.
EG I thought that the DNA markers weren't strong enough for a match. That's why I'm sure they are re-testing it, with improved current testing methods. But if you look at the location where they cut it out from it has everything to do with the sexual component of this crime. I also think it interesting that "they" said it was the same unidentified male DNA taken from two different garments - the longjohns and the panties. That suggests to me that it did not come from the panty manufacturer. I had also read earlier that the DNA was saliva, not semen. Now does that change anything for you in speculating about the crime? I'm not sure what that points to for me.
Arnt was overwhelmed that day. She asked for backup numerous times and none came. More and more people came over. All she could do was make sure those people weren't wandering around on their own, which they probably did anyway. I keep wondering though, did she have no power at all to tell people to leave? She could have at least called headquarters and asked them to give her that power - tell them the house may be an active crime scene and everyone had to leave. I think we know why John went for the basement right away - even though Arnt told him to start at the top and work his way down. Because he had already discovered the body earlier. John said in an interview he wasn't going to "do the police job for them" but it's exactly what he did.
Regarding the DNA, from what I understood with touch DNA, you can touch an article of clothing yourself, get the DNA on your own hands, and then contaminate another garment, which is what JBR could have done. BUT I am not sure, as I am not an expert or claim to be in the field of DNA or criminal investigations for that matter.
That would have been my question to JR. Why didn't he check that wine cellar room the first time we went down there. If an IDI, and JR discovered the body earlier, wouldn't he have said so? I would think he would only NOT say anything if he was guilty of putting it there.
It is peculiar EG. He admitted to his older son, JA, that he found her around 11 a.m. Some think when he "disappeared" for an hour he was disposing of evidence, perhaps tidying up the scene. Some think he did all of that earlier. But he admits to JA it was 11 a.m. when he found her. This is just one of the little details that points away from his guilt. If he "finds" her he didn't cause her to be there. Unless finding her was some kind of act. Even so, yes, why didn't he immediately tell Arnt? She says he appeared different after that time frame. She says he was "cordial" when she got there, then depressed and rather despondent after he disappeared and came back, then growing increasingly agitated by 1 p.m. when she gives him the task of searching the house. She would know, since about all she could do that day was observe (with no backup). so yes, why wouldn't he say what he found in the morning? If he did kill her why not tell, and if he didn't kill her why not tell. My thoughts as to "why" lead me into dark places and away from my IDI scenario - be that as it may, it suggests to me he knew who killed her - either Burke or Patsy, and probably Patsy. It's possible he suspected his wife had something to do with it from the moment he read and re read that note. Am I switching back to PDI? No. But that to me, is what his odd behavior "suggests."
as a postscript to above, if John knows he didn't do it, Patsy has been separated from him all day in another room with her friends, and all he can do is wonder who did. He could have most certainly suspected his wife.
That's interesting, Inq....so you think JR thought either PR or JR did it, therefore he kept quiet about the discovery? I guess that could account for his disappearing for a time, and the odd behavior. I thought he told JA 11AM but then said he was mistaken.
I've always felt the RN sounded like PR, but then it could have been worded that way to point a finger at her and away from JR. The handwriting "expert" from last night said she thought it was PR's handwriting, but she wasn't allowed to testify before the GJ. From what I've learned here, handwriting isn't used often and isn't considered reliable evidence.
Megan prompted me to write my first-ever post on a blog! As strange as it sounds, I too read this blog (and sometimes Websleuths) as I lay in bed trying to wash all the stress of the day away. Weird, isn't it? Like, who does that as a way to relax??
I began as RDI, then moved to BDI after I read Kolar’s book. Recently, I have transitioned to JDI as it makes the most sense to me.
These are some of the questions that don’t fit easily into my JDI theory:
1. If Patsy was asleep while John was doing this heinous act, why did her hair and makeup appear to be still intact from the night before? Nowhere have I read that she even brushed her hair before going downstairs. (If she truly slept all night and awoke to nearly perfect hair and makeup, I would love to learn her secret!)
2. Why does Patsy’s side of the bed appear to be not slept in?
3. I think we all believe that John would have been occupied with the crime for quite some time (hours?). Wouldn’t Patsy notice that John was out of bed for a good portion of the night? I’ve read Doc’s suggestion that men his age get up frequently to use the bathroom. I notice when my husband is not in bed and I just fall back asleep, but I would certainly notice if he was not in bed for a significant portion of the night. How could that have gone unnoticed?
4. JB’s final resting position with her arms outstretched over her head also bugs me. When I was BDI, the position of her arms made sense because I pictured him dragging her by the arms into the WC, leaving her arms over her head. My JDI theory struggles with this aspect.
5. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I think that if John’s entire purpose of writing the RN was to get the body out of the house (which does make the most sense to me), I find it odd that he wasn’t able to convince Patsy not to call 911 “for the sake of JB’s safety”. You’d think he could at least get her to hold off making the call for a while.
Keep the posts coming! I find this absolutely fascinating!
Linda (P.S. Sorry if this is a double post. I'm new to this!)
Patsy did it, Linda. You have more or less answered your own questions. She was the prime suspect from day one, and that first gut instinct is usually the correct one.
Burke heard something. John knew, and instinctively and immediately sought legal help.
#3 Linda - conversely John would have noticed Patsy wasn't in bed all night - except for the fact that he said he took a melatonin. Even the housekeeper said he "slept like a log." And in this case, a "Yule Log" :)
Yes, interesting that his first daughter died at 22, in 1992. I just looked it up. Apparently she was in a car with her boyfriend on highway, it lost control, and they got struck and killed.
But... would brake or steering wheel tampering be out of the question? To cover up prior sex abuse?
I read Marilyn Van Derbur's book this week. She was Miss Colorado, then Miss America 1958. I had previously seen this book mentioned in conjunction with the JonBenet case.
Marilyn is a survivor of incest, from the age of 5 until 18. Her millionaire father also abused her older sister, and 9 other neighborhood girls came forward, after Marilyn came forward.
I seriously do believe that if John Ramsey was an addictive pedophile that there would have been other victims. That is the nature of this kind of predator.
On the other hand, you have a mother getting attention by sexualizing her 6 year old, and running her continually to the pediatrician for vaginitis.
Attention seeking. Munchhausen's. Why does no one think that a mother can do this to a child? Remember Sybil?
The other thing about John - he was so danged helpful. Immediately handing the notepads over to the investigator. Immediately provided handwriting samples. Immediately arranging for ransom money.
That note was addressed to him. The writer at first was going to address it to both "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey", but had a change of mind on that because, "I had nothing to do with it, Buddy!"
Where does everyone keep getting that JBR kept having vaginitis ? Out of 31 visits to Dr Beuf in a 2 yr period, 3 were for vaginitis, if someone has a reference saying differently please post it.
Another thing that bothers me. No bedroom doors on John and Patsy's bedroom. Is that correct? Isn't that another symptom of being an exhibitionist? Having a personality disorder?
Also GS we don't know what was going on in that marriage. Housekeeper says they never seemed affectionate with each other. Patsy was overly attentive to JB, micromanaging everything from what she wore - wanting to dress her and herself like twins, to bleaching her hair for the pageants, essentially turning JB into a mini-Patsy. Some would say she just doted on her, loved her, but others may say Patsy was unstable. Then while under the influence of valium she says to her friend "we didn't mean for this to happen" - probably not. It was most probably an accident. This is why mystery swirls around this case. There is a plausible explanation for family culpability.
AA has agreed to allow you to participate in their 12-step program to help you overcome your affliction! Consult your local church for times and places. Ransom notes will be provided, but you must bring your own sharpies and note pads.
FYI JBR Special is called OVERKILL and its on tonight 12/17 on REELZ@ 9PM EST.
Based on the journalist Lawrence Shiller, who's been following the story for years and claims to have some new information never heard before. We shall see.
I will preface this by saying what you all know already…I am a believer that BDI. That being said, I want to try and break the case down to things that I am absolutely confident about without a shred of doubt in my mind.
ReplyDelete1) This crime was committed by either BR, JR or PR. No intruder was inside the Ramsey home that night, therefore no intruder committed this crime.
2) The RN was NOT written before that night. A) the note wouldn’t have been as sloppy B) Because this crime was committed by a Ramsey, they wouldn’t have used paper and pen from inside the house
3) This crime was NOT premeditated. See point 2 for main reason, but also no clear motive has ever made sense which is why my conclusion is that whoever committed the head blow was done so by ACCIDENT
4) After hearing all arguments on this issue, I am 100% convinced Burke was by John and Patsy as the 911 call was made. It doesn’t prove anything other than John and Patsy absolutely lied about him being in bed
5) I’ll make this point brief, but the bowl of pineapple on the table was Burke Ramsey’s pineapple bowl that was taken out AFTER the Ramsey’s got home from the party
6) Patsy Ramsey was involved in the staging process at some point. WAY too many inconsistencies with her testimony
Those are things I am confident about. One topic that has always gotten debated on here is whether or not there was prior molestation. I have always contended that it is inconclusive and regardless, we can’t be sure if it was done by Burke or John which made it somewhat irrelevant. But, after seeing the clip of the pediatrician, his saying that there is no way there was prior molestation (obviously not the quote) was compelling. I think one of the keys is whether this was premeditated or not. The reason being, that IF it was premeditated than that in itself eliminates Burke. The problem is there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it was thought out before that night. A lot of the mistakes that happened that night seem more easily explained if it was because there was panic with a short time frame to do everything.
When working backwards, I just don’t see the molestation as a motive. If molestation isn’t the motive, then there doesn’t seem to be anything else that would make sense as a motive. If there is no motive or no want to murder her, then we have an accident. If we have an accidental head blow…WHO makes the most sense and why? Patsy being upset over bedwetting…….that is just ridiculous. John trying to molest her and getting upset? Again, NO evidence that he was a pedophile, no evidence he was molesting her and would seem like a terrible night to do so with them getting on a plane so early the next morning. PLUS would John risk doing that while they would be with family and he couldn’t necessarily watch her closely to make sure she didn’t talk. This leads me to Burke. Since I don’t believe this was premeditated or intentional, Burke hitting her over the head is much more plausible than John or Patsy getting upset over something small like bed wetting.. I know that I will be met with staging questions. Yes, the staging is horrific, troubling and a head scratcher. No matter who committed the crime, the staging just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Honestly without absolute and pure speculation I just don’t know the sequence of the staging and why what happened, did happen. I just know this wasn’t all done by one person.
-J
With all due respect.
DeleteWhy dont you see molestation as a motive? I would use the word abuse, rather than molestation.
This case is a typical case of child abuse. Had it happened in a non prominent family and JB would be probably alive because this is not news for the common people but for the Ramseys, it would have meant the loss of everything.
So, I believe, this case can be understood clearly if we contemplate three of the capital sins which were at the center stage in this murder: Lust - Pride and Greed. In that order...just my opinion.
Martha from California
Noted on Abuse vs Molestation. Will do moving forward....hate talking about either, but the case involves it
DeleteMy point regarding it being the motive is simple. I believe in order for that to have been the motive, it would have had to have been premeditated which I don't believe there was any premeditation. Also, there is absolutely nothing typical about this case on any level.
-J
Thank you for the response.
DeleteI agree with you that nothing in this case is typical. I was just referring to the abuse and the escalation of violence that culminated a child's life.
Martha
Just because John wasn't exposed as a pedophile doesn't mean that he isn't one. Rape victims don't always expose their rapists. Not to mention JBR was six.
Delete"No matter who committed the crime, the staging just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."
DeleteI'm glad you brought that up J, as the *only* way the staging makes sense is if John committed the murder.
Here's why:
The note - whose main purpose (though not limited to, of course) was to keep Patsy (the only *immediate* person who posed a problem if his kidnapping scenario was to be executed successfully) from searching the house for her daughter, and from calling for outside help - was all the "staging" that John was going to need to do. If his plan succeeded, her body would have simply been transported and buried - no duct tape, bound hands or garrote would have been necessary (though I believe John strangled her with the cord, I'm not convinced he used a garrote to do so - I feel that was possibly an extra "flourish" added later in order to fit with the intruder-with-a-sexual-perversion theory), the rest of the staging we see was ONLY done once he realized that JonBenet's body was going to be discovered that day in his home - hence why it doesn't make sense - instead of a plain, old kidnapping, he had to improvise by doing a little vaginal penetration (in the hope of covering up prior abuse, as his initial plan of JB's body not being located, or at least decomposing before she was found, isn't on the cards anymore). He has no choice but to use items that are in the basement because LE are right upstairs! Ideally, he probably would have preferred not to use items that linked any Ramsey to the crime (I believe he was going to dispose of the ransom note if his original plan worked), but Patsy's paintbrush is handy. So is a strip of duct tape, possibly from JB's doll (it would certainly explain why the doll was never located, along with "rest of the roll" of tape - there was never an entire roll of tape). John is no idiot, he knows the cops aren't going to buy the kidnapping story now that JB's body is going to be found inside the home, so he has to make it look like an intruder with a fetish instead. I suspect he knew it was a long shot, but what were his options?
This is why the staging - which can't seem to decide whether it's a kidnapping gone wrong or a sex crime - does not match up with the ransom note, which appears to be a straight forward ransom for money. Had John and Patsy wrote the ransom note together, however, the staging would have been consistent with the contents of the note - which would have consisted of probably no more than five lines, as anything involving attaches, beheading, earlier delivery, being denied remains for burial or being well rested would not have been necessary.
So you see, the staging doesn't make sense only if you're an IDI, PDI, RDI or BDI. To the JDI, it makes perfect sense. One of the very reasons I "switched teams" :)
"I'm glad you brought that up J, as the *only* way the staging makes sense is if John committed the murder."
DeleteMs D, sometimes I think Doc has gaslighted you because you repeat the exact same phrases :-)
Zach - My point on the prior abuse is that there is nothing definitive. People who have looked at the autopsy are inconclusive. Yet, the actual Pediatrician who looked at her concluded that there wasn't prior abuse. Nobody has ever come forward to say John Ramsey molested them, nor is there anything in his past or present that say he was abusing a child. Could he have been abusing JB? I guess anything is possible, but again, there is nothing definitive to ever say he was.
Ms D - My whole point on the staging not making sense is that even if John did it all himself, It MAKES NO SENSE! I don't for a second believe it was premeditated....so why didn't John call 911 after the head blow? Why didn't John say he was startled and struck her over the head thinking she was an intruder? Also, one of many reasons I don't believe this was John was because the 2 separate acts (head blow then strangulation) There is no way I will ever believe that John Ramsey would have bludgeoned her over the head with a Flashlight as there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that he would have known there wouldn't be blood. If this was deliberate to cover up his sex acts, WHY WOULD HE RISK A BLOODY CRIME SCENE?
Ok, now to the RN. IF the only purpose of the note was to fool Patsy then she is NEVER allowed to make the call. It baffles me why this is so complicated. The JDI's portray him as the psyco, Ninja, manipulator who got away with the crime of the Century...YET he just allows Patsy to call 911. This would have been the conversation in his head (I abused JB, I hit her over the head, strangled her, then wrote a 3 page RN but you know what...Patsy wants to dial 911, who am I to stand in her way even though Im about to go to jail). Honestly, its laughable to me. He could have clubbed Patsy over the head if he had to and used the RN's instructions as to why he did so. John being sole killer = no 911 call is made by Patsy
-J
Also....has anybody seen ANY of the interviews or interrogation of Patsy? Ok...does she seem like some little meek woman? No of course not...she looks like the bulldog...she looks like she wore the pants in the relationship. She doesn't seem like somebody who was just glaslighted and manipulated to help cover up the heinous acts of her husband.
Delete-J
"Ms D, sometimes I think Doc has gaslighted you because you repeat the exact same phrases"
DeleteSeriously? Says the guy who copies/pastes the same ole' spiel about Burke's pineapple on a regular basis?
The truth is, we all repeat ourselves, because there's nothing new in the way of evidence, so we're just rehashing what we already know and trying to convince each other how obvious it is that our theory is the right one. ;)
The truth is - whatever you believe - if John wrote the note, then the details in the note do make sense, like it or not. Anyone else writing it, and the contents don't make sense, you're right.....so what should that tell you?
DeleteIf it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. (And, yes, I think I've used that one before too!)
I will 100% concede that John wrote the note. It doesn't mean he hit her over the head though.
DeleteAlso, coming from the person who won't admit its Burke's pineapple bowl, you can spare me on the looks like a duck spiel
-J
I just found this reading interesting. I would not label JR as a pedophile but, I do believe some of these factors were present in the Ramsey household making the incestuous relationship probable.
Delete"Incest, as we have seen, has no single cause and can be understood only by looking at the interaction of certain conditions that act as predisposing and precipitating agents. For Father-Daughter incest, these include:
1. The father clings to a fantasy of an all loving mother and sees in the daughter a chance to pursue it.
2. The father is bombarded by stress, much of it coming from multiple changes he and his family are constantly making, and seeks a source of comfort and nurturing. He often starts drinking more.
3. The father and mother stop having sex and his source of physical intimacy and affectionate strokes dries up. Why my wife cut me off.
4. The mother starts work at night, gets sick, or in some other way arranges to leave the father and daughter alone together. The mother "abandons" both the daughter and husband.
5. The daughter is hungry for attention and affection and is willing to rescue her father from his unhappiness.
6. The sexual climate of the family is lax, loose, or repressive"
Martha from California
Well done, Martha - you have a future here, girl; good research is much appreciated. What's your source?
DeleteCC
Thank you, CC!
DeleteAnd, you are right. I forgot to mention the source.
Its from the book: "Broken Taboo: Sex in the Family." By Drs Blair and Rita Justice.
Its not a new book but the authors surveyed over a hundred families were incest ocurred. It has a lot of interesting info.
Martha
"Also, coming from the person who won't admit its Burke's pineapple bowl, you can spare me on the looks like a duck spiel"
DeleteOh my God, J, seriously? How many times do I have to tell you I believe that was Burke's pineapple?! You accused me of not having answered your question in relation to the pineapple only last week, and I reminded you I'd answered it several times already. I then alluded to the fact you would ignore it yet again. And, true to form, you did.
Stop making shit up, there's enough bogus information on this blog since the CBS special, without having to wade through intentional b.s. I seriously don't want to come off as harsh, but I don't know how many more damn times I have to answer your pineapple question before it registers.
Ms D - Hey, I just want to apologize to you. I honestly had a brain cramp and just forgot you did say that about the pineapple bowl. So, my apologies and look forward to more spirited debates with you :-)
Delete-J
Lesson #1 J, don't "concede" anything. It will not win you any brownie points and it will only show a weak link in your theory. If you believe how you believe, stand by that. Argue it to the death.
DeleteThanks - No Im not conceding anything. My apology was in reference to calling out Ms D for not admitting the pineapple bowl was Burke's....but she actually did concede that so I was out of line.
DeleteDon't worry, I haven't wavered on my theory at all
-J
Thank you, J, I appreciate the apology. I look forward to more debates with you also, and I have no doubt they'll be more than "spirited"! Cheers.
DeleteDid anyone see the CNN account - believe it aired either Sunday or a day or so ago. It looks to be basically a "re-do" but there were a few things mentioned I didn't know. Accurate? Don't know. But it was aired. 1. John Ramsey had his own white lined pad, he had his, she had hers. 2. Kolar said he didn't think this will ever be solved but that he would call another Grand Jury and question Burke. 3. JB's body lay in the living room where Linda Arnt moved it (under Christmas tree) for nine hours until the Coroner removed it. Don't know if any of this is relevant, it's just interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso just as an experiment I wrote my name with my left hand. Since I'm right handed it wasn't easy! My lines were squiggly, much the way the note looked. When I looked at my right- handed printed name I noticed something different. I print both "e's" in my name differently. And remarkably, even though I did the same thing with my left hand, the "e's" were also different. Lower case e in first name, upper case E in last name. Now I'm no handwriting expert but it led me to a few conclusions: 1. It is very difficult to disguise your handwriting. Imagine how difficult it would be composing a 2 1/2 page note! So I believe this note was composed in advance of the crime. And practicing would be a logical inference. 2. It's tiring. I believe this is why you see more discrepancies toward the end, such as weight applied to the pen, or a change of pen might have occurred. 3. I do not think the ransom note writer had "MS" as suggested in the facebook page, but that if you switch to your opposite hand, you get shaky lettering. But try it yourself, see what happens. And lastly, LOVE "Salt Peanuts!"
There are two "E's" in Melinda Ramsey, lol.
DeleteOh woa! I'm not Melinda Ramsey. Is K1234 also Keiser?
DeleteNope. Keiser is BDI :)
DeleteThe signs of sexual abuse is the give away in this case. Along with the note to fool Patsy. I believe it's possible Burke was awake in the 911 call, but he was told to just keep quiet and say he was asleep to keep him out of the spotlight. If you read Doc's posts about Johns Johninsims, its clear as a bell that his language is throughout the note.Also, the fact that he is a known deceitful liar having affairs over the course of years, kinds proves he has some sort of abnormal sexual appetite. Plus he's emotionless and cold as ice. John was trying desperately to cover his ass not his sons. If Burke did it, the parents would try to save their daughter not garrote her to death and no one would be in trouble or risk going to prison for the rest of their lives. John was going to go to jail if JBR talked and lose everything so he rolled the dice and killed her instead.
ReplyDeletehttp://radaronline.com/videos/jon-benet-ramsey-murder-crime-scene-video/
ReplyDeleteThe video of JBR's room/bathroom bothers me, it doesn't seem like a child's room, it looks like there is makeup in the bathroom and lady's items. Children normally have children's shampoo and maybe kid's tub toys in bathroom. I don't think a child (Jonbenet) would be concerned with "looks" unless an adult was putting serious pressure on child. It seems like someone was trying to treat Jonbenet like an adult instead of letting her be a kid. Kid dress up is normal, but it looks like JBR's entire room was dress-up/costumes/trophies and tiny space of bedroom was dollhouse, and then dolls squeezed into far corner next to her bed. Poor little girl, it didn't even look like dollhouse items in her dollhouse either. Note the red jumpsuit was right outside Jonbenet's room on ironing board with a stain (why/where/when did stain/jumpsuit end up on ironing board) (it also looks like above cabinet opened). And there's an attache right by the spiral staircase at bottom of stairs. Jmo/
No bath toys? No silly games and toys? Odd indeed.
DeleteShe had American Dolls and they weren't cheap. One is over $100. She also liked to watch videos. The floor was littered with the things she liked to do, like the little loom toy she got for Christmas.
DeleteShe used one of the baths upstairs (parents) usually.
Delete-Sisu
American dolls that weren't cheap, but seemed to be hidden next to her bed in the corner, while Jonbenet's crowns/trophies prominently displayed front and center. That may have been Jonbenet's preference, but imo as someone who had many dolls, toys, costumes and won trophies for different things as a child, I would have much rather had my room filled with toys and dolls, and my dress ups in the closet. Another thing to mention is that children act out real life with dolls/toys, so I wonder how dolls if any placed in dollhouse, and why Jonbenet would have put her dolls in a corner. They may have been the last things she played with too, so there may be perpetrator's prints on items. and there is a pillow on the floor underneath bed right next to the dolls. Jmo/
DeleteI also wonder what happened to the Santa Bear. First they didn't know where it came from, then it disappeared. Plus the weird note from Santa Bill in the wastebasket. That Tudor house, that looked like a gingerbread house with it's candy canes in the front yard gives me nightmares.
Delete"If Burke did it, the parents would try to save their daughter not garrote her to death and no one would be in trouble or risk going to prison for the rest of their lives."
DeleteBingo.
I have been saying that all along.
Sometimes a little bit of logic goes a long way! This is the one point IDIs and I agree on.....that it is utterly implausible that two, otherwise, loving parents ultimately decide to end one child's life in order to spare the other.....it's unprecedented and completely illogical, even if it's believable that Burke whacked her in the head.
What if john/patsy/whoever strangled her thought she was dead already and the strangulation was for staging? I'm not saying I believe that, it is something that just popped into my head. I agree that it's very hard to imagine what you described. Miss D. Ugh, it's all hard to imagine!
DeleteThey are going to be doing new DNA testing, someone here gave heads up and it's on the news. Maybe we'll have some answers? Hopefully?
ReplyDeletePR and JR were both involved in enough of Jonbenet's pageant life to remember specific pageant outfits/colors that JBR wore to specific events and she had to practice for her pageants/talent (from their past transcripts/interviews). Did PR/JR help Jonbenet practice her pageant "talent" or did they specifically hire instructors for her? Has it ever been determined all involved in coaching JBR?
ReplyDeleteCC:
ReplyDeleteI just read the following post of yours, dating back to November 25th, for the first time:
"I think he is a narcissistic, sociopathic monster with a sense of entitlement when it comes to sex, and an unhealthy preoccupation with beauty pageants - he married a beauty queen, abused a tiny one, allegedly had an affair with a woman in Arizona he had dress up in gowns, and has now married a woman who designs pageant costumes.
I find nothing benign or forgivable about this guy, and unlike Doc, have no trouble believing he used Patsy's paintbrush deliberately, may have mimicked her handwriting, and encouraged his socially impaired son to appear on Dr Phil, knowing exactly how bad it would make the boy look, particularly in contrast to his own well-spoken, urbane facade. Perhaps Doc has not known enough monsters; I spent three years prosecuting nothing but."
I never knew you were so utterly convinced of John's guilt and I wanted to acknowledge that.
Mike G.
Jeez, Mike! That was actually part of a dialogue with Ms D regarding Mindhunter and it's influence on JR, and my theory of premeditation and motive. It looks so vituperative as a stand-alone remark.
DeleteBut yeah, I'm utterly convinced of JR'S guilt and the value of Doc's theory, even though we sometimes disagree on details.
CC
CC
DeleteIt was very enlightening to me when you explained your theory of how he premeditated the murder 8 days in advance-after the last calls to her pediatrician. It really makes sense that the situation evolved to a point of no return for him and the decision was made. I follow your comments with much interest and got to understand better this case thank DocG and people like you who use a good dose of logic and a lot of common sense.
Martha from California
Thanks, Martha. Doc has provided an invaluable service by the seemingly simple device of re-including John as a suspect and allowing us all to do our own research and attempt to bolster his theory.
DeleteCC
How long does it take for DNA results to come back? Three months? On the news they said they have better technology and newer types of testing than they did in 1996 and are going to retest everywhere they found the male DNA they couldn't identify. Then we'll see where we are with this.
ReplyDeleteHey all! I just wanted to actually leave a comment for once and say how much I enjoy reading here- especially the comments. Not to sound weird, but reading your comments is a nighttime ritual of mine. It's one of the only things that relaxes me enough to fall asleep. Crazy, I know!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you are all very persuasive! (Except IDI, sorry!) Unfortunately I have not been able to get 100% behind any theory. You're all too good at arguing your points and I can see validity in so much of what is said- even when you're arguing opposites points.
My biggest problem with the "logic" arguments is not that the arguments aren't logical- sure they are. I just don't think anyone in that house was thinking logically that night! Many of you will disagree with me, and that is fine. Just giving my perspective.
I've thought long and hard about what I truly 100% believe about this case...
1. There was no intruder.
2. At least one of the Ramseys (possibly all three) know what happened.
3. One or both of the parents wrote the ransom note.
4. John lies in his interviews. It's obvious.
5. The crime was not premeditated.
That's where I'm at now! Obviously, I could be wrong... And I don't think anyone will ever truly know what happened that night, but boy do I hope we find out someday.
I may post more, we'll see. Some of you scare me. ;)
Oh, don't let any of us scare you! We're just passionate.....and each of us is convinced that ours is the only correct theory! But I think everyone's theory is valid (even J's, Keiser's and Inquistive's.....lol, I joke!) and we welcome yours. I think it's wise you haven't formed any definite opinions yet. Just absorb the information and take it wherever it may lead you. Good luck and welcome to the asylum!
DeleteHey Megan...don't be scared. Thanks for the post
DeleteLove your thought process, especially #5. The crime NOT being premeditated matters very much and at least you have the courage to make that decision unlike many on here. I also don't believe it was premeditated at all.
So, I have questions for you, since it wasn't premeditated.
1. Do you believe it was a moment of rage by JR, BR or PR?
2. Do you believe it was a horrible accident?
3. If you had to pick the person you think committed the head blow, who do you think it was?
-J
Believing the crime was premeditated has nothing to do with courage or lack thereof, where did you come up with that?
DeleteSo those of us who believe it was premeditated are cowards? Please explain.....
I have to say Ms D, you crack me up! As for J, it has to be premeditated. It's so obvious why you don't think that J, since in your world Burke hit JB with the flashlight for really no reason at all so his parent or parents had to strangle her to death and compose a note to cover up for their "wayward" son. The tip off he was somehow "off" in his 9 years was that silly smile and preoccupation with his gameboy. Sorry,J, but I don't see any logic to the BDI theorists other than you can't believe his parents would do such a thing. But I can't completely fault you, I was there. In fact, some would say I've been everywhere. I just think we're all going to be in for a big surprise when they retest the DNA.
DeleteI can see my picture didn't come out right. Has to be a tinier square I guess.
DeleteHi J! To answer your questions... I lean towards accident because I don't see a motive. (I include Burke hitting her as an accident because I don't think it would have been his intent to kill her.) Many see sexual abuse as a motive but since there have been different opinions from different doctors it's hard for me to know what to believe. If there was prior abuse that doesn't mean it had to have been John. Right now, if I had to choose who delivered the head blow I'd say Burke. But I wouldn't wager my cat's life on it.
DeleteMegan prompted me to write my first-ever post on a blog! As strange as it sounds, I too read this blog (and sometimes Websleuths) as I lay in bed trying to wash all the stress of the day away. Weird, isn't it? Like, who does that as a way to relax??
DeleteI began as RDI, then moved to BDI after I read Kolar’s book. Recently, I have transitioned to JDI as it makes the most sense to me.
These are some of the questions that don’t fit easily into my JDI theory:
1. If Patsy was asleep while John was doing this heinous act, why did her hair and makeup appear to be still intact from the night before? Nowhere have I read that she even brushed her hair before going downstairs. (If she truly slept all night and awoke to nearly perfect hair and makeup, I would love to learn her secret!)
2. Why does Patsy’s side of the bed appear to be not slept in?
3. I think we all believe that John would have been occupied with the crime for quite some time (hours?). Wouldn’t Patsy notice that John was out of bed for a good portion of the night? I’ve read Doc’s suggestion that men his age get up frequently to use the bathroom. I notice when my husband is not in bed and I just fall back asleep, but I would certainly notice if he was not in bed for a significant portion of the night. How could that have gone unnoticed?
4. JB’s final resting position with her arms outstretched over her head also bugs me. When I was BDI, the position of her arms made sense because I pictured him dragging her by the arms into the WC, leaving her arms over her head. My JDI theory struggles with this aspect.
5. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I think that if John’s entire purpose of writing the RN was to get the body out of the house (which does make the most sense to me), I find it odd that he wasn’t able to convince Patsy not to call 911 “for the sake of JB’s safety”. You’d think he could at least get her to hold off making the call for a while.
Keep the posts coming! I find this absolutely fascinating!
Linda
Hi Megan! Welcome board!
ReplyDeleteIm a newbie too ...at least regarding leaving comments because -like you- I do enjoy reading this blog/comments on a daily basis.
I agree with a couple of your ideas but I stand firm on JDI camp. DocG's theory is the most convincing and logical. :) but you have to approach it w/o any kind of bias.
Martha from California.
He hasn't convinced me yet but I love reading and hearing everyone's passionate opinions.
DeleteI think Patsy had to be in on something, or she would not have been as evasive as she was in the interviews. Both parents were evasive.
ReplyDeleteBtw, is there any chance JonBenet was drugged earlier on, by the parents, at the Christmas party, so she would keep quiet? Before she ate the pineapple. Perhaps then she suffocated in her sleep because of the drugs. By the time she died, the drugs were out of her body?
Another thing could be, someone pushed her in her chair when she ate the pineapple, she fell back and hit her head on the ground. Although I don't know they would stage all that, just for that. They would just say it was an accident. No that would not work. So never mind!
ReplyDeleteI wondered a while back if she had been drugged, but her toxicology report didn't show drugs of any kind.
DeleteThe crack in her skull is indicative of blunt force trauma being inflicted by a massive blow to the head - I think a fall has all but been ruled out. But you make a good point about there being no need to stage an elaborate cover up for an accident, as that is what PDIs and BDIs theory hinges on.....good to see some common sense!
Patsy may have had chemo brain, which would explain her inconsistencies. I truly believe she was innocent. And I don't know if this will sound strange but has there ever been any record ever of cancer patients committing murder? The idea that this intelligent woman would write a ransom note on her own pad doesn't even make sense.
ReplyDeleteAgree. Remember, the title of Doc's book is Ruled Out. Once John got himself ruled out by the so-called handwriting experts, Patsy was all alone. Steve Thomas was coming after her. Think about it, if you knew you didn't kill your child, your husband was all but ruled out, and the police were making absurd implications that you were able to commit murder over a bedwetting incident, you would be sorely afraid. Her husband was getting the best lawyers for himself. Wow, I don't know about you but I would feel as if I were being framed. Combine that with grief, shock, fear for your son, confusion over your husband's cold and calculating behavior...well, I know what I would do. I would continue to insist that I did not kill my daughter. I would not trust the police. I would become suspicious of everyone. I would go along with the story my husband was putting forward because what other choice would I have? With chemo brain, I'm sure my husband could convince me to support our cause with little white lies that keep them off of "our backs" and focused on finding the real killer.
DeleteActually, the title of Doc's book is "Ruled IN" ;)
Deletelol, that's right Ms D. Well, I was up at 5:30 am my time, so my brain was not in full gear :)
DeleteI do not think this crime is a crime of rage for several reasons. Patsy was a cancer patient and thanked her lucky stars to be alive and cherished every moment with her children. It was Christmas so I would presume it was a happy time around the house(for most). And the garrote proves that someone wanted this little girl dead. It wasn't Patsy, if BR hit JBR the family would have tried to save her not kill her. "And hence", So that leaves us with a cold, calculating, rude, ex-navy who knew how to tie knots, deceitful cheater who didn't want to lose his money or lifestyle. Of course it's only a 1 in 188,000 chance it's him. he loved the number 18 and 18,000 and used it often in his speech. I would say it's a 1000% chance it's John Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteYes I think if Burke hit her, even if he did it intentionally, the family would try to make up a story and say it was an accident. He was swinging the bat, did not see her, etc. He's 9, so it should not have been too hard to do that. It is a lot easier to do that, make it an accident, than to make up a whole kidnapping story. So it had to be something worse.
DeleteExactly, SC. If the parents wanted to draw attention away from their son, it was counterproductive to stage a sexual assault and a kidnapping.....the sexual assault would have guaranteed LE would be looking at the males in the house, whilst the kidnapping was sure to involve the FBI, which would probably not have been the case had they simply staged an accident. A cover up like this makes no sense whatsoever and no one would do it - in fact, no one ever has, because it's ludicrous.
Deletek1234, I love your post!
Doc, I am curious what you think about Burke claiming to have been with John when the basement window was broken.
ReplyDeleteHercule
I was reading this interview from 1997 and JR's account for the broken window was the following:
ReplyDelete"Steve Thomas: OK. When you had previously broken that basement window to gain entry to the home when you had been locked out, can you approximate what month that was?
JR: Well, I think it was last summer. Because Patsy was up at Lake (inaudible) all summer, and it would have been July or August probably, somewhere in that time frame."
I find it odd that Patsy was spending the summer at their lake house and Burke was with John.
Patsy claimed that both kids were with her.
DeleteHercule
Ms D, I did not even know that I had a theory, please inform me of what my theory is so that I know what it is. Thank you !
DeleteMs D, I did not even know that I had a theory, please inform me of what my theory is so that I know what it is. Thank you !
DeleteDocG posted in Oct 25, 2016 (BR Dr. Phil interview)
Delete'And now for something completely new: Burke explained how his dad, John, broke the basement window once when they got locked out, so they could enter the house through the basement. . .
"One time we did get locked out and there are - this is the basement but there are two windows to the basement, and my dad had to break the window and go around and unlock the door."
VERY interesting. It's possible, of course, that Burke could have been coached into telling that story, but to me it appears genuine. Which tells us that John was probably being truthful when he referred to breaking in via that window on more than one occasion. Does that make the rest of his story more likely to be true? Not really, no -- not as far as I'm concerned -- but it does make him a tad more credible, I suppose. It would be interesting if Burke had said something about noticing if that same window had been broken again -- and left broken for months afterward -- but he wasn't questioned on that.'
DocG posted the above
We don't know how many times JR used the basement window to access his home. In interviews, JR can't remember exactly how he broke it. We don't know if it was broken more than once or how many times JR used it as access--he has said more than once so is that two? or several (3+)?
Even if the window was repaired, JR could have broken it to stage the crime for PR. After PR called 911, JR may have realized he didn't do enough staging for the police so he tried to unstage or restage.
If the window had been repaired by ANY PERSON I would think they would have come forward within the last 20 years. Also, the housekeeper's husband cleaned the
windows around Thanksgiving prior to the murder and didn't report or notice any broken window. The person
hired to clean your windows would remember a broken window.
Kat
I think Burke is lying. He is trying to save the family reputation.
Delete"Ms D, I did not even know that I had a theory, please inform me of what my theory is so that I know what it is. Thank you!"
DeleteYou've been pretty vocal about believing Burke committed the crime these past few months.....it's no great secret. ;)
But I'm happy to copy/paste some of your previous comments if you like.....
I must confess I don't know what to make of Burke's story. He mentions an incident when John supposedly broke in via a basement window, but this supposedly happened while Burke was there, so this could not have been the incident John was referring to when he claimed he'd broken the window the previous summer while Patsy was out of town with the children. One would assume that Burke would also have mentioned that incident, as he would certainly known about that as well. But he mentions ONLY the incident that he himself witnessed at first hand. Why?
DeleteI wonder whether Burke had been prompted to tell that story, and got it mixed up, or whether it's actually true and for some reason he neglected to mention the more relevant incident that would have happened later. In any case, Burke's report on the alleged earlier breakin has no bearing on the truthfulness of the story John told the police, which is patently UNtrue, for all the many reasons I've already provided.
Just read your book and have a couple of questions.
ReplyDeleteRegarding PR making the phone call, how easy it would have been for JR to say something like "the note says not to,call the police. They will hurt her. Let's just get the money." Given the fact that the note stated she would be beheaded and not returned for proper burial, I don't think it made sens efor jzohn not to keep PR from calling the police. Weak link in the Theory.
Next. You never mention how and when JR got rid of glass, where the duct tape came from and where the rest of the cord went. He must have discarded those items somewhere after the murder and before the morning. That is another weak link in the theory.
Third. As far as I know, JR would not have had just one victim on his lifetime. He must have offended before or even after. There must have been a way to reconstruct when and how he had access to his daughter, when they were alone given the fact he worked a lot and PR was always around.
I believe e that a person can fool many people, of not all, and I don't put anything past anyone. The fact that he was a savvy businessman and had lots to,lose, speaks volumes but those three questions above keep nagging at me.
Thanks for any clarification you can provide..
Hot Damn, I'm no longer alone! Thanks A. Burt. John Ramsey had an affair. How many married men have done that. Does that make them incestuous child molesters? Many people had keys to that house. The investigators originally thought there were 30 outstanding keys, but narrowed it down to 9, and recovered 6 out of 9. When they questioned Patsy's housekeeper and alcoholic husband (who was the occasional handyman for the Ramsey's they confiscated 3 rolls of black duct tape - one of them used, white cord including one wrapped around a stick, 3 pads of white lined paper one the housekeeper said came from the Ramsey home, and 3 black sharpie pens. They had no alibis for that night, but their handwriting didn't match the ransom note. So most probably on that alone, they were ruled out. There were at least six on the suspect list that were very familiar with the Ramsey's, who also did not have alibis, but since the investigators were looking for a handwriting match, all were ruled out. Including John by the way. There's more, much more, if the net were widened. But the bottom line is you have to believe that the autopsy results showed signs of prior sexual abuse and that the abuse was not isolated to either what a paint brush handle could do, or infections due to chronic bed wetting and soiling plus what a paint brush handle could do. Because without interpreting the ME report as chronic or at least previous (and rather violent) sexual abuse, there isn't anything else that points to John. And you would think if he wanted to throw suspicion off himself he wouldn't admit to breaking the window or use a pad and pen from his own house. We will continue to go round and round about this for another 20 years until they can get a match to the unidentified male DNA found comingled with the spot of blood in her underpants and along the sides of her white longjohns.
DeleteThe theory in the book is based on facts and the logical inferences that can be concluded from them. Theres a lot of details that are unknown however they do not make the theory weaker or stronger, in my opinion, at least.
DeleteJohn could have tried to convince her but she could have done it anyways regardless his effort to stop her. They offered many versions of what happened that morning after Patsy found the RN. Even Burke described her mother as going psycho in one moment. She could have done it when he went to get dressed.
The elements for the (staged or not) assault and the strangulation could be easily taken from the basement, like the paintbrush. JR went one hour AWOL in the morning before the body was discovered and he could have hidden/disposed of any incriminatory item in that hour. I personally believe that he used elements that happened to be handy at the basement. There could be no remaining cord or tape.
Finally, JR is not a serial killer or a sexual predator.
But again, speculation, imagination vs facts. The fact that Patsy (not John) called 911 is a key piece in thie whole puzzle.
Either way, would be nice to hear from Doc.
Martha from California
Yes, thank you Martha. It may not make sense to some that John would have allowed Patsy to make that phone call -- but if they'd been staging a kidnapping together, then calling 911 at that particular time makes no sense at all. According to Patsy's version, as presented in the A&E documentary, she told John she was going to call the police and then she ran downstairs to make the call. If that's actually what happened, and in my view it's probably very close to the truth, it's easy to see how John could have been caught off guard. What she doesn't say is why she'd have needed to run downstairs to call when there were phones on every floor. It's possible she ran downstairs because she was afraid John might try to stop her.
DeleteJohn could have gotten rid of the glass very easily. The hole in the window is small and there wouldn't have been that much to get rid of. He could easily have collected it in a paper or plastic bag and hidden it in some dark corner of the basement where it wouldn't be noticed. Later, when Arndt was preoccupied upstairs, he could have come down again, smashed the glass into tiny bits with his foot, and flushed it down the toilet.
As far as other victims are concerned, I doubt that any will ever be found, because this was probably just a one time thing for him. Many women have reported molestation by their fathers and in most if not all cases no other crimes of that sort were ever reported. I don't see John as a criminal or psychopath, just someone who gave in to temptation and found himself trapped by his own moral weakness.
Inquisitive, even if a DNA match is some day found, there will be no case, because this person's lawyer could easily bring up any or all of the many problems with the intruder theory that make it totally absurd. "Why would my client wait until he was in the house to write his ransom note? Why would he want to make it so long and complicated? Why wouldn't he have actually kidnapped his victim? Why would he have wanted to hide the body in that remote basement room? It's been said that his handwriting resembles the note, but, according to several experts, so does Patsy Ramsey's. Touch DNA could have gotten onto her clothing in any number of ways. Maybe she petted a dog that he had petted or used a water fountain that he had used." Etc., etc.
DeleteAs for the remaining cord and tape there probably wasn't any. It was very likely all used up by John during the crime. Why in any case would an intruder bother to stuff rolls of tape and cord in his pockets before leaving? I think that would have been the last thing on his mind.
"it's easy to see how John could have been caught off guard. What she doesn't say is why she'd have needed to run downstairs to call when there were phones on every floor. It's possible she ran downstairs because she was afraid John might try to stop her."
DeleteMaybe that explains her agitation when speaking with the 911 operator. And the sudden hang up...
Martha
Yes, Martha, thank you. Of course it's easy to see why she'd be agitated regardless of anything John did. But the sudden hangup could have been John's doing. He would most likely have been furious at her for making that call.
DeleteHere's my theory. It accounts for following testimonies:
Delete1) that Patsy said she "screamed" then ran upstairs to look in JB's bedroom.
2) that John heard the scream, then later said that discovering JonBenet missing was like "getting hit in the stomach".
3) that John said he read the ransom note then "searched around the house a bit".
4) that Patsy said "we" ran to check in on Burke.
5) that Burke initially testified that Patsy came into his room acting "psycho" while he pretended to be asleep.
6) that Patsy said she ran downstairs to call 911, leaving the impression John remained upstairs reading the note.
7) that John said Patsy was standing by the phone when he told her to call 911.
Patsy reads the ransom note, screams, then runs upstairs to look in JB's bedroom. John hears the scream and runs to rendezvous with Patsy at JB's bedroom. Arriving together, almost at the same time, an hysterical Patsy hands John the ransom note and he begins to read it. Patsy insists the police should be called immediately. She is so hysterical, John feels his plan slipping away. However, he also senses that Patsy may have stopped short of reading the part warning John not to call the police. So, to give her time to settle down and make her amenable to not calling the police, thus potentially saving her daughter's life, he says something to following effect:
"Patsy, before we call the police, let's check the entire house and make sure this isn't some kind of joke (like what Fleet White's son did to his parents?). You go check in Burke's room and the rest of the upstairs, I'll go check the garage and in the basement, then meet you downstairs."
Patsy runs to Burkes room and John (still in possession of the ransom note) runs to the basement where he pauses to consider that he might not be able to prevent either he or Patsy, because of her hysteria, from calling the police. He doesn't want to mention to her the broken glass on the floor when he meets back with her in case he IS able to prevent her from making the call. He can't afford her searching the area where ostensibly a "kidnapper" entered the house and left behind a dead and sexually abused JonBenet. If the "intruder" got in another way, or with a key, he still has a chance to make his plan work. So he picks up the glass on the floor and closes the window. He works fast knowing he needs to get back upstairs to control Patsy, but when he at last arrives, it's too late; she's already on the phone making the call.
This scenario makes it possible to understand how, without much difficulty, John would be able to gaslight Patsy to believe and agree upon a version of events that would be credible to the police, yet not invoke any suspicions she might otherwise have regarding her husbands involvement. Though calling the police wasn't his intention, by agreeing to call them after the house was searched, John unwittingly set the stage for a white lie that proved to be indispensable to him yet seemingly innocuous to Patsy. And true to his testimony, John would have been right by the phone when Patsy made that call. In fact, just as she began speaking,one can almost hear him saying in background "call the police", softly enough not to be overheard by the operator, but loud enough to register, perhaps even subliminally, with an hysterically distraught Patsy, primed and ready to begin gaslighting.
Mike G.
"It's possible she ran downstairs because she was afraid John might try to stop her."
DeleteMaybe that explains her agitation when speaking with the 911 operator. And the sudden hang up..."
It also may explain why, at the beginning of the 911 call, Patsy says, what could be, "We need em" - which she doesn't appear to be saying to the dispatcher, as the dialogue between the two of them hasn't yet begun, and her voice sounds (to me) as though her mouth is somewhat away from the receiver of the phone. I can imagine John is yelling at Patsy from upstairs, telling her not to call for the police, but she's steadfast in her resolution to do so, says to him, "we need em!" and he just can't get to her fast enough to stop the call, or I'm certain he would have.
i just heard the call one more time.
DeleteYes! She says: "We need them" before the operator initiates conversation. I understand it as, either she was responding John or she was reassuring herself that calling the police was the best route. But I believe she was speaking to herself, most likely.
Thank you, Ms D. This is something new to me. They were fighting, that is clear now, at least, for me.
Martha from California
I don't think John did not want Patsy to call police. The whole thing was staged TO call police. I think John or Patsy wanted to write a note, to divert attention. But you can't write a note, like, hey I just killed your daughter. You instead have to write a kidnapping note. Plus that does give them a little more time to hide things they needed to hide. Perhaps AFTER they called police, John had second thoughts. Or even right after he wrote the note. He was not sure he staged the right way. So he went down to check and restage.
ReplyDeleteAs to the duct tape and cord, I am also unsure about that. Maybe he had it in the house, just to use for this occasion. Maybe he had a whole S&M ritual planned out. Or maybe it was just around the house, new, never used, and he hid it after.
You know thinking about this, it could have been pre-planned. Where did the large Christmas Wednesday underwear come from? Where did the duct tape come from and the cord? All of it was new. It seems to me that the items needed for this murder, were all bought new. The large underwear were bought by JR, and he did not know sizes, he just knew day of the week. That seems a little odd to me that it was all new.
But I'm referring to the book. Which laid out the case of JR being the killer. Nothing else. My questions refer to that premise.
ReplyDeleteThe underwear was purchased for a niece of PR but JBR insisted on keeping the underwear.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that either. Why would a little girl want underwear from a package that was never opened?
DeleteTry this as an experiment. If you are right handed use your left hand, if you are left handed use your right hand. Use a black sharpie pen. Write the first paragraph of the ransom note. First print it with the hand you usually use to write with. Now write the first paragraph with your other hand. See if you were able to completely disguise your normal printing or if there are similarities. Also notice how irregular it looks with your "weak" hand. Notice how tiring it is to do just one paragraph with your weak hand. Now imagine you have just killed someone. Do you honestly think you could compose a 2 1/2 page disguised note or is it more logical to guess that the ransom note was not only practiced but done in advance. And if so, then the murder was premeditated.
ReplyDeleteYou would have to be ambidextrous to this Inquisite. Another invalid point by you.
DeleteI'm not ambidextrous, I did it. It's tedious, you can't hide how you print, and it would take a long time to compose a whole 2 1/2 page letter. Did you even try it to see how far you could get? Or prefer to remain pigheaded.
DeleteIf I were John, and I were the author of that note, I would not have pointed the finger at myself by addressing it, to myself, and mentioning my bonus money. I would have tried to pin it on someone at one of the pageants.
ReplyDeleteWhoever wrote the note tried to point a finger at John.
As for the DNA evidence, isn't there some seriously lacking DNA evidence showing that this crime had anything at all to do with sex? I mean, what is the point of a sexual assault? By a male, I mean. I think it was staged to look like a male committed a sexual assault, just one key piece of evidence missing. So, actually, doesn't appear to be a male perpetrator at all.
GS
Actually, if you play "Salt Peanuts" backward, you'll hear Burke's confession. Honest.
ReplyDeletetee hee - is "turn me on dead man" in there as well?
DeleteThe housekeeper and her husband would be a good second choice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the thing that did it for me, is, John closed the opened window in the basement that morning. After police got there. The other guy looked in the room early, said the window was closed. But John said the window was open that morning, and he CLOSED it! AND did not TELL police about it! Right there, the man is guilty. If that is in fact true. No one just innocently closes an open basement window, right after a kidnapping, and "forgets" to mention that little fact to police.
Also no millionaire does not fix a broken window, for months. In Colorado even. It does not pass the smell test. So no matter what else, John is guilty. Maybe there are more, Patsy, or someone else maybe. But John is guilty.
Yes, precisely. Since Fleet found the window already closed, John was most likely down there first, meaning he was there very early, most likely even before the police arrived. And his failure to report it should have been a huge red flag. He later claimed he DID report it, but that's not what he said initially. I've read the police reports and there is no mention of John telling them anything of the sort. To me that's a clear sign that he was UNstaging his previous staging in the wake of Patsy's unexpected call.
DeleteEither way, whether he reported the open window or not, you do not CLOSE an open window after a kidnapping. Any idiot knows that. You leave it open so evidence is not disturbed. So that is guilt right there.
DeleteYes. I think he closed it because, along with the break in the window pane, it would have been seen as evidence of staging.
DeleteComing up with some more thoughts now.
ReplyDeleteJohn was already molesting JBR for some time, off and on. PR knew about it. This has happened in crime lore before, where the wife turns a blind eye.
That night JR planned a molestation at midnight. PR caught him out. Got angry. She lost her temper. Not on Christmas, she said. She was angry at both John, and also the daughter, in some fit of jealousy. Hit both John, but missed and then hit JBR in the head, with the flashlight, knocked her out, possibly unconscious for a while.
They panicked. They thought she was dead or dying. They knew if she woke they would both be in trouble. PR wanted to get rid of JBR because of her jealousy. They both agreed to stage the crime to cover for themselves.
If that's what happened the 911 call would not have been made when it was, while the body was still in the house. That's NOT how you stage a kidnapping. Why is it so hard to imagine that JOhn could have done this all on his own, without Patsy's participation or knowledge?
DeleteThe reason I am thinking Patsy might have been involved is her attitude later. She seemed so evasive. She also was like, yeah, I don't remember when he broke the window, and I don't remember how JBR got the big underwear. That does not seem like a helpful attitude of someone who is not involved and really wants to solve the case. Plus the note seems to have feminine traits, plus the handwriting match. Also how she hung up on the 911 call. That is not normal either. People stay on the line to give info. It sounded like the call was pre-recorded by them on tape and just played. So just a lot of stuff. But I guess no hard evidence.
DeleteAlthough you could be right, and it could just be John. It is defo John, whether it is someone else too, hard to day.
I don't see her as evasive at all. Her testimony regarding the underwear makes perfect sense. She's obviously confused because she doesn't understand the point of all those questions about oversized underpants and tries to make sense of it by offering possible explanations. There was also no reason for her to change JonBenet's underpants even if we assume she was guilty. So why would she have needed to lie about that? Her story about cleaning up the window glass is another issue entirely, which I've covered several times. I don't see any instances of her being evasive. There are some things she could not recall. Could you recall everything that you experienced several months ago?
DeleteAnd the notion that the note has "feminine traits" is a myth due solely to confirmation bias. The note is filled with references to films aimed at male viewers and the vocabulary contains many terms used far more often by men than women.
"Plus the note seems to have feminine traits, plus the handwriting match. Also how she hung up on the 911 call. That is not normal either. People stay on the line to give info."
DeleteI don't see any feminine traits, quite the contrary, in fact. Lines from movies males tend to watch (Dirty Harry, Speed, Ransom etc.) were used, along with terms like "beheading", which doesn't scream "female" to me.
"It sounded like the call was pre-recorded by them on tape and just played."
Is that what you're suggesting? Why in the heck would they even do that, lol? Also, answer me this....if it were pre-recorded, how did Patsy manage to answer the dispatcher's questions?! Sorry, you really entered the Twilight Zone with that last one. ;)
One more point I forgot to address in my above post - "the handwriting match". It wasn't a match. In fact, on a scale of 1 - 10 (1 being probable, 10 being unlikely), Patsy scored an 8.5. That Patsy's handwriting was "a match" is just another myth the media perpetuated.
DeleteHave you read Doc's chapter on comparing the handwriting in the note to John's? If handwriting analysis has any merit at all, I see many more similarities between the note and John's writing. Along with the "Johnisms", which the note is littered with.
"If that's what happened the 911 call would not have been made when it was, while the body was still in the house. That's NOT how you stage a kidnapping. "
DeleteNot necessarily. They staged a kidnapping because they wanted to write a note that (they thought) would point to other people. They could not just leave the body in the basement. Because no killer writes a note AFTER they kill someone. So they came up with this idea to stage a kidnapping. So the plan was to call police. Patsy seems rehearsed. I don't remember the call too well, but seems like she barely said anything of note on it. That, is not normal.
Also later on they asked her about other conversations at that time, around 911 phone call, she says she can't remember. I don't believe that. She says many times about a lot of stuff, oh I don't remember. No. If your daughter is kidnapped, you remember these things.
No one has yet mentioned the obvious influence of Stravinsky's "Ebony Concerto" on this performance of the jazz classic "Salt Peanuts." Nor has anyone expressed astonishment at the extraordinary virtuosity of all these great musicians. What's the matter, folks? If you have no appreciation for great music, then how can you possibly hope to solve this intricate crime?
ReplyDelete:-)
Thus spake the Poet from Pittsburgh.
DeleteCC
Watch yourself, CC. I've got my eye on you. :-|
DeleteColor me intimidated.
DeleteGood point you made about further DNA testing queering the pitch for John vis-a-vis his "exoneration". One can only hope Charlie Brennan stays on top of the story, and that the wires will pick it up and give it national coverage.
CC
Hi. I'm new here, but I've been reading the comments for a while now. DocG's theory makes more sense of this case than any I've read yet. I'm not completely convinced, however, that John was the murderer. I do believe he did the staging of the body and deliberately contaminated the crime scene by picking up JonBenet's body. Obviously he lied about the broken window and several other things. And why did he use a flashlight when putting Burke to bed? That seems suspicious. I think something happened shortly after the Ramseys arrived home from Fleet White's house -- child abuse by a parent (most likely Patsy), -- and JonBenet received the head injury. Thinking she was dead, both parents staged a fake kidnapping because the truth was too embarrassing and might get them sent to jail. They thought they were smart enough to fool the Boulder police, and perhaps they were right.
DeleteWelcome, Anonymous :)
Delete"Child abuse by a parent (most likely Patsy), -- and JonBenet received the head injury. Thinking she was dead, both parents staged a fake kidnapping because the truth was too embarrassing and might get them sent to jail."
Why do you feel the abuse that occurred was "most likely" inflicted by Patsy? If you have no problem accepting that John most likely staged the scene, lied about the window and the flashlight, then is it really such a leap to presume he's also the murderer? What evidence do you see that leads you to Patsy?
As far as thinking she was dead, I am pretty sure that before making a decision to tie a garrote around your daughter's throat, you would make absolutely certain she wasn't still breathing, which isn't very difficult to do. If the kidnapping ruse was concocted in order to avoid prison, they would have staged an accident - such as a fall down the stairs perhaps - staging a kidnapping/sexual assault guarantees her death is now going to be investigated as a crime rather than an accident, which is only going to draw more attention to themselves.
If you want to discuss the late great Miles Davis with his astounding recording of his sextet on "Kind of Blue", I'm there man. Best line up of musicians in my lifetime, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, Bill Evans, (plus Wynton Kelly, James Cobb and Paul Chambers)all of them chosen carefully, none of them had played the songs Miles had written just shortly before, and they do it in one take. "Flamenco Sketches" will break your heart in two. Transcendent.
ReplyDeleteNice to see a fellow jazz fan posting here. I'm almost tempted to "give you a pass" on your cockamamie IDI theory. Almost, but not quite. Sorry. :-(
DeleteYou should know Doc I think you're cool. And yes, I am ALL ABOUT jazz. I have been since I bought my first Cannonball Adderley album. But don't get me started on "Trane." I tear up.
DeleteBack to the case. We're all working at cross purposes so how could we solve this case anyway? Anything that was left is interpreted in here as part of your own scenario with your perpetrator. Anything taken away fits your own scenario. Nothing will get solved in here. It's just a place to discuss, and if your theory is different from the majority in here they certainly aren't going to change their minds, so why should you. Are you suggesting Doc that after committing murder on his own daughter John devised a scenario where he would need white cord that just happened to be in plain site, black duct tape again, handy, sat down and composed a long note using his weak hand with a few false starts (and 17 missing pages from the notepad) which he crumpled up and hid somewhere until Patsy wasn't looking so that he could make one trip to the dumpster outside without being seen with all of his crime scene evidence, left a note right where she would see it as soon as she goes downstairs before him and hopes to God she gets to the word "beheaded" and doesn't run up to her room and starts screaming, hopes to God she doesn't decide in an instant the best bet is to call the police, and hopes to God he remembered to break the window, close it, and goes back down to sweep it up but oops, he left a shard of glass - well he's screwed now, he can't carry the body which is decomposing out to his car trunk now, what a cool calculated well through out incestuous murderer he is! He thought of just about everything. Just about. Just the fact that they are going to re test the unidentified male DNA again with better technology than we had in 1996, and just the fact that it's there and where it is, may give us some answers. May. The possibility of it. If it comes to trial that's something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteI hear Zed needs a friend these days, Inquisitive. Perhaps you can use your sleuthing skills and track him down.
ReplyDeleteHi Doc, noticed the Bird's moniker on the disk label right away, since my son was encouraged by his grandfather to study Parker as he built proficiency on his tenor sax. Developed love of jazz and skills on other horns and woodies along the way. Ah, the blessings of true music.
DeleteShout out to CC...I'm here reading every day. Been in your theory camp most of the way, but will add I find it totally believable that JR would have blamed Burke if he needed to, thereby allowing the enlistment of Patsy, if we have to someday accept she wrote the RN. However, I am easily persuaded JR wrote the note...misspellings using the double s's, Doc's account of Johnisms and his excellent handwriting comparison. I do believe JR even thought adding hats to his a's would help disguise his hand, and if it pointed to Patsy, an even better assist. If Burke got the blame, good reason to snug him up in his bed, then later whisk him off to the White's. From all we've seen related to Burke, he is the perfect example of a victim being gaslighted and manipulated through narcissistic abuse from the get go.
It's difficult for most reading here to genuinely understand that a true Narcissist, which I believe JR to be, can't connect his mind to what we perceive a normal heart to feel. It's like something "short circuited" in their hard wiring early on in life, but the circuit created a new path of completion bypassing the intended genuine emotions of the heart. Everything JR has said and done through the years demonstrates his only agenda is his own comfort and success. If all else displayed to the public fails, the "indignant grandstanding" technique gets pulled out, as it did last on CNN, with his "that's absurd" comment leading to the edited cutaway and commentary. (btw, CC, I wondered if there followed some off camera body posturing by JR that often accompanies the indignant blowoff)
We now must sit and wait patiently through this lovely holy season to see what the new interviews tonite disclose, amd while the extensive DNA testing is processed. If I am correct in my interpretation the new Y chromosome identifier technology can pinpoint a specific male donor to their sample.
I wish I could personally hug Charlie Brennan. He is as close to a hero as we have hoped for in JB'S cause, and I hope he never gives up digging into the case using his journalist skills and connections.
JR, as you become more intensely driven to display your innocence before a camera, my cheshire cat grin widens. You can fool some of the people all of the time, some of the people some of the time and some of the people none of the time. I am in the last camp, and until I hear a confession from one of Kolar's circus midgets, my bet is on JR, the Pretender extraordinare.
MWMM
Glad to have you back, Midwest Mama, it's been a while.
DeleteCharlie is a dogged investigative journalist in the Woodward and Bernstein tradition, and I don't think he'll ever let this go - just wish he had a wider audience.
CC
Tsk Anony. Not easy being in a minority, is it. Would be easier if I went along, got with the program, agreed. In the majority opinion after 20 years still no arrest. Think about it. It may be well thought out, but no one has moved on it. When there could be more than one perpetrator with a few outstanding keys out there, it takes more investigatory work. Have you ever wondered why the man who kidnapped Bill McReynold's daughter and her friend was never apprehended? Look on the unsolved case index for Denver and Boulder, starting in the 60's to 2000. I mean it would be so much easier for me to just acknowledge JDI but I can't go against what makes no sense to me. The timing makes no sense for starters. And I don't buy that she was going to tell at their family reunion. She could have told numerous other times. (If there was prior abuse.)
ReplyDeleteI'll just leave this right here. Yes, I understand it's just one persons opinion, but it gets added to the very large pile of reasons I know Patsy was involved in the staging.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/jonbenet-ramsey-case-expert-believes-patsy-ramsey-wrote-44225694
-J
I've already exposed the incompetence of the "expert" in question. Need I remind you that this "expert" confused a crooked xerox with margin drift?
DeleteI'm not saying her expert opinion is the end all be all, but what I will say is that the large majority of experts who have spoken on this case have concluded it is more similar to Patsy's. I think this is a gigantic problem for JDI and you know it.
Delete-J
It really isn't. Handwriting analysis is largely inadmissible in court because it isn't science and the so-called experts are not uniformly trained, are often poorly qualified, and their opinions are entirely subjective.
DeleteYa' still got nothin', J.
CC
I got nothin? CC - Doc isn't an expert...he's a blogger. Actual forensic EXPERTS have concluded it's Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. I don't know that that is nothin. More people have concluded that Patsy wrote it than John....not to mention there are many other reasons I believe Patsy was involved and this just gets added to the pile.
DeleteThe JDI community HATES the handwriting analysis because it's a huge problem for John "Jason Bourne" Ramsey doing this crime all by himself.
-J
This IS the "JDI community", J, and we don't hate it and don't find it a huge problem because HANDWRITING ANALYSIS IS CRAP. Not science, not admissible in court. Crap. Useless as a bowl of pineapple.
DeleteCC
Thank you CC for proving my point. The JDI community includes Doc does it not? Ok thanks because I have seen 50 different blog posts from Doc trying to analyze how John could have written the note. I don't care about being admissible in court, though if this case did ever go to trial I would promise you that the pineapple bowl would 100% be in court.
Delete-J
Doc has, I believe, addressed the inadmissibility of the handwriting analysis. I'm always puzzled by his fascination with it, and can only conclude that it's his personal hobby horse, as the prior sexual abuse is mine.
DeleteReally? On what basis could the bowl of pineapple be introduced as probative evidence, when it cannot be conclusively proved when or by whom it was placed on that table?
CC
To save this blog from seeing me post on this again, I will make this brief
DeleteBurke's fingerprints are on the bowl. Burke in his own words said he snuck downstairs that night. JB has pineapple in her stomach. The case can be made that Burke was up with JBR.
-J
I can be briefer: That's an unsubstantiated conclusion based on uncorroborated assumptions and makes no case at all.
DeleteCC
If a jury found Casey Anthony and OJ not guilty, they can conclude that the pineapple bowl was Burke's.
Delete-J
That's an entirely fallacious leap, and compares apples to oranges to, well, pineapple - the circumstances are entirely dissimilar in the three.
DeleteIf I were prosecuting I assure you they'd find Burke's fingerprints were there from emptying the dishwasher and that JBR helped herself to a piece of pineapple from a bowl left on the table at breakfast.
Still nothin'.
CC
"If I were prosecuting I assure you they'd find Burke's fingerprints were there from emptying the dishwasher and that JBR helped herself to a piece of pineapple from a bowl left on the table at breakfast."
DeleteI'm not going to continue with the back and forth on this. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude it was Burke's pineapple bowl. Also, for a lawyer, you seem to have a lot of time to comment on a blog :-)
-J
Semi retiring from my own firm, down to a mere 40 hours a week. I'll always make time for you, J.
DeleteCC
I'm sorry J but you can't make a case that Burke was up with JB. Not based on that pineapple bowl. Because it could have been served at any time. It could have been poured the day before Christmas, Christmas morning, Christmas afternoon, or midnight. Absolutely any time at all. Reminds me of a line from Spinal Tap - "how do you dust for vomit?"
DeleteThis is "one person's opinion" also, J:
Delete"It is also important to note, because of that preposterous CBS documentary and Burke Ramsey’s offputting interviews, that police have ruled JonBenet’s brother out a number of times during the investigation. They interviewed him three times — once for three straight days — without the parents being present. The interview was videotaped, and yet neither the FBI, nor the CBI, nor any of the detectives at the time suspected Burke of being involved in the murder."
(http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/15/jonbenet-parents-still-look-guilty/)
Burke was interviewed for three, consecutive days. As a nine year old, I guarantee he would have not been capable of concealing his guilt. I worked with kids for eight years - I learned that, when trying to lie, they inevitably give themselves away in a variety of very noticeable ways.....but for the most part, they're usually pretty honest, especially around authority. LE are trained to look for signs of deception and knew very early on it wasn't Burke. Hence, he was ruled out a number of times and was NEVER a suspect.
I watched part of the interviews of Burke. It didn't look like intense grilling to me. They let him off the hook. To me he looked like a creepy kid with absolutely no emotion about his sister dying. Nor did he seem scared at all that somebody would come for him. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Delete-J
Well, that is merely your opinion, J, and you're not a detective, nor are you a child psychologist, thus I am more inclined to trust their expertise in the field rather than rely on someone's unsubstantiated musings regarding a subject they have no experience in.
DeleteI am actually both a detective and psychologist. Trust me when I tell you that the show Dexter is based on Burke Ramsey
Delete-J
So Burke has a dark passenger in the form of a ghost John Ramsey to curb his urges? One thing is for sure, the investigation went downhill quickly, just like Dexter <3.
DeleteSo, you say Burke killed his sister intentionally -or at least the head blow?
DeleteHead blow was a moment of rage...but yes, he didn't intend to kill her.
Delete-J
"Doc isn't an expert."
DeleteAbsolutely true. Which means I can't get away with simply voicing an opinion. I have to actually dig into the evidence, analyze it, and come up with a meaningful argument.
Doc, forgot to mention...I had to chuckle at your trust that you didn't need a penny on the arm head of your record player to make sure it wouldn't skip or drift causing a dreaded scratch across your prized vinyl.
ReplyDeleteMWMM
Every time I type the word "narcissist" I think of you, Mama, and your remarks last year. Tell me more about what you alluded to earlier, about JR's likely off-camera reactions. Is this a narcissistic thing?
DeleteCC
The two NPDs in my life almost always ended up demonstrating disdain when unable to refute a challenge put to them by "huffing" about: slamming doors, using snide obscenities, name calling, shaking a lifted fist, or ultimately shunning the conversation by dismissing the dialogue, then walking away.
DeleteA couple of other observations...in a face to face conversation, the NPD will rarely use an open or extended palm gesture. They rarely are first to offer a handshake, unless they have you "targeted" as a fresh supply. They are very eye-engaging, but usually with what appears to be a cool, almost non interested look. When sitting in a chair during conversation, they will often lean back and stretch somewhat taller at times folding their arms across their chest, or even shift somewhat sideways, which signal they are putting you further away from them. If thry lean into a conversation, it's when they expect you to pay attention to what they think and say, because they believe you will accept whatever they are saying is the ultimate truth and of supreme importance.
I could go on for paragraphs, but those who question JR'S personality being narcissistic would probably see it easily simply by googling traits of a narcissist.
MWMM
I was revisting a few past posts and reread one from September, 16, 2016. It was written by CC and it really offers key information that would be good to keep in mind as we continue discussing this case. The following is an excerpt:
ReplyDelete"They observed, among other chronic injuries, a hymen that had been eroded
over time and a vaginal opening twice normal size for a six year old."
We can argue all we want about the autopsy results and if there are different interprations or views that make those results inconclusive. However, there is some very physical evidence observed by them ALL and that was the size of her vagina opening.
Other injuries could or could not have been caused by the alledged vaginitis - which was the cause of multiple visits to her pediatrician. Some other injuries could have been caused by the assault on the day of the murder. But neither one, vaginitis or the last assault could have caused the opening of her vagina to grow bigger. That was certainly caused by the stimulation of the area over a period of time.
So, I insist, JBR was killed because of this undeniable, inexplicable mark left on her body. Not because of what she could be telling others on the cruise but because of what a doctor would ask them after a physical exam on her body.
Martha from California
I don't know where you are getting that word "eroded" to describe the injuries to the hymen and whoever "they observed" were they were not the ME, who used the word abrasion multiple times in the autopsy report. It was also refuted that there is a "normal" sized hymen for a 6 year old that would be deemed of abnormal size in this particular case. And in any event, we cannot ascertain based on this autopsy report by the ME who did the actual examination, that she had been sexually abused previously and that her injuries sustained were not from a rape with a paintbrush handle.
ReplyDeleteDisregard Inquisitive, Martha - the rest of us do. She is, as usual, wrong in all but one respect: Dr Meyer didn't refer to prior abuse in the autopsy report.
DeleteCC
CC is very condescending Martha, I wouldn't pay it much mind - if you want more proof of that go back to her dialog with Hercule - I believe it was 2012. He called her out on it but of course there's no cure, it's learned behavior and would have to be unlearned, possibly with some aversion conditioning, you know, SR-, an old operant conditioning term. Only one scientist actually examined JB - the ME. All of the rest were spectators, and so the word "chronic" and "eroded" took on a power that wasn't factual. But you go ahead and speak for everyone CC.
DeleteThank you, Inquisitive.
DeleteI dont mean to be rude or offend anyone with my comments. i read and inform myself about the case as much as possible.I also enjoy reading all comments and participating and would love to continue doing so.
I respect your position and enjoy reading your posts because they are entertaining. However, I honestly believe there was a victim of sexual abuse in this case, who was silent in a horrific way. By not seeing that, I feel we keep silencing her and it is painful, to me, at least... One of my precious sisters was abused by one of my uncles. Noone believed her at the time when she finally opened up about what was going on. Even my father did not believe her. If that had happened, it was because of the way she was, he would say. The stronger, older, fitter, smarter wins in these cases, most of the times.
I only hope justice is met for this little girl.
Martha
that's sad Anony. I hope she finds her power some day, that we all live in an unreal world and that the real world is one in which we are free of our past and people who didn't contribute to us in a way that lifted us up or inspired us, and when we see that we know we can choose, choose what's right for us. Over all of these years we had so much misinformation and now there are books on just about every take you can take. When Leigh comes back you may find her one line answers abrupt at first but everything she's said has been accurate and I miss her. She has been at this longer than I have and has answers I don't have, if she will come back.
Delete"but everything she's said has been accurate."
DeleteLOL. Yeah, the ransom note creative workshop in the basement, and the Mindhunter framing job are entirely accurate.
Thank you, CC!
ReplyDeleteThat is a great post, btw. I appreciate we can have it available here.
It's true Dr Meyer doesnt refer to prior abuse in the autopsy report, I checked it out. But, that could have been because the acute sometimes can mask the chronic...and I believe the killer counted on that! . Either way the panel of experts' opinion is also valid and its worth considering, given that all people participating had experience in the field, being one of them expert in child abuse.
Martha from California
An autopsy, as I understand it, is essentially descriptive rather than speculative.
DeleteExactly!
DeleteThank you, Doc!
Martha.
Since prior abuse was not a direct cause of death, it had no place in Meyer's report.
DeleteCC
IMO this is the way the death of JonBenet happened: The Ramseys arrive home from the Whites around 9:30 - 10. JonBenet is sleeping but soon wakes and begins playing with her new toys. Burke is playing with his toys also. John and Patsy tell the children to get ready for bed, as they are leaving for their trip to Michigan very early in the morning. The kids begin to whine and complain and ask for a snack. Patsy gives them a bowl of pineapple, but they eat only a couple bites, then start playing again. John has gone up to his and Patsy's bedroom and she is left to deal with the situation. She begins to get irritable and raises her voice, demanding they obey her. Burke takes one of his toys with him and goes to his room, but JonBenet stomps her feet, pouts, and talks back to Patsy. Angry at JonBenet and overly tired, Patsy grabs JonBenet by the neck of her blouse and begins to drag the child up the stairs. JonBenet struggles to get away but is unsuccessful. Once in JonBenet's bedroom, Patsy tries to dress her for bed and discovers JonBenet has soiled her panties. Suddenly Patsy slaps the JonBenet -- slaps her with all her strength -- and the child falls hard against furniture, a corner of the wall, or perhaps the bathroom sink. JonBenet loses consciousness immediately and Patsy is horrified at what she has dfone. She shakes JonBenet to try and wake her. She wipes her face and body with cold cloths, all to no avail. To all appearances the child is dead. Now Patsy calls on John to help her. He attempts to revive his little girl. After a while, with JonBenet exhibiting no signs of life, the parents begin discussing what should be done. If they call 911 and JonBenet wakes, she will tell what happened and Patsy will be arrested for child abuse -- perhaps John, too. If she dies, the charge will be murder. They will lose everything if that happens. Their standing in the community, their luxurious lifestyle, and their millions will disappear. Neither will they be around to raise Burke to adulthood. After consideration of all this, the Ramseys decided to stage a kidnapping gone wrong. They never intended to dispose of the body of their daughter, however, for they did live JonBenet and could not bear to have her buried in some remote, unmarked grave.
ReplyDeleteNo. It has to be worse than that. Because they could just lie and say it was an accident. Oh she fell backwards, Burke scared her, blah blah. I think they had to stage this because there was evidence of sexual abuse in JBRs hymen. There had to be some sexual abuse first for them to want to cover this up. Then an accident maybe. Or a deliberate act. Also they were afraid that she would tell about the sex abuse if they took her to a doctor.
DeleteSC-
DeleteIf it truly was an accident and they were sure the abuse would be discovered, then they would have agreed on a cover up...that is possible.
But then, you are saying Patsy knew about the abuse? If she knew and was willing to follow any plan to cover up and conceal the abuse, why did dhe call the police and foiled said plan?
Martha from California
I think the plan was to write a note to divert attention from themselves. They did not just want to leave body in the basement. They thought they were so clever, that by writing a note, they could fool police better. So the plan was to fake a kidnapping.
DeleteOr- maybe John wanted to get rid of the body. But Patsy did not want to. She wanted to bury the body. So she came up with the note idea on her own. As an excuse to call police. Against John's wishes. As in, she discovered the note, she called police. Otherwise she would have to find the body in the basement first before John. And maybe he would not let her go down in basement. This way she could do it earlier.
Not sure really, but those are some possible ideas.
Ok...we can all say BDI,IDI or PDI. But at the end of the day we post on this site instead of the other sites. Why is that? Because in the back of everyone's mind we know Doc has figured it out. JDI... PLAIN AND SIMPLE
ReplyDeleteI personally post on this blog because it has intelligent posters. I had to leave Facebook groups, and Websleuths for the oversaturation of ridiculous theories, and misinformation.
DeleteGiving you all a heads up on ABC's 20/20 tonight there is a JBR special. There is a segment regarding a juror who speaks out as to who they think killed JBR based on evidence they were privy to. This should be interesting.
ReplyDeleteEG
Thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely watch it.
DeleteEG- I think they're bringing back that so-called handwriting expert that Doc talked about (and discredited). It'll be interesting to hear what the juror has to say! Love this site and the commentors! Thanks, Doc!
ReplyDelete-Candy
National news! Love it, hope JR is squirming in his seat.
ReplyDeletebtw, does anyone know what happened to her regular small sized Wednesday underwear? Was it just in the wash? Don't remember reading about that.
ReplyDeleteIt was never found.
DeleteOkay. Thanks.
DeleteYet another documentary on the case this Monday on Investigation Discovery.
ReplyDeleteFor more on the case of the JonBenét Ramsey case, watch “JonBenét: The Untold Truth” on our 10-part true crime show, People Magazine Investigates, airing Monday night at 10 p.m. ET on Investigation Discovery.
Mike G
Ms. D. -- thanks for your response to my comment. Sorry I didn't express my ideas very well. I am still vacillating between PDI, JDI, and BDI. Shortly after the JonBenet Ramsey case made news I thought JDI. It was easy for me to believe he molested his daughter and murdered her to prevent her telling because I used to work in a rape crisis center and know that rape by a family member is not uncommon. However, after John was ruled out as having written the ransom note, and after hearing that Patsy could not be ruled out, I began to view her as the number one suspect. The handwriting in the ransom note does look very similar to hers, and some of the language is such as she is known to use. Patsy's writing style is different than the style of writing evident in the ransom note, though that may be due to the use of partial quotes from movies. Also, Patsy was the primary caregiver of JonBenet and as such would have been the one to bathe and dress her. And John said Patsy tucked JonBenet into bed after he had laid her on the bed when they came home from the Whites. She was the last one known to see the child alive. Additionally, Patsy was evasive when answering questions regarding that night, and, like John, she changed parts of her story time and again. Oh, and on the morning she reported JonBenet missing, Patsy wore the same clothes she'd worn the previous day. Her friends said this was unlike Patsy. I know I would be wearing my robe to go downstairs to make coffee.Still, suspicious as all this sounds, she may be innocent of any involvement in her daughter's death. I certainly hope she is.
ReplyDeleteof all the possible scenarios Anony, this was the one I thought the longest, mostly because I wasn't thinking about it every day like I do in here, but I believed alot that I read. Although I thought the motive was she caught John and JB in a compromising situation and had the flashlight with her as it was late, John wasn't in bed, she goes down to JB's room (or John Andrew's) and there they are and she starts swinging. I thought that was how it had to be, then when she didn't come to, they devised a plan to cover for each other. I'm simply IDI now because so many had keys they lost track. Their house was on the Christmas parade of homes circuit, people knew their floorplan and their business. Not everyone loved them. Then we had the incomplete investigation, which focused in on Patsy primarily so we the public didn't know what else they had. So I've been where you are, not sure which is complete. And...none of them are. So just keep thinking for yourself until it makes sense. And tune out the bullies.
DeleteWhy not see if you can crack the case by figuring out what John Ramsey, CEO of Access Graphics, meant by Victory! S.B.T.C.
ReplyDeleteLeigh Too I have some questions for you. I'll back in the a.m. if you are around.
ReplyDeleteAnother heads up for yet another JBR Special.
ReplyDelete9PM (EST) tonight, Saturday, Dec 17th repeating at 11PM(EST) on REELZ.
Not sure if anyone caught last night's special where the Grand Juror spoke. Nothing much new except that handwriting expert that wasn't allowed to testify. She said in her opinion, Patsy wrote the RN.
Other than that, and the Juror saying he thought he knew who did it but wasn't going to share that information, there wasn't much else. I am not sure where the Juror was going with that remark, and wondered if he meant BR. He did agree with Alex Hunter in that they wouldn't have been able to get a conviction based on the evidence they were presented with.
That last Anonymous post was me. Sorry, forgot to include my initial.
ReplyDeleteEG
hi EG, yes saw the abc special with the Grand Juror. I'm not going to speculate on what he knows, but it would suggest Burke, so J, you're still in this! I hadn't seen that picture of Burke as a young adult sailing before, surrounded by "capsized square knots" :) I also didn't know that the unidentified male DNA was in two spots - as you could see - the longjohns and the leg of the panties. I had thought they were referring to touch DNA only on the sides of the longjohns where one would pull up the garment. So, learned something new from this. Anyway, will try to get REELZ tv, thanks EG.
ReplyDeleteHi Inq....yea, I think that Juror was pointing to Burke as well, but not sure. I think I had read where the DNA was present on two items of clothing, and that it matched and was called "touch DNA". We will see what the one on Reelz has to say tonight.
DeleteEG
The comments from the Grand Juror have very much sealed it for me that IDI should be excluded. The jury was presented evidence from the office of prosecution and from Smit, took a great deal of time weighing it all, and brought back probable cause true bills against the parents. If Hunter would have gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity to develop and present even more evidence, if not forensic, then certainly strong circumstantial evidence, which DOES sometimes lead to a conviction. We must remember that IIRC, the jurors were instructed to be able to get beyond reasonable doubt with probable cause indictments, WHICH THEY DID DO.
ReplyDeleteIMO, ABC clearly wanted to implicate JR by replaying a portion of Arndts interview. Now that Garnett and BPD are proceeding with further DNA testing, why should we keep BDI in the mix of theories? Spending more taxpayer money over the millions already spent could not be justified if this case could be closed by a judiciary statement according to Colorado statutes which is a determination that JonBenet died from actions taken against her by a youth under the age of ten years old, whose identity will remain undisclosed according to Colorado law. Of course, immediate public speculation would then fall on BDI, with assist from parents to cover up. Tsk, tsk, public hoopla interspersed with sympathy for the shame of it all, The Rams slink off into crime history and an innocent child has justice.
No folks, this crime isn't BDI or IDI. Doc put his thumbprint on this long ago, and if JDI gets "ruled in", as a lone perpetrator who will stop at nothing, including using his own family as his fall guys, this case will be closed quickly. MOO
MWMM
DocG – Just finished reading your book, and after reading several others that have been published, I have to admit that your theory makes the most sense (based on facts, logic and common sense). However, you do lose me in Chapter 13 – Section V, where you describe your theory on Johns’ activities the night of the murder (i.e. he killed her to shut her up about the molestation). I hope you will put some more thought into that.
ReplyDeleteYou say “He strikes her over the head with a powerful blow from a Maglite flashlight with a heavy rubber tip, knowing that such an object is not likely to draw blood.” -- How could he (or anyone for that matter) possibly know that a strike like that would not cause blood? I would think if he was going to kill her (premeditated) he would have done it in a more humane way such as overdosing her with sleeping pills or some other drug. He could have also just come at her from behind and strangled her with the rope, or held her down and smothered her with a pillow. Bashing her over the head with the flashlight just doesn’t make sense unless he loathed her, and to insinuate that method is merciful is ludicrous. And how was he to know (for sure) it would knock her out?
You say “Noticing that she is still breathing, he decides to complete his task by strangling her. Reluctant to do this by hand, he constructs a garotte-like ligature device and strangles her with that.” -- I think she was strangled originally just with the rope, and the garrote (stick) was added after the fact to make it look more gruesome, hence why her hair was entangled in the knot, as it had to be constructed close to her head.
You say “Noting that some of his sperm can be seen on her panties, he goes upstairs, finds a fresh pair, and redresses her in those. He then deposits the original pair in the laundry hamper.” -- Were the original panties found the hamper? If so, and you are correct, then JR’s DNA are on those panties and that would be a smoking gun. It doesn’t make sense, if he’s trying to get rid of all of the other evidence, that he would carelessly leave sperm soiled panties in the house. It also doesn’t make ANY sense at all that if his intent was to kill her to shut her up, that he would be sexually aroused during the murder of his child. That goes beyond incest.
I have to admit I was in the BDI, but after reading your book am working my way over to the JDI camp. I have to give more thought to what actually happened as far as the actual murder goes though.
I do have one unanswered question: Patsy says she only read the first few lines of the note. So, then, how did she know who signed the note when asked by the 911 operator? Even if she just glanced at it, it is highly unlikely that she would remember that acronym during her frantic 911 call.
Thanks for the good book read…very well written.
Danni
You ask some reasonable questions, Danni.
DeleteAt the outset of Chapter Three I stated that my recreation of what happened is "frankly speculative" and I saw no reason to repeat that elsewhere. What I wrote in chapter 13 is based on what seemed most likely to me. The actual sequence of events and motivations may have been different, we will probably never know. These are details that have no bearing on the essentials of the case against John.
Of all the items JBR could have been struck with, the maglite was certainly the least likely to draw blood, so it occurred to me that this could have been why John chose to use it. A baseball bat or golf club would have been far more likely to draw blood, imo. John had been in the Navy and it's possible he'd had contact with sailors who'd had Navy Seals type training and might have shared some tips on how to disable someone without drawing blood. Again, that's pure speculation, but that's the sort of thing I had in mind. If the head blow was a purely spontaneous act, then he might have just gotten lucky. Of course, a certain amount of blood would not have been inconsistent with a kidnapping, as the kidnapper could have assaulted her before removing her from the house.
It seems to me that, of all the ways one might kill or disable someone, a single, sharp, head blow is the most merciful, though it might seem more violent than the alternatives. Smothering someone with a pillow might seem "gentler" but would definitely induce both panic and pain, whereas a head blow with a heavy object, if administered properly would have knocked her out instantly, with no pain, no fear, no discomfort of any kind.
The ligature was embedded deeply in her neck, which is consistent with a garrote-type device that produced more pressure with every twist. I think she must have been strangled with it after the head blow, which would explain the hairs entwined in the knotting. If she'd been conscious her struggles would have made it impossible to construct that device while lying right on top of her.
I think the device was constructed either to enable him to strangle her without actually touching her or as part of an erotic fantasy. I think it's naive to assume the attack did not have an erotic component, even if it had been premeditated. By that time his relation with his daughter would have been intensely erotic or things would never have reached the point they did. (Again, I am speculating -- we have no direct evidence of this.)
What I see time and again in John's actions is a gift for misdirection, and I see the oversize panties as yet another example. If some drops of his sperm got onto the original pair and he didn't make any effort to get rid of them after the 911 call, then his goose would have been cooked for sure. And if he simply removed them, what would he have done with them? The missing panties would have triggered a thorough search of the house and all the panties found would have been tested for sperm, DNA, etc. Flushing them, even after cutting them up, might well have clogged the toilet. And dropping them in a neighbor's garbage could easily have backfired. So I think he decided to just take another pair labeled "Wednesday" and substitute the fresh pair for the original, which could then have been dumped in the laundry hamper. And I think that's what happened. All the panties were probably collected by the police but I strongly doubt that anyone would have thought to test them for sperm or anything else. Again, this is purely speculative, but I can't think of any other reason why John would have wanted to redress her in a fresh pair of panties. Can you?
As for Patsy and the note, she could easily have glanced at the bottom of the last page when asked who wrote it. No need to read the whole thing in order to find the "signature" at the end.
Danni:
DeleteI too found it difficult at first to imagine John Ramsey murdering JonBenet in the ways that were used. Aspects of many if not most murders often go unsolved even when the right person(s) are convicted and sent to prison. To this day, no one knows how or why Scott Peterson murdered his wife Lacy and son Connor.
As you follow the case and witness John's body language and expressions during interviews, it becomes easier to see a monster behind a myth---a myth that perpetuates cultured, wealthy, and educated human beings as less capable of committing heinous crimes. The one time John almost fooled me was in his most recent CNN interview with Jean Casarez, but his huge lie at the end of the show betrayed the seemingly genuine emotion he expressed beginning of it. It then dawned on me how John has been hearing for twenty years now how cold, stonefaced, and emotionless he appears public. That's a long time to work on your weaknesses.
A hit on the head IS actually a merciful way to kill someone. And while his hope would be that her body would never be discovered, his plan would nevertheless have to account for that possibilty. A body discovered by police buried in the woods by a cruel and greedy pedophile makes sense in light of JonBenet's participation in beauty paegents where pervy onlookers are probably a dime a dozen.
Doc can confirm that I was also bothered by no panties discovered in the hamper. I dedicated a whole post to that issue. Any JDI theory also has to reasonably account for no shards of glass found at the scene, or remants of duct tape and cord that, by all accounts, had been part of the house inventory long before the murder occurred. John's own disappearance for an hour before the body was discovered provided reasonable opportunity for him to get rid of the evidence.
As to when, where, or even if John ejaculated that night, that is just speculation.
The original panties having more blood on them, or non-visible incriminating hairs or fibers, may have been the reason they were changed.
Finally, that a father who murders a daughter whom he loves yet has had incest with, is entirely consistent with a father who afterwards wraps her dead body in her favorite blanket, changes her underwear, wipes down her genital area, and maybe even draws a heart on her hand. I can't cite a particular source to support this assertion, but if watch enough crime shows on television I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusion.
Mike G
That was my takeaway as well, Midwest Mama: Arndt's inclusion was a clear message; had the GJ believed the Ramseys aided and abetted an intruder there would have been a third true bill returned against "person or persons unknown"; had it been Burke the second true bill would not have specified first degree murder. Someone is, finally, looking at John - hope it's Stan Garnett.
ReplyDeleteCC
While I can't be sure, to the extent the Grand Jurors heard testimony regarding who wrote the ransom note, my guess is they heard from no one opining it was, or could have been, John Ramsey alone.
ReplyDeleteNon-JDIers can rest assured that if Burke, an intruder, or even Patsy, albeit posthumously, ever stand trial for JonBenet's murder, the defense attorney will be prepared to argue, not only that it was John who wrote the note, but that it was John who acted alone in killing JonBenet.
Mike G
IMO I think Detective Arndt lost all credibility the moment she asked JR to search the house. Her second mistake was doing that interview, which made her look like she was either on heavy duty medication or needed to be.
ReplyDeleteThe RN is key here. If an IDI the note would have been short and to the point AND of course, JBR would have been kidnapped. I think we can all agree, it wasn't ever a RN in the real sense of those words.
So then, what was the purpose of it? If you believe BDI, it's a cover up by both parents to distract and divert--send the police on a wild goose chase interviewing tons of suspects(which they did).
However, if JDI, it was as Doc said, to stop PR from calling the police and also, making it sound as if PR wrote it which of course points the finger her way and away from him, even going so far as to using her pad and pen to write it.
I am curious to see what tonight's special brings to the table. I think it's from the perspective of the FBI agent, so it should be factual. We shall see.
EG
EG I thought that the DNA markers weren't strong enough for a match. That's why I'm sure they are re-testing it, with improved current testing methods. But if you look at the location where they cut it out from it has everything to do with the sexual component of this crime. I also think it interesting that "they" said it was the same unidentified male DNA taken from two different garments - the longjohns and the panties. That suggests to me that it did not come from the panty manufacturer. I had also read earlier that the DNA was saliva, not semen. Now does that change anything for you in speculating about the crime? I'm not sure what that points to for me.
ReplyDeleteArnt was overwhelmed that day. She asked for backup numerous times and none came. More and more people came over. All she could do was make sure those people weren't wandering around on their own, which they probably did anyway. I keep wondering though, did she have no power at all to tell people to leave? She could have at least called headquarters and asked them to give her that power - tell them the house may be an active crime scene and everyone had to leave. I think we know why John went for the basement right away - even though Arnt told him to start at the top and work his way down. Because he had already discovered the body earlier. John said in an interview he wasn't going to "do the police job for them" but it's exactly what he did.
ReplyDeleteInq
DeleteRegarding the DNA, from what I understood with touch DNA, you can touch an article of clothing yourself, get the DNA on your own hands, and then contaminate another garment, which is what JBR could have done. BUT I am not sure, as I am not an expert or claim to be in the field of DNA or criminal investigations for that matter.
That would have been my question to JR. Why didn't he check that wine cellar room the first time we went down there. If an IDI, and JR discovered the body earlier, wouldn't he have said so? I would think he would only NOT say anything if he was guilty of putting it there.
EG
It is peculiar EG. He admitted to his older son, JA, that he found her around 11 a.m. Some think when he "disappeared" for an hour he was disposing of evidence, perhaps tidying up the scene. Some think he did all of that earlier. But he admits to JA it was 11 a.m. when he found her. This is just one of the little details that points away from his guilt. If he "finds" her he didn't cause her to be there. Unless finding her was some kind of act. Even so, yes, why didn't he immediately tell Arnt? She says he appeared different after that time frame. She says he was "cordial" when she got there, then depressed and rather despondent after he disappeared and came back, then growing increasingly agitated by 1 p.m. when she gives him the task of searching the house. She would know, since about all she could do that day was observe (with no backup). so yes, why wouldn't he say what he found in the morning? If he did kill her why not tell, and if he didn't kill her why not tell. My thoughts as to "why" lead me into dark places and away from my IDI scenario - be that as it may, it suggests to me he knew who killed her - either Burke or Patsy, and probably Patsy. It's possible he suspected his wife had something to do with it from the moment he read and re read that note. Am I switching back to PDI? No. But that to me, is what his odd behavior "suggests."
Deleteas a postscript to above, if John knows he didn't do it, Patsy has been separated from him all day in another room with her friends, and all he can do is wonder who did. He could have most certainly suspected his wife.
DeleteThat's interesting, Inq....so you think JR thought either PR or JR did it, therefore he kept quiet about the discovery? I guess that could account for his disappearing for a time, and the odd behavior. I thought he told JA 11AM but then said he was mistaken.
DeleteI've always felt the RN sounded like PR, but then it could have been worded that way to point a finger at her and away from JR. The handwriting "expert" from last night said she thought it was PR's handwriting, but she wasn't allowed to testify before the GJ. From what I've learned here, handwriting isn't used often and isn't considered reliable evidence.
EG
Here's an interesting study I discovered on-line. Take note of the weapon most used by those committing fillicide.
ReplyDeletehttp://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=cps_stuetd
Mike G.
Megan prompted me to write my first-ever post on a blog! As strange as it sounds, I too read this blog (and sometimes Websleuths) as I lay in bed trying to wash all the stress of the day away. Weird, isn't it? Like, who does that as a way to relax??
ReplyDeleteI began as RDI, then moved to BDI after I read Kolar’s book. Recently, I have transitioned to JDI as it makes the most sense to me.
These are some of the questions that don’t fit easily into my JDI theory:
1. If Patsy was asleep while John was doing this heinous act, why did her hair and makeup appear to be still intact from the night before? Nowhere have I read that she even brushed her hair before going downstairs. (If she truly slept all night and awoke to nearly perfect hair and makeup, I would love to learn her secret!)
2. Why does Patsy’s side of the bed appear to be not slept in?
3. I think we all believe that John would have been occupied with the crime for quite some time (hours?). Wouldn’t Patsy notice that John was out of bed for a good portion of the night? I’ve read Doc’s suggestion that men his age get up frequently to use the bathroom. I notice when my husband is not in bed and I just fall back asleep, but I would certainly notice if he was not in bed for a significant portion of the night. How could that have gone unnoticed?
4. JB’s final resting position with her arms outstretched over her head also bugs me. When I was BDI, the position of her arms made sense because I pictured him dragging her by the arms into the WC, leaving her arms over her head. My JDI theory struggles with this aspect.
5. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I think that if John’s entire purpose of writing the RN was to get the body out of the house (which does make the most sense to me), I find it odd that he wasn’t able to convince Patsy not to call 911 “for the sake of JB’s safety”. You’d think he could at least get her to hold off making the call for a while.
Keep the posts coming! I find this absolutely fascinating!
Linda (P.S. Sorry if this is a double post. I'm new to this!)
Patsy did it, Linda. You have more or less answered your own questions. She was the prime suspect from day one, and that first gut instinct is usually the correct one.
DeleteBurke heard something. John knew, and instinctively and immediately sought legal help.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
GS
Who noticed that what the anonymous Grand Juror stated last night concerning what he knew about JonBenet previous to being called as a juror?
DeleteHe said he saw a little girl, dressed erotically, and that he turned away on account of that.
That ransom note was addressed to John, whose greatest personal tragedy was the loss of his first daughter, Beth.
Whoever it was, in that house that night, wanted to hurt John again. And we agree, there were only 3 people in there that night.
GS
#3 Linda - conversely John would have noticed Patsy wasn't in bed all night - except for the fact that he said he took a melatonin. Even the housekeeper said he "slept like a log." And in this case, a "Yule Log" :)
DeleteYes, interesting that his first daughter died at 22, in 1992. I just looked it up. Apparently she was in a car with her boyfriend on highway, it lost control, and they got struck and killed.
DeleteBut... would brake or steering wheel tampering be out of the question? To cover up prior sex abuse?
I read Marilyn Van Derbur's book this week. She was Miss Colorado, then Miss America 1958. I had previously seen this book mentioned in conjunction with the JonBenet case.
ReplyDeleteMarilyn is a survivor of incest, from the age of 5 until 18. Her millionaire father also abused her older sister, and 9 other neighborhood girls came forward, after Marilyn came forward.
I seriously do believe that if John Ramsey was an addictive pedophile that there would have been other victims. That is the nature of this kind of predator.
On the other hand, you have a mother getting attention by sexualizing her 6 year old, and running her continually to the pediatrician for vaginitis.
Attention seeking. Munchhausen's. Why does no one think that a mother can do this to a child? Remember Sybil?
GS
The other thing about John - he was so danged helpful. Immediately handing the notepads over to the investigator. Immediately provided handwriting samples. Immediately arranging for ransom money.
ReplyDeleteThat note was addressed to him. The writer at first was going to address it to both "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey", but had a change of mind on that because, "I had nothing to do with it, Buddy!"
GS
Going back to Marilyn Van Derbur's story is the point that none of the girls "told".
ReplyDeleteAs a rule, no one tells, and if they do, no one believes them.
GS
Where does everyone keep getting that JBR kept having vaginitis ? Out of 31 visits to Dr Beuf in a 2 yr period, 3 were for vaginitis, if someone has a reference saying differently please post it.
ReplyDeleteShe wet the bed, she had encopresis, and vaginitis. Combined with what the autopsy report showed.
ReplyDeleteGS
Another thing that bothers me. No bedroom doors on John and Patsy's bedroom. Is that correct? Isn't that another symptom of being an exhibitionist? Having a personality disorder?
ReplyDeleteGS
Also GS we don't know what was going on in that marriage. Housekeeper says they never seemed affectionate with each other. Patsy was overly attentive to JB, micromanaging everything from what she wore - wanting to dress her and herself like twins, to bleaching her hair for the pageants, essentially turning JB into a mini-Patsy. Some would say she just doted on her, loved her, but others may say Patsy was unstable. Then while under the influence of valium she says to her friend "we didn't mean for this to happen" - probably not. It was most probably an accident. This is why mystery swirls around this case. There is a plausible explanation for family culpability.
ReplyDeleteATTENTION NON-JDIER'S!
ReplyDeleteAA has agreed to allow you to participate in their 12-step program to help you overcome your affliction! Consult your local church for times and places. Ransom notes will be provided, but you must bring your own sharpies and note pads.
------National Institute of Mental Health
FYI
ReplyDeleteJBR Special is called OVERKILL and its on tonight 12/17 on REELZ@ 9PM EST.
Based on the journalist Lawrence Shiller, who's been following the story for years and claims to have some new information never heard before. We shall see.
EG