More room for comments on Lin Wood's "Complaint" (and/or any other relevant issue). All I'll add at this point are my observations that:
1. Wood provides hardly any documentation for his many claims. Few if any direct quotes, few if any specific references. If I were the judge I'd insist on his documenting his claims. And if specific references cannot be found for some item, eliminating that particular piece of "evidence" from his Complaint.
2. Wood continually refers to JonBenet's penetration with a wooden stick (i.e., the paint brush handle), a sadistic act that certainly does seem well beyond what a "loving" parent would do, even when staging. There is in fact NO evidence she was penetrated with that paint brush handle, an act that would have left easily identifiable wounds, much more bleeding than was seen, and blood stains on the handle, which were not found. The autopsy referred to "digital" penetration, not penetration with a wooden stick. [Correction: the autopsy did not refer to digital penetration. That theory came from Dr. Cyril Wecht's assessment of the autopsy. My mistake.]While a sliver of wood from the handle was found inside the victim's vagina, along with traces of the varnish painted on the surface of the handle, both were most likely transferred from the stick to the vagina via her attacker's finger.
3. Of course, Spitz's contention that there was no sexual assault is clearly false, one of many instances where the CBS "pseudo-experts" show blatant disregard for both the evidence and common sense.
Hindsight in this case is always 20/20, so it's easy to say that JR, PR or BR should have done something different after the fact. It's even easier for all us 20 years later to dissect this case and pick apart individual details. I have discussed this before, but the length of the note along with the numerous references that point to multiple suspects is why the note wasn't to fool Patsy Ramsey. It was to fool the authorities. The key to the whole JDI theory really all boils down to a few minutes. Those few minutes is everything to the JDI theory. What few minutes am I referring to? Well, assuming her story is true, it is the moment Patsy walks down those steps and sees the note. PAUSE IT RIGHT THERE......this is it. IF JDI is true, Patsy's reaction to the note is what John's freedom hinges on. Patsy CANNOT call the police…it isn’t an option for John Ramsey at that very moment. The Doc theory of staging, the hiding of the body, everything boils down to Patsy's reaction.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption John would have had to have is that Patsy, just like any Mom would react, would be absolutely hysterical. Just like a college acceptance letter, I read the first few sentences and it said "You have been accepted" and I didn't read the rest. If I did, I was in a joyful daze and none of it stuck out in my head. SO, this is why the not being so long doesn’t point to fooling Patsy, it points fully in the direction of fooling the authorities. Think about it…..IF Patsy believes the note then John has at least a day or even a few hours to remove the body if that was his intention. The police aren’t a factor whatsoever in that moment she reads the note…Patsy is essentially John’s life, freedom and reputation. I have always felt that John who runs a company, a very wealthy company was able to make it so successful because he had to be a man of action. John’s behavior days, weeks and years after the crime suggests that he was a man of action. SO, a man of action, a man who gets things done, a man who supposedly was going to do the greatest stage job in history would leave the one thing that mattered most up to complete chance??? That one thing was his freedom! A man of action and a decision maker like John takes charge that morning by being the one who finds the note. When we have bad news to tell somebody, a lot of times we say “please sit down” or “stay calm while I tell you this” and he didn’t do either of those things. John would have needed to take charge and explain the note, tell her that they aren’t calling the police and to take Burke and get out of the house ASAP! Then he could do his stage job
I’m sorry JDI’s, as Doc always says that he uses logic…logic says the note wouldn’t have been 3 pages to full Patsy. Logic says John would have taken charge….Logic says the 911 call would never be made whether it was by force or not.
-J
*fool Patsy
Delete-J
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWe've heard it all before, J. Your complaint has been registered, OK? In your opinion, John would not have allowed Patsy to make that call. Got it! Only your opinion, like anyone else's opinion, including my opinion, doesn't really mean much. What matters to me is the logic of the case, and the logic tells me that there is no way that call would have been made if Patsy and John were in this together, because making the call at that time totally negates all the effort at staging that went into the note.
DeleteAs for John's ability to control Patsy, that's another matter entirely. We have no way of knowing what went on between them that morning and it makes no sense to insist that John could have prevented Patsy from making that call if that's what she had decided to do.
And of course one purpose of the note was to fool the authorities, I've made that point many times. It had more than one function, obviously.
SC, I'm going to continue deleting your posts until you have something meaningful to contribute to our discussions. Same with the responses of others, which also don't contribute anything useful.
Delete"We've heard it all before, J. Your complaint has been registered, OK?"
DeleteIm confused by you Doc. You delete certain posts which Im ok with. I post what I believed was a thought out post to stir up actual conversation and you essentially are telling me to shutup with my thoughts and opinions. If that's the case then what are we all doing here?
-J
I'm suggesting you post only when you have something meaningful to contribute. Continually repeating the same things over and over is not meaningful.
DeleteWell, I guess what is meaningful is up to opinion. It’s funny, because I havent seen you tell any people who believe JDI that their posts are repetitive. Since all opinions clearly aren’t welcome here, I am out. CC, Zed, Ms D, Inq, Zach and anybody that I might have missed, it’s always been a pleasure debating with you. Hopefully one day we will get the definitive answers that most of us seek.
Delete-J
In just about every case, where a JDI repeats something it's in response to a challenging claim by someone like yourself. I do NOT see people repeating over and over, for example, that John was abusing his daughter, as there is no need for such repetition. The only time such statements get made, for the most part, is in response to those who like yourself, present an opposing view.
DeleteI just want to make sure I keep track of all your rules. I was serious about being done on here, but this blog desperately needs the opposing view. Also, EVERYBODY else who responded to my post gave a nice response with a thought out answer except for YOU. Honestly I don’t care, because I have seen your response so many times I could recite it
Delete-J
"What matters to me is the logic of the case, and the logic tells me that there is no way that call would have been made if Patsy and John were in this together, because making the call at that time totally negates all the effort at staging that went into the note."
DeleteSorry Doc. That is YOUR logic. But that logic does not pass the smell test to many people. If you want to keep deleting posts on people who disagree, the blog you run will suffer.
You assume that all the effort and the staging was to look like a kidnapping. The other way to look at it, was, the kidnapping was just a side show. The real effort was to, one, keep the dogs away, and, two, to be able to write a long ransom note, with a monetary motive. Because that monetary motive was to confuse authorities on who did the crime. It was to point to his associates, which is why the 118K was included, and make it someone other other than a random sex predator crime. Otherwise, you don't deliberately put in $118. And if you act like you know the victim is already dead, you cannot write the ransom note.
It was all part of the staging. Just more elaborate staging by JR. And unfortunately, you seemed to have fallen for it.
And of course another way to look at it, JR started out with a kidnapping idea, he wrote the note, and then he changed his mind. Something happened.
DeleteSomething went wrong. What was it? Could be a lot of things. Maybe Burke or PR heard something and came downstairs. And messed up his plans. And we know BK did come downstairs later.
So JR had to kind go with a mixed plan, which is what he ended up with.
Kidnappings are often for ransom. Ransom is usually money. Ergo, monetary motive. Since someone inside the house did this crime, then we don't need Sherlock Holmes to know that the note was meant to confuse (and misdirect). Of course the misdirection prevented a thorough search by the cops (and by the dogs, maybe). But the whole point of confusing any and all readers of the note was to first and foremost buy time. Why in the world you are being so binary? It could be all of the above, not just one thing but he had to first get Patsy to help him delay things by leaving the house with Burke so that he could get the body out. We haven't fallen for anything, SC. We're just willing to admit that we can only speculate on some things and others we can reasonably infer. If Patsy had not called the police, I can totally see how John's plan could have gone smoother for him, assuming we went out that night, got himself exhausted by digging a grave off of some trail, and gotten back home to clean out the car, clean up himself, get rid of trace evidence, confuse the dogs by spreading cadaver smells all over the place if you must insist that dogs would have been called in at some point.
DeleteWhy was it so important for you all that JR take the body out of the house? What is the motivation for that? It's risky, there is a cadaver trail, he might be seen. The police would trace every step he took that day. Why do that? JR can just pretend what he pretended, that the kidnapper messed up somehow, or maybe was some mentally ill guy, and just left the body there. That is way more convenient for him.
DeleteThere is no rule that JR HAS TO take the body out of the house.
(PS, but to answer my own question, the ONE motivation I can think of for that, is JR wanted money. Maybe insurance would pay him something, for the ransom, or the life insurance. Because a truth sociopath would try and make money. So that is maybe one thing. Other than that, I don't think it makes sense.)
SC, this the last time I'm going to attempt to help you understand the JDI point of view. THERE IS NO ONE MAKING ARBITRARY RULES, ok?
DeleteThis is it: the ransom not did not need to be long, or provide any risky clues that could point back to him (or Patsy) if from the outset he came up with some brilliant bait and switch plan that would ultimately point to a crazed pedophile/murderer. NO need for that ridiculous note, nor the contents therein. I would know better than that, and I'm not a sociopath.
Yes, he threw around suspicion, but c'mon, a small foreign faction? I don't expect you'll get the point that making a long note is really, really dumb and risky, unless there was a specific objective behind those words.
Also, buy discarding the body, which might never have been found or might have been seriously decayed when found, I think he believed the evidence of sexual abuse would not be found. He is a real sociopath, who thought this whole plan would make Patsy and him really look like victims.
"This is it: the ransom not did not need to be long, or provide any risky clues that could point back to him (or Patsy) if from the outset he came up with some brilliant bait and switch plan that would ultimately point to a crazed pedophile/murderer. NO need for that ridiculous note, nor the contents therein"
DeleteExactly. The long note was to point to a colleague of his, who wanted or needed money. That is why a ransom note was written. That note has nothing to do with the body.
It seems pretty clear that JR never intended to get rid of the body, because he already had the cover of the paintbrush. The entrance of an intruder and the paintbrush was his plan. He did not need to get rid of the body.
He did not realize that they could tell old abuse, but apparently that old abuse is not definite, to the point where someone could be charged.
That note didn't point to any colleague or friend. It pointed to a small foreign faction. He would have known that his colleagues had rock solid alibis at Christmas time; everyone at AG was with family, at social events, etc. Yes, he knew of one or two disgruntled people from work, but framing them for murder on Christmas night when the backlash from them could be swift and harmful (they could sue him, reveal stuff about him they they knew, I suppose), would be dumb, really dumb. And people are supposed to believe that regular professional employees at AG are the types who need money so badly they would molest and kill a 6 year old child? Rather than go get a loan or even blackmail John? Good grief, that is really a stretch.
DeleteJohn needed to cover up what he did, period. The paintbrush and all the staging was done when he lost the opportunity to cover his tracks and he knew the body was going to be found in his house. The paintbrush was conveniently located in the basement. Its what he used when he disappeared for over an hour.
Finding the body in the house was going to look REALLY BAD after the police saw that note. He knew that. Truth is, it DID look really bad -to the police, the public, the media. If he had such a nutty plan as the one you describe, did he not think about the fact that there were no footprints outside and no credible signs of forced entry?
SC, you seem to just want to write a screenplay for a movie - you know one of those movies that you ponder over after you leave the theater, trying to make sense of the entire plot line, and finally decide it was a stupid movie. Just accept the fact that people molest children. All kinds of people, from all backgrounds. Then they try to cover it up to avoid jail. Some are so smart and arrogant they think they can cover their tracks in complex ways. John made a huge mistake by crossing a line and fondling his child. That probably escalated at some point to the degree that she was going say "daddy puts his finger right here and I don't like it." Sorry to be so graphic but that is exactly why he had to do something! She was either going to speak up, or Patsy was going to press the doctor to get to the bottom of her toileting and vaginitis issues and then JB was going to blurt it out.
There is no need to get fantastical (Doc's word, love it) with the speculation. In fact, I don't know what you're trying to prove. John was involved, period. He needs to be put on the stand and either explain himself, throw Patsy under the bus, or throw Burke under the bus. My guess is that once he's arrested for his involvement, he'll probably check out by putting a gun to his head. That's what cowardly, narcissist criminals tend to do.
The police focused on Patsy. They chose to ignore the old abuse. They got hung up on the poopy pants thing for a variety of reasons, imho. The crux of this case is to go back and look at the events and evidence in light of the abuse evidence.
SC, John's colleagues were ruled out easily by police. There is no way John would take the risk of framing solid citizens. He wanted there to be an unknown kidnapper out there who took his kid and never gave her back, period. Same as the McCanns - they wanted everyone to believe their child was taken, would never come back, to hide that she was given sedatives and fell, or left alone and fell, whatever. In both cases, the acts of a narcissistic parent who thinks he/she is above reproach for their bad choices.
with all due respect Doc, no where in the actual autopsy
ReplyDeleteramsey/jonbenet-ramsey-autopsy.pdf report by the ME does he say she was penetrated digitally. And to be fair, he also did not say she was penetrated with a wooden stick. What he does say is the following: "vaginal mucosa: all of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface as is birefringent foreign material. Accute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.
birefringent foreign material can be found in paint, paint varnish, and talcom powder of course. Birefringent materials is two reflective materials. But it's Wecht's assertion she was assaulted digitally, not the ME's. It's his theory, not fact.
Yes, you are right. I was basing my thinking on Wecht's interpretation of the autopsy, not the autopsy itself. Sorry about that.
DeleteHowever, Wecht is a highly experienced forensic pathologist and his interpretation is not to be taken lightly. He saw no reference to "tearing of the tissues," which would certainly have been the case had she been penetrated with a stick. According to Wecht, "she probably had experienced penetration by some small, narrow object -- most likely a finger."
Penetration with a stick would have produced lots of blood -- which was not seen.
Got it.
DeleteDocG, that's assuming the paintbrush had already been broken resulting in raw wood exposed. But there were other paintbrushes as well as the brush *before it was broken* could have been inserted.
DeleteThe sections quoted by Inquistive were near the end of the report. More details are provided in the main body of the autopsy:
Delete"On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified."
Whatever was inside JonBenet; she didn't like it. She was penetrated deeply and her tiny body wasn't ready for it. I'm led to believe the scream heard by the neighbors was JBR terrified by and in pain from to the sexual assault. You don't scream when your head is bashed in by a flashlight; you pass out. And you CAN'T scream when you're being strangled.
Mike G.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJ- I understand your point and think that many of us, whether we are JDI or not, would agree that it was very risky for John to "let" Patsy find the note. And, I do agree that the note was meant for him to misdirect police (as well as Patsy) in order to buy time.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it has been observed already and I agree, John was not a mastermind. Let's assume that this was not pre-meditated, or if he did plan it in advance, he possibly spent a week or less planning this. I believe that everything didn't go according to his assumptions or "plan." He may have been planning to be the first one to go downstairs, and Patsy beat him because she deviated from her normal routine. She didn't shower, wash er hair, blowdry it, or otherwise spend the normal amount of time dressing. Maybe she didn't always go downstairs and make coffee either. He could have been pressed for time, jumped in the shower while she was stil in bed, and expected to be out and headed downstairs before her. She woke up while he was showering, decided she was too tired to shower and rationalized that she took a shower just before going to the White's so she still felt fresh (I do that all the time, especially when going on a family trip and needing to focus on the kids and last minute packing).
She put on her cute outfit from the night before, because it was Christmasy and she was going to see John's kids for a 2nd Christmas. She was going to pack some more, but thought "I can use some coffee first." She went down way quicker than John imagined - maybe he even observed that she was fast asleep when he got up.
Finally, he assumed the comments about beheading would be enough to convince her that he needed to handle this without calling the police.
Actually, to your point about John being so smart, being a man of action, etc etc, I can't understand why the ransom amount was $118K. That is where he took a huge risk, imho.
To the degree that we are making some assumptions, you have to realize that all humans making assumptions and John is no different. He made assumptions and that's why things went wrong.
Anonymous - I won't respond to every single persons comments on my post, but just wanted to respond to something on your response which I appreciate.
ReplyDeleteEven though some on here try to make John Ramsey the next Jason Bourne, I think most would agree he was absolutely not a criminal mastermind. But, what I think most of us will agree on is that he was a very successful businessman. Most successful people not only in business, but in any walk of life share characteristics such as: organized, driven, confident, leader, etc. Obviously not all, but most. By point regarding those few minutes when Patsy read the note is simply not something he would have left up to chance. The way to not leave that up to chance is that I don't think he just leaves it on the stairs and then goes to shower. These few minutes or moments is the entire case for JDI. Forget EVERYTHING else for a moment and lock in on that time frame. If you believe JDI, you are going along with a narrative of a guy who kills his daughter to cover up his sexual abuse. You are going along with a narrative that he was able to fool Patsy and Burke into believing things happened that didn't. If he is that smart and that cunning, I think the theory goes off the rails when somebody says he would go take a shower and keep his fingers crossed that she doesn't dial 911.
-J
Yes, though it may have come down to choosing: do I shower because I must wash off any trace evidence, and do it fast before she gets up, or do I go down there now and "find" the note myself? All because he simply was out of time and knew Patsy would wake up soon. Very risky, indeed. If he wiped down JBR, there's a good reason right there as to why he needed to wash himself as well. He did screw up, because Patsy both beat him to the note, but she didn't fully read it and she reacted almost immediately. I know this is speculation on my part, but like Doc said, the alternative is that she was in on it, or she alone did it. In those 2 cases, she would NOT have called. She's a smart person, too. Let's not forget that Donald Paugh was instrumental in helping him launch his business, and also helped him when the business was got going well. It stands to reason that he had a smart daughter.
DeleteBesides, I'm a businessperson, and I know I can be all those things on the job, but those skills don't always translate to the personal or home life :)
meant to type: "when the business was *not* going well.
DeleteI understand your point of view on John Ramsey, J, however why would you assume that his typical confident business acumen would emerge enabling him to think through his actions logically? He had just raped and murdered his daughter, he wasn't closing a business deal. Even though his sociopathic qualities allow him to separate himself from the carnage and approach the situation with indifference (to any one other than himself) he most certainly was not indifferent to his own survival, and when you are in that heightened, primitive mode, I would imagine that mistakes and oversights, even if they seem blatant to us in hindsight, would happen.
DeleteI think you give John Ramsey WAY to much credit by allowing him to be to smart to make many of the mistakes he made during the staging of this crime. I don't know why you refer to others believing he is a mastermind simply because they think he is guilty and was able to get away with this crime without suspicion from Patsy. He was a narcissist, Patsy was being accused of the murder, more vulnerable than ever, and Patsy didn't want to believe he was involved. There are several psychologically viable reasons one could list as to why she didn't want to believe he was capable of murder. He's been able to fool most of America, I'd say he's quite adept at lying and is able to do it superbly. That doesn't make him a mastermind, just a soulless, turd that knows how to manipulate and misdirect in order to make himself out to be the blameless, spotless, victim of a hate crime.
BTW I am one of the few if only JDIers on this blog who think he purposefully or at least subconsciously wanted to implicate Patsy in this crime. So I don't have a hard time believing that it was in his plan for her to find the note, and call the police. ~Suzs
You know I'm right there with you, Suzs.
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteINQ,I'm with J on Patsy's involvment, I can't ignore certain things she said and did whether it leads to a logical theory or not. I don't have one, some may say then I must be BDi, not necessarily, I just don't have the answers, I guess I'm no miss marple.
DeleteI am a RDI, now that I know what RDI means.
DeletePDI. Ransom note was written and police were called as an explanation to John for why his daughter had disappeared, and why Patsy, who was up with JonBenet on a nightly basis, had no idea where she was.
DeleteGS
Your theory doesn't account for why such specifics - that were necessary only if the author intended for these instructions to actually be carried out - were included in the ransom note, GS ("adequate size attache", "brown paper bag", "be rested" - these are all only important if one is actually planning on collecting, and delivering, a "ransom", which was never part of Patsy's plan, hence why she would have NO reason to include such arbitrary instructions). If Patsy wrote the note as an "explanation", it would have consisted of two lines: "We have your daughter. Wait for further instructions". Your theory also doesn't account for the sexual assault, nor does it account for why Patsy spent so much time on detailing the gory ramifications should anyone call the police, when calling the police was exactly what she intended on doing. If her plan was simply to fool John, none of that was necessary, and she would have been aware that the less time she spent on the ransom note, the better. Your theory also fails to account for why, out of all the writing materials in the house, she would deliberately incriminate herself by choosing her own pad and pen, along with her paintbrush when so many other tools were available to her that didn't belong to her. Your theory is the same as what the JDIs believe, but in reverse.....the difference is, the overwhelming evidence that resides in that ransom note means the only logical inference to draw is that John had to have written it, as the note really only serves a purpose for HIM - it gives him an alibi and time. The instructions don't help Patsy's story at all if it was her intention from the beginning to call the police.
DeleteHi Ms. D,
DeleteI respect your opinion so I am curious what your thoughts are on some of my posts down below Obviously you are stating some of them here. I have been JDi but PR's oddities and the 911 call and voices really bother me. Please read my post below and comment if you get a chance. But for here, I think it's possible that Ransom note and calling the police was PR's alibi. Maybe all the gory ramifications are part of the alibi. Maybe she thought, they wont think she was guilty because she called the police for help, maybe that is was another excuse why JBR was dead, because they didn't listen to the note. Maybe why her name was originally on the practice but not on the final copy was part of her alibi, She did not even want her name on it. My thought is, she clearly could not get rid of a body and did not want to, but simply wanted to pin in on someone else. As far as writing with her own supplies, what other choice did she have, it was the middle of the night. Either hers or Johns.
OK, first of all, according to the Ramseys the 911 call was made from the kitchen phone, which was mounted on the wall. It's hard to see how someone could hang up a wall mounted phone incorrectly, so the connection would still be open. Maybe someone reading here with such a phone could do some experiments for us. Of course, the Ramseys could have lied about the wall phone, so . . .
DeleteNext we have to consider the fact that a great many people watching that show failed to hear what the CBS sleuths claimed to hear. That doesn't prove they were wrong, but it does cast some serious doubt on their claims. I myself was able to hear some of what they claimed, but only after literally programming myself to hear what they heard. If I hadn't known in advance what to hear I feel sure I would never have heard it that way.
Next, what the investigators originally thought they heard was Patsy saying something like "Help me Jesus." But then the tech guy says, "Wait a minute. This sounds more to me like "What did you do?" And then, presto chango, they all agree. NOT "help me Jesus" but "what did you do?" Now I'm sorry but these two phrases have literally nothing in common, so I find it impossible to believe someone could mistake one for the other -- unless they were literally hearing what they wanted to hear, a well known psychological illusion known as "pareidolia." (See http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/hear-what-they-want-to-hear/)
Finally, assuming that what the investigators claim to have heard was actually said, there is no way to tell simply from those phrases what was intended. Patsy asking "what did you do?" could refer to all sorts of things. Maybe someone dropped a glass on the floor, or spilled something. And if Patsy was already in on the plot, why would she need to ask Burke, or John, what he did -- unless the question has nothing to do with their staging, which she would not have needed to ask about.
Similarly, John saying "we're not speaking to you," presumable addressed to Burke, tells us nothing about why John could have gotten annoyed with him at that moment. It certainly can't be seen as evidence of his guilt. That's just an assumption.
Similarly, if Burke actually did ask "what did you find?" that would be perfectly consistent with the Ramseys' story, since one could easily infer that what was found was the ransom note. Again, reading something suspicious into those words on the part of people who already suspect Burke ahead of time is a perfect example of confirmation bias.
So, even in the (unlikely) event that those voices actually are those of Patsy, John and Burke saying what the investigators claim, all it would demonstrate was that Burke was in the room with them at that time, and they all lied about that to the authorities. Which would be consistent with my own theory that their official version of what happened, as presented in their book, is a fabrication.
With respect to the other aspect of K1234's post, yes, one could posit that the 911 call was made deliberately as part of some reverse psychology strategy by Patsy. But on close examination it just doesn't hold up. Why take all that time and effort to write such a long note in the first place, just to make it look like you didn't write it by calling the police and negating its effect? Much less suspicious to not write a note at all and just call 911 to report a home invasion. And when we ask ourselves why Patsy's clever strategy would have included giving the police a note written in her own hand, then I'm sorry, but there is really no rational basis for such a notion.
DeleteIt really is best to keep things simple. Once we add all sorts of unlikely complexities then we might as well accept the intruder theory, because a similarly convoluted strategy could be applied in that case as well. Some crazed but clever pedophile with a grudge against John decides to both assault and kill his daughter and then, for no good reason, sit down to write a long ransom note on paper found in his victim's house, out of a desire to make fools of the Boulder police department.
Sure, if one is willing to toss common sense to the winds, anything is possible.
k1234- bingo!
DeleteIn my mind, Patsy thought the more she could embellish the note and crime scene, the more convincing it would be. Maybe if she'd had more time to think about it? But we all know how "over the top" she was with everything she did!
GS
Easy for us to say the note was too long, didn't make sense with the body in the basement, wasn't logical. We've had 20 years to think about it.
DeleteI think she was scared sh*tless, and wonder if she'd had more time would have gone ahead with a "beheading". There is some speculation about that, too. I'm not the first one to question it. Could be the real reason for the garrote, and the thought of the American Girl doll - once the string was undone, the head fell off.
Read recently that a length of wire found in the wine cellar was taken into evidence.
The little girl was already deceased. I believe Patsy would stop at nothing to save her own a**.
GS
You still failed to adequately account for the majority of the points I mentioned in my comment above, GS.
DeleteWhat makes you believe that "Patsy would stop at nothing to save her own a**."? Why don't you feel that way about John, when sexual abuse seems to be a likely motive?
I get it, J, and that has always plagued me. I've rationalized it by saying he was the dominant partner; he called the shots - the move to Boulder, an old house remodelled, the over-scheduling of Christmas to include a trip to Michigan, etc. - and it never crossed his mind she would not defer to him as she always did. I think he wrote the "practice note" with the salutation "Mr. And Mrs l" and changed it to "Mr. Ramsey" to underscore that he was to be in charge.
ReplyDeleteBut I take your point - it's a good one.
CC
Thanks CC - We went from spirited debates to a possible hug :-)
Delete-J
Only possible?
DeleteCC
Sorry, no hugs allowed on this blog. By order of Dr. Gregory House.
DeleteLol, loved that show. And the actor just won a Golden Globe.
DeleteBad ethics AND bad taste, imo.
DeleteCC
Sorry, Lil, that last should have appeared down there in our conversation about tweets.
DeleteCC
Gotcha CC, I don't always see the reply option under a post that I want to comment on.
DeleteLike CC, that has always bothered me a bit also, J.
DeleteBut the alternative - that Patsy called 911, making the very specific contents of the three page ransom note redundant, and with staging obviously still not complete - makes a lot less sense. So, that Patsy either ignored John's demands not to call for help, or - which I believe is more likely - he didn't emerge from the shower fast enough due to sheer lack of time (remember, removing visible evidence would have been equally as paramount to him as was the intended effect of the note - after all, the note won't fool Patsy if it was obvious he'd been up all night committing/staging a murder scene), is the only scenario that is remotely plausible as far as I can see.
Some great thoughts on here by the regulars ... always enjoy reading what you guys have to say.
ReplyDeleteAh! Both of our attorneys on today. Have a question for both (DocG delete if you need to). For CC and Dog, what are your thoughts on attorneys tweeting about their clients? And do you do that?
ReplyDeleteI ask because I linked to Lin Wood's Twitter account in the previous blog entry. (I also follow the McStay murder case, and the defendant, Chase Merritt has an attorney that has tweeted about the case.)
At first blush it sounds to me like just another way to taint the jury pool. I need more specifics - do they argue their case in their tweets, Lil?
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, sorta. Mettias was the attorney for Merritt (he's gone thru 6) and he started tweeting and those following the case were a bit shocked.
Deletehttp://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-mcstay-chase-merritt-defense-attorney-twitter-2015jul31-htmlstory.html
Pressure from the public I believe got him to quit that.
Good. Doesn't sound quite ethical to me, but I'm something of a dinosaur.
DeleteCC
Lol, I'm still a dinosaur, no Facebook or Twitter accounts for me. There is another blogger on the McStay case that also self published a book on the murder, who would leak info that folks said came from Merritt and the defense attorney. Personally, if I needed an attorney I'd rather he or she not tweet about it. And if I was the wife of one, I wouldn't want my pic plastered on all the tweets that Mettias put out either.
DeleteJ, had JR known that the case would be handled as it actually was then I believe he would have not showered and went down just before PR and not taken the risk of her calling 911. I believe,at that time,he was concerned about washing away any evidence that might have been on him. BUT I agree that was a huge risk to take.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, this is all assuming Patsy's account of finding the note on the stairs is true which I don't believe it is.
Delete-J
In all the television interviews I've seen of Patsy, and from all the transcripts I've read, I don't believe she ever admitted she was aware of the kidnappers warnings and the consequences of ignoring them prior to calling 911. When she did acknowledge a prior awareness, it was always in the context of "we" the "Ramsey's". "We" didn't want to wait another day for them to call...even then, I think it's John always making the assertion, with Patsy just nodding her head in agreement. Can anyone prove me wrong? Was it anywhere asked of Patsy:
Delete'Patsy...when did you first read for yourself the warnings against, and consequences of, calling the police? We know John read them and then told you to dial 911; but he was reading silently to himself, wasn't he?'
Is Patsy anywhere on record for saying SHE was first to point out to JOHN, the "warnings" section of the note. Can anyone provide an exact quote where Patsy affirms, beyond a shadow of a doubt, SHE knew of the warnings BEFORE John, or that it was ENTIRELY HER decision to ignore them, and that John SUBSEQUENTLY agreed? Doc has brilliantly created two suspects in this murder case, "the Ramsey's" and one or the other "parent Ramsey". Can anyone show me a quote where Patsy individualizes herself making up her OWN mind about this matter? We can for John....I can for John. Do I need to? Can anyone for Patsy? It has to be a "quote". Quotes require quotation marks for people on here who don't know or are too lazy to use them. Also--speaking to those out there who know who you are--my question isn't rhetorical. It isn't an invitation to answer a question with a question or render an opinion on a conclusion that hasn't been reached.
Mike G.
Inq -I was surprised that the radio host has such a personal grudge against Clemente. At least listening to Lin was more melodic, but I had to cringe a little with the reference to "boy" since his client has long passed that stage. But in his mind, he may still view him as such, or it's a Southern thing.
ReplyDeleteYeah Lil! I forgot about that - the host did act that way. He sounded a bit like Gilbert Gottfried too. You know Laura Richards is very respected in her field. She is hosting several shows on Netflix currently. Lin is smooth, isn't he? I guess he's using his good southern common sense.
ReplyDeleteI don't get Netflix. We know that Wood certainly doesn't go with the "accident cover up". And he doesn't want to call anyone an expert in their field but rather "actors". On the previous blog entry I linked to the news story of the 5 year old reported missing by the parents. No ransom note tho. Nancy Grace posted about it also. In this case, mom is charged with the murder and dad with the cover up. Dogs were used.
Deletehttp://www.crimeonline.com/2017/01/11/missing-girl-5-found-dead-in-parents-chinese-restaurant/
It makes perfect logical sense that PR called 911 IF the debate between JR and PR was that JR wanted to dump the body and have a staged kidnapping and PR was against dumping the body, as I have stated before. PR eventually got her way with this and JR went along with calling 911 and improvised the staging the best he could given the circumstances. This accounts for every misleading detail in this context.
DeleteAnon @ 7.22PM, I am sorry but that does not make logical sense.
DeleteEither PR was involved in the murder, including the digital penetration of her daughter and horrific strangulation, or was involved in the cover up after.
If the former, then after participating in the event, she then reverts to some ideal of wanting a proper / Christian burial? I find this hard to reconcile.
Conversely if the latter, you submit that she supported JR in covering up out of some need to support her husband, but insisted on a burial. And then in the ensuing decade prior to her death, she never wavered in her love/devotion/need for JR, even when she herself was accused?
Neither of these options fly IMO. The more logical scenario is that she was not involved at all, and any suspicions after the fact were either not raised in her mind or allowed by her to be voiced.
-Sisu
How would it not make any sense if A) she got up in the morning and just found out about it or B) she was involved but not agree with disposing of her daughter's body ? What does her wavering in her love for her husband for the next 10 years have to do with anything in this scenario ? Because there was an accident and her husband did not agree with how to handle what to do with the body and her husband gives in to her demands, she should there for waver in her love and affection for her husband ? You are under some assumption that her being involved or not involved means she has no belief and would want to bury her daughter ? Sorry Sisu but I do not see the point that you are trying to make ?
DeleteDealing first with B) she was involved - If PR was involved, I can't reconcile that she would participate in such gruesome acts to her own daughter and then insist that the body be retained for burial. It would make more sense for PR to want the body disposed of quickly and quietly, i.e. the ransom scenario and then retrospectively reporting the kidnap and, "We did everything the kidnappers said, now where's my baby?"
DeleteIf A) PR woke and found her daughter dead and killed by her husband, then why in over a decade is their no recrimination, no deathbed confession, no justice for her daughter? To think that she continued to be married to a man who killed her child without any distancing, without confiding in friends or family defies logic.
I find more understandable that she took the note and JR's innocence at face value. Her involvement as an active or post-participant flies in the face of your proposal that PR would go so far and then stop to ensure a proper burial.
-Sisu
"Dogs were used."
DeleteWell, there you have it. This couple must be innocent, because if guilty they would certainly not have hidden their daughter's body in a place where cadaver dogs could find it.
Lol Doc. JR did not think about cadaver dogs, nor would anyone in that situation. Can we ban cadaver dog talk on this blog now ? I know the "smartest'person on this blog came up with it and all but......
DeleteHow the Eff do you know JR did not think about cadaver dogs? Do you think he is an idiot? Just because YOU didn't know about it, doesn't mean anyone with half a brain doesn't know about it.
DeleteYou just want to ignore it, because it doesn't fit into your theory, that's all.
Doc you laugh, but if the couple states the daughter was kidnapped, and then there is cadaver scent all over their private things in their master bedroom and such, then they get charged. It's pretty simple.
DeleteAgain, I don't know who JR paid off not to have the dogs go through their house.
I did see somewhere that there was discussion early on about bringing in tracking dogs, but the police could not decide on ground sniffing dogs or air sniffing dogs.
DeleteThis, of course, when it was considered an active kidnapping case, and no dogs needed after it was discovered to be a homicide.
The recent discovery of the missing little boy in the frozen over pond in Colorado reminded me of how many better ways there were to commit a child murder if that was the original intention.
GS
SC ! The theory that you present about JR trying to "plant" cadaver scent on FW makes absolutely no sense at all. If JR wanted FW to find the body so he would have cadaver scent on him then wouldnt finding the body be a good reason excuse/for him having the scent on him ? This is more proposterous than your purposely not hanging up the phone so that BR could purposely be heard theory. what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
DeleteIn the recent Ohio murder, K-9 was brought in to search for the reported missing child. It wasnt clear that they were trained for cadaver scent, so likely tracking dogs. The mom beat the girl about her head with her hands. The dad tried to revive her. Then they hid her away and called police on their "missing" daughter. Kudos anyway to LE to search. And thankfully an arrest. The rest can be decided during trial. Sadly in many cases, SAR dogs are not brought in, unless Texas Equusearch is able to come out. But even some police jurisdictions deny TES from coming out.
DeleteI do have to wonder how LE would've handled things in Michigan or Georgia if JonBenet would've been killed in either of those states. We can be certain attorneys would have been called quickly, but if another state, another DA...
"If JR wanted FW to find the body so he would have cadaver scent on him then wouldnt finding the body be a good reason excuse/for him having the scent on him ? "
DeleteIt would be. But then FW would still be included. But if FW had no cadaver scent at all, then he is excluded. Included is better than excluded, according to JR. I mean, maybe JR was not thinking clearly. But at least JR then has the 'possibility' of pointing the finger at FW this way.
Plus FW might get it in his car too. That's a plus, in JR's mind.
"This is more proposterous than your purposely not hanging up the phone so that BR could purposely be heard theory."
DeleteIt's not really that preposterous. Is it normal to just stop talking to 911? Like, okay, bye, see ya, 911. No. It's not. Most people hang on and on the phone with 911. So that's something a little odd. Something to notice.
And so you listen to what they said after. They said something to Burke in an accusatory tone - what did you do? And then hang up, or walk away.
That's it. To Burke. "What did you do". That is a leading sentence. In other words, Burke did something. And something not good.
I don't know if that was accidental. They knew 911 could hear them. Remember here, these are people trying to get away with murder! Don't forget that. None of this is accidental. They are not making polite conversation online with the 911 operator, just for the heck of it. Every thing they are doing, is deliberate. It's planned. It's scripted. That statement was not made for no reason. Because for one thing, she could have hung up the phone. She did not. She left it open. For a reason.
So there is a possibility, that statement was deliberate. And in fact, it was effective. Because 20 years later, many people are like, why did PR say, WHAT did you do? What does that mean? Does that mean she is accusing BR of killing JBR?
Man, that was a set up. And you fools fell for it. PR and JR were setting up and throwing shade on any damn person they could, including their own son. Twenty years later, you guys still haven't caught on to that.
"If the former, then after participating in the event, she then reverts to some ideal of wanting a proper / Christian burial? I find this hard to reconcile."
DeleteI don't. People have great powers of denial. She did what she had to do, to get away from whatever charges they thought they would get. But afterward, she got to have a nice big fancy funeral and put on a show. And feel better about the nice funeral she gave JBR. There is no conflict at all. People do stuff like that. Like the wife abuser who gives roses afterwards. There are some messed up people out there. It happens.
"Conversely if the latter, you submit that she supported JR in covering up out of some need to support her husband, but insisted on a burial. And then in the ensuing decade prior to her death, she never wavered in her love/devotion/need for JR, even when she herself was accused? "
She must have been a part of the process. Maybe she was aware of the sex abuse, and was afraid of charges that way, as an accessory. Or also, that is why I think she was the one who hit JBR on the head. If you look at it that way, it makes a lot more sense. She was the guilty one, who started this. That is how she could forgive her husband.
Thinking more about your objection Keiser. I am wondering if there could be something more JR to setting up FW.
DeleteMaybe JR would say something to contradict FW. I don't know what. Maybe like, JR knew he just showed FW that room recently, and how to get in there. But then after, JR would say, well I told FW that door in that room was painted shut. Or I told FW the lock was stuck, we never went in there, so I don't know how FW knew to go in that room. And now FW has cadaver scent on him, FW has a key, and so now FW starts to looks suspicious.
I don't know. Just guessing. But maybe there was something else there.
The phone did not get hung up after the 911 call purely on accident. Plain and simple and clear as day. The Ramseys in NO WAY ever wanted to have their son as a suspect in this case, that is, as well, and as obvious as walking into a wall. Whats next ? The Ramseys called the police just so LE would find the body and get cadaver scent on them so that the Ramseys could point their finger at LE ? John Ramsey dialed the cadaver hotline ? This is so nonsensical that I am at a loss for words.
DeleteCan you please stop saying we've all been fooled for the past twenty years, SC? Do you see anyone here who actually believes the official story as told by "The Ramseys"?
DeleteI repeat: Their story fooled no one, no matter how many times you say it.
Well I am glad you have a cynical view of the Ramseys, Ms.D, but that one item above seemed to fool Keiser above. Because he seems to think the Ramseys are above acting like they are framing their son.
Delete"The phone did not get hung up after the 911 call purely on accident. Plain and simple and clear as day. The Ramseys in NO WAY ever wanted to have their son as a suspect in this case."
What? These are people who just killed their daughter and stuck a paintbrush in her.You think these people have any ethics?
How do you KNOW they didn't want to frame their son? They would do whatever they could to frame whoever. I don't know either actually what happened, but I do know the whole way they acted on the phone there is odd, and at least something to consider. Not to dismiss out of hand.
What makes you feel the way they acted on the phone was "odd"? It never came across as "odd" to me, even when I suspected both of them. In fact, the call sounding so genuine was one major factor as to why I started believing the intruder theory, many years ago (It hadn't yet occurred to me that John may have acted alone and Patsy truly was frantic). There is nothing about Patsy's reaction that sounds rehearsed, scripted or disingenuous to me - though, I know some here disagree. My point being that her reaction during that call is simply a matter of perspective, and if you listen to the call believing Patsy is guilty, you'll hear it. If you listen to the call being of the opinion she is innocent, you'll hear that too.
Delete"Because (Keiser) seems to think the Ramseys are above acting like they are framing their son."
Actually, I think you'll find every BDI believes that the last thing the Ramseys wanted was to draw any attention to their son. There is only one reason parents would go to such lengths as to - after finding their daughter dying - finish her off by strangulation, defile her, then write a three page ransom note, and that reason would be to protect their son. If their goal was to implicate him, why the staging? You are of the opinion John and Patsy were complicit, and deliberately trying to cast doubt on their innocent son, but as Keiser doesn't believe that (no one does), of course he's going to balk at your claims.
Anyway, my point was simply, your statement that we've all been played by The Ramseys for twenty years, essentially - which you have made a few times now - is false. You read the comments here, you'd have to know that.
I think the fact that PR hung up so quick, is odd. That is not a typical reaction. Whether it is a smoking gun, no. But a bit odd.
DeleteYes I know BDIs want to think they wanted to save Burke. No. That makes no sense. Anyone who kills their daughter, does not care about his/their son either. They care about themselves.
And my point is, the language at the end of the call, was not to actually "frame" Burke. They know the kid is not going to jail. No, it was just to cast doubt and confusion. And it worked, we have BDI's, years later. And they threw these little seeds of confusion everywhere, wherever they could.
There are some things that have been bothering me lately.
ReplyDeleteThe voices heard after the 911 call mistaken hangup. I hear Patsy say, "help ME jesus and what did you do"
I take this to mean possibly that she did something horrible and could possibly be asking what was done to JBR body after the fact.
Her comment about "there are two people that know what happened , the killer and the person they confided in.
What bothers me the most however is the garrote coming 45-2 hours after the injury. Someone wanted her dead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteK1234, it seems to be that PR is speaking to BR with an angry tone, also he is the person who responds to her question. That tells me that she is asking BR what did you do for a reason. BR already admitted to the grand jury that it did sound like himself on the enhancement and we already know that the Ramseys already admitted lying about BR being up that morning. Now one must ask why they would do that and draw whatever inference you may wfrom it. If you are a JDI you stand stubbornly in the same position you have always stood and claim to not be able to hear a thing, just like you make excuses for all of PR's lies and say that things could not be that way because it is illogical. Once you put it all together it may not give you a clear answer as to who did what but it surely gives you a clear picture that "someone" did not act alone without knowledge by anyone else in that house.
ReplyDeleteYou've said that twice now, KS, that Burke told the GJ he recognized his own voice on the 911 enhancement. I'm curious: Where did you read or see or hear that information?
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDarn typos. On one of the recent shows CC. I will do my best to try and find the info and post it. If I am not mistaken it is because of those Grand Jury proceedings tha the Ramseys were forced to admit that BR was awake during this time.
DeleteKeiser, I have heard/read/watched that same thing where he admits it even sounds like himself. It may have been during his Dr Phil interview.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePatsy doesn't sound angry to me, she sounds helpless. And she says, "Help me jesus" And it seems to me that she is not asking a child what he did. And then JR says, we are not speaking to you. SO it seems to me that they are not speaking to to the child and then wisk him away and then let him go back to school soon. That seems to me that they just kept him out of it. I hear Burke, say, What did you find? That to me seems like he heard his mom on the phone talking about finding something and is questioning what it is that she found.
ReplyDeletei know i am repeating myself, but that effed up comment she made about "the two people that know what happened, the killer and the other person they confided in" sounds like a direct confession.
DeleteHell, obviously I am speculating here, but maybe PR accidentally knocked JBR out and then JR finished her off and tried to pull off the kidnapping because of sexual abuse. Maybe they both were abusing her in some way, unknowingly to the other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think people would only go to those lengths to cover their own hide. BR was a child and would not be prosecuted, it wouldn't be worth it to risk all that cover up and risk joining to prison. Someone wanted her dead after that accident. And if BR did it, he wouldn't be so curious, he would be scared to death and quiet as a church mouse.
DeleteMy thought was that Burke heard Patsy say she had found a ransom note, and he not knowing what a ransom note was asked "what did you find?"
DeleteGS
I agree.
DeleteI think cross talk is certainly a possibility but when you take the context and the people and the genders and the approximate ages of what the voices sound like, it is hard to ignore. If there was voices but they were all female or discussing other random things they could easily be dismissed but I feel fairly certain about the words that were said and the genders and ages of the voices.
Crosstalk is NOT an option on this. I have heard the aerospace version long ago, and it is much more clear, CBS got it spot on. Even on the CBS version you can .ake out WHOSE voice it is if not what exactly is said. JDI's who have not heard it try to deny on the basis that all evidence goes through them or it is not evidence. The aerospace engineers listened one at a time and wrote down what they heard and then opened their notes and it was the same. BR at the grand jury had to admit that it sounded like himself. Is this not proof ? Most likely it is sealed with all of the grand jury testimony that needs to be released
DeleteK1234 re: your post 1/11 10:51 p.m. this is what Andrew G. Hodges, M.D. thought in his book "A Mother Gone Bad." If you would like to read up on that it's in paperback around $5.99.
DeleteThat was vague - what I meant was the theory you are pondering in your 10:51 p.m. post was suggested in the Andrew Hodges book.
DeleteThat is entirely possible GS, as is she could have been asking JR in her frantic voice, what did you do as well and BR just happened to be there or walk in the room at that time. I guess it is open to many possibilities just like everything else in this case.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteK 1234, I would agree that PR does not sound angry, I would say frantic
DeleteMy RDI theory is this.
ReplyDeleteThe whole kidnapping thing was planned by both JR and PR. I am not sure what triggered it. I think FW might have learned something about sex abuse that week and said something to JR. Or someone hit JBR on the head out of anger that night. I would guess PR hit JBR on the head. Because that would explain her agreement to go along with this. Maybe it was like, WHY did you tell the Whites what you did! PR also knew about the sex abuse, but did nothing to stop it.
JBR was out. The head injury was severe. They wanted to have an explanation for the sex abuse injury, because they knew she would be examined at the hospital, because her injury was so severe.
So this whole kidnapping thing was JR's idea and he told PR about it. It was staged by both. The plan was to leave JBR in the basement, and call police in the morning and find her in the basement. Pr had hopes JBR might live, but really she was on board with the murder too. She also knew the stakes. They wrote a note trying to frame FW, with a ransom motive.
JR went down and strangled JBR in the night. Because he always wanted to kill her, because if she lived, she might tell. He told PR in the morning it was an accident, or that she had died in the night, just to help her with her denial.
PR had no choice but to play along, because she felt partially guilty too. They agreed to call 911.
But the police did not find JBR right away, and JR went down to restage. Maybe just because he wanted to double check. Criminals always return to the scene of the crime. And that was it.
So you have said. Several times. It's no more believable this time.
DeleteCC
This is really getting very tiresome, SC. You can't solve a crime by free association. You have to base your theories on actual evidence, and reasonable logic. While anything is possible, that does not mean it's OK to just toss in whatever comes to your mind at the moment. Your efforts to tie Fleet White into your scenario would be more interesting if you actually had some real evidence of his involvement rather than just a bright idea about how he might have been involved.
DeleteSC, I'm pretty sure you must know that there was a false story publicly investigated by the DA involving Fleet White and a lady who claimed to have been the victim of abuse by someone in Fleet's family?
DeleteI have to agree, your scenario is convoluted, except for the fact that there did seem to be an effort to throw shade on Fleet and Priscilla by the Ramseys.
This woman's testimony was made public and later discredited. The Whites really did suffer hard-ball blow-back for not supporting the Ramsey's during the investigation, along with Steve Thomas.
GS
That is interesting GS, that leads me to believe my story even more about the Whites, that they knew something, and someone tried to discredit them.
DeleteFirst of all, I do have some reasons to suspect Jr's attempt to frame FW. They were good friends, start with that. Always start with those closest.
DeleteThey had just been to dinner at his house. Who knows what they said that night. I was told FW called 911 three days earlier, that could be meaningful. The ransom note mentioned things that FW would know, pointed to a money concerns, and JR told everyone that FW was having money problems. JR invited FW over first thing to search, let him search alone. FW had a key. It looked like they were going for not a break in. FW did not find the body. Then JR changed his mind, per your theory, to stage a break in that morning. JR trashed FW afterwards.
So a lot to suspect a tie in with FW. That is where we need to look first.
Well Doc, this is how I look at it. A lot of these theories here make sense, up to a point. There is always seems to be one or two elements that don't work. At least for me.
DeleteSo to really test whether a theory makes sense, you have to paint a full picture. And see if all the elements work. Just put it all together.
Then if one element does not work, then you have to start again.
You could try a step by step approach. Or you could try my macro approach. Just keep trying theories, and see if one of them works. Kind of speeds up the process.
I think this last one works. At least for me. I was waiting for someone to say 'how' it doesn't work, but apparently, you all don't like to work that way. You seem to like the step by step approach.
You are light years behind the rest of us! All of your bright ideas have been thought through, taken apart, and all dead-ended. Not just on this blog, but on other blogs, forums, by journalists, etc.
DeleteDoc didn't start with speculation. He started with just the known facts and evidence, and made reasonable, believable inferences. We can only fill in the rest by speculation.
As for Fleet: OMG! He had a rock solid alibi. He had numerous houseguests and only a complete idiot would attempt to frame him, of all occasions, on CHRISTMAS night! I'm no criminally minded person, and even I could see that as a stupid idea.
John said Fleet had money troubles. Because he said so, it is true? Look at the White's today! They aren't broke, in fact they just built a new home. They've put 2 kids through college - one through the military academy. Everyone has money ups and downs - there is no way John could try and make a case that Fleet would kill a 6 year old child to make money. Hell, he could have just asked John for a loan, assuming he didn't have relatives or a bank to loan him money. Geez, these were affluent people with plenty of access to credit. By the way, I've read your theory on another forum, years ago. It went nowhere. Are you the person from that forum?
One thing we all agree on is that John was pretty smart. You will never convince me that he thought it a smart idea to frame a friend with a solid alibi, of all times on Christmas night.
Just accept the fact that John threw shade on a lot of people because he was desperate after his plan failed and everyone was looking at this as inside job.
If Patsy had ever been arrested, I assure that Don Paugh would have pulled out the big guns and left no stone unturned. The spotlight would have been placed on John after an intruder was easily ruled out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThey are two people who just killed their daughter Inq. I don't get how people don't get that. That is not a normal thing to do. Plus the scene with all the staging, etc. That is messed up. These are sick people. So if you start with that, nothing else is impossible really.
DeleteLike most people, Fleet was probably in bed with his wife that night. His alibi is not rock solid. It's the word of him and his wife. That's not a very tight alibi.
DeleteYeah nothing else is impossible so why don't you post every possibility ever, swearing that that theory is the one. Wait, you do that.
DeleteActually, SC, Fleet's wife was up until the early hours (2 a.m or later I do believe, but I will have to double check that) entertaining a friend they had visiting. Both she and her friend stated that Fleet was in bed the entire time, so his alibi is rock solid.
DeleteYes but JR would not KNOW that at the time. He would assume that FW is in bed, with no friends over. Keep in mind, I am sure JR was casting shade on whoever he could. I don't think he was fussy.
DeleteFleet White's sister-in-law and her family were houseguests for the holidays. The Whites had a full house, adults and children sleeping everywhere, which John knew because the Ramseys had Christmas dinner at their home and stayed 'til 9 or 9:30 before driving home and carrying JBR up to bed.
DeleteCC
Did anyone else catch the look of disappointment (or maybe disbelief) on Kim Archuletta's (the 911 dispatcher) face when she heard what the experts said the enhanced tape said?
ReplyDeletePoor lady has been hanging on all these years to information she thought would have "turned the case around". I'm sure she probably documented for herself what she remembered hearing on that phone call that day.
She said it sounded "rehearsed". Thought she heard 2 voices, possibly 3, and a change in the tone of Patsy's voice. A shift in tone from frantic to calm. She thought she heard something to the effect of "OK, we've called the police. Now what?"
To me, I am seeing a possible misinterpretation of "now what do we do?" or "what do we do?" into "what did you do?"
When Kim hears what the experts say they heard, she looks disappointed that it really doesn't match up with what she remembers.
Kim's statements start at about 15:30 on Part 1 of The Case of JonBenet Ramsey that can be found on cbs.com.
GS
I would put more stock in what she heard, first hand, over the tape. If she hear "now what" or "now what do we do?" it could be in response to John saying "it says here don't call the police, we're watching you!" Realizing that she just made a bad move, I think she would wonder out loud: now what? (as in oh, crap, I screwed up, now what?)
DeleteOff topic - delete if necessary DocG. I'm starting to get a bit bristly over the "you all" "you people" barbs. I go back to the credo I tried to follow many moons ago on the original Court TV in sessions message boards where I followed the Peterson East and West trials, Robert Blake, Anna Nicole...
ReplyDeleteWhich is THINK.
Is it Thoughtful? Truthful?
Is it Helpful?
Is it Important?
Is it Necessary?
Is it Kind?
Now I didn't do so well following this myself earlier tonight when I lost it with my dad when he couldn't find his property taxes paperwork. His surliness was the tipping point and boy did I tip and flip. Here I will need to skip and scroll as right now the 'high on the butt' attitude, as an old friend would say,is getting wearisome.
It's getting old to everybody, but she won't go away!!! Still think all should ignore her.
DeleteIt is very difficult to ignore someone who says "I feel very, very sorry for people like you, I really do". It is also not so easy to bite your tongue when you are told - comment after comment - that you are inferior to the poster (who appears to have a degree in every specialty discussed here), you are intellectually challenged, unread, a ruthless bully and are clearly suffering from grandiose delusions (oh the irony) on the basis of the way you form a single letter. But, as should be patently obvious by now, this is how this person creates her fun - I'm sure the subject matter on this blog is incidental, that is why said person isn't too familiar with any of it and has no intention of becoming familiar with it either, by her own admission. This site is just a means to an end - a place to belittle others whilst always reminding us how superior she is. Putting down others is a great way to boost a fragile ego without actually having to better yourself. Blaming others for your own shortcomings is so much easier than performing some introspection which may yield answers you don't like.
DeleteAnd that's all I'm going to say on that matter, as Doc has already deleted a whole heap of my posts, and many others, because it's off topic, which I suppose I can appreciate. But I do hope this one remains, because said person's posts have become a HUGE point of contention and I'm pretty sure I'm simply echoing the thoughts of everyone else here - good grief, even Inquisitive is growing weary!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry Ms. D. I believe you are nearly just as guilty of the things you are accusing someone else of (in this and your 3:57 post). While I enjoy reading the posts where you are sharing your thoughts on the case, I have found many of your responses (to others) belittling, condescending, and close-minded. We do have a choice not to read and respond, and we all have a right to our own opinions.
DeleteFair enough, Anon. I'm sorry you feel that way, but appreciate your honesty.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you, Ms D.
ReplyDeleteCC
i have a theory about a key element i haven't heard anyone else suggest before that i am sure i am right and makes everything make sense. where can i post this?
ReplyDeleteWell Henry? We're waiting.....
DeleteMike G
Thanks you. I am an ex evidence law lecturer and criminal lawyer. i have a long running interest in this case like all of you. i hope you will be so kind to comment on the following.
DeleteAs many surmise, Burke hit his sister on the head. Remember there was few outward signs of the mortal damage this did. Even if Jon Benet had crept down the noise of the fighting led mother to have discovered them fighting - at this point she sent Burke to his room, or alternatively Burke exited on his own accord to his room and Patsey discovered the injured JonBenet.
In short time Patsy realised the damage Burke had done. he had fatally wounded his sister. She feared for the consequences to Burke- not just the police, but also how would Burke cope with killing his sister? Since she sent Burke to bed after hitting his sister Patsey realised Burke wouldnt yet realise what he had done. She decided to stage JonBenet's death to fool NOT JUST THE POLICE the police BUT ALSO to fool BURKE. The garotting was chosen as the opposite of a hit on the head. The staging would allow PATSY to convince Burke his hit on the head had nothing to do with her death.
That is how it unfolded. When Burke can be heard saying "what did you find" in the morning he genuinely was in the dark at that stage.
Burke may still beleive to this day his parents staged nothing and therefore he is innocent.
Please let me know what you think
What I think is that the whole Burke Did It thing is pure fantasy. You're in good company, though, because a great many people believe some variant of this theory, including the very experienced CBS sleuths.
DeleteSo. I really don't know how to respond to a theory of this sort, built almost exclusively on people's overheated imaginations. Someone with LE experience should know better, it seems to me.
If you DO have some solid evidence to back up this theory, then I apologize. But I'd need to see it first.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI remember this KS, just didn't recall that was said to be GJ testimony. The Hi-tech had a compass attached to the shoelaces, and Burke remembered them clearly.
DeleteCC
Yes BR remembered but my question is where did those boots go right after the murder ? I had never known that FW junior was the one who pointed that out to LE. From what I know, which is little because of the shadowy GR testimony, is that the 911 call was played in open court. I admit however that I have heard it only twice and it is very hard to source, as I have been trying for the past 20 mins to find a reference.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile looking up some info for CC I ran across this bit of information
ReplyDeleteAnd the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot.
From his bio: Ryan Ross is a legal affairs writer based in Denver. He has been published in the Washington Post, the National Law Journal, the ABA Journal and Legal Times, among other publications, and has twice appeared as an expert on "Nightline."
formation
Fleet White: "What would you say if I told you the Ramseys owned Hi-Tec shoes?"
From the National Enquirer September 17, 2002: "The police learned that JonBenet's brother Burke had a pair of Hi-Tec hiking boots," said a source close to the investigation.
"Patsy has wondered if Fleet should be a suspect in the grisly murder, but in a twist of fate, Fleet's son was among the first to help link the Hi-Tec shoes to Burke."
"Police didn't just go with information from Fleet's son and other friends," said the source. "They ultimately found more proof that Burke used to have a pair of Hi-Tec boots".
The Ramseys deny Burke ever owned Hi-Tec boots but, IMO, you can chalk that up as just one more lie from the Ramseys in their failed attempts to distant Burke from the crime.
During the 2000 interviews (which can be read online since they were made public by Lin Wood), BPD interviewers told Patsy that they had been told that Burke had said that Patsy had bought him boots with compasses on them (or on the shoelaces of the boots) before 1996. When questioned about Burke's telling that, when, where, and to whom, the interviewers hinted that Burke may have said to the grand jury, but would not reveal more than that.
ReplyDeleteThank you Keiser. This is another example of Patsy either lying or covering for a member of the family. None of which would be explained if she wasn't involved one way or another. As far as Burke goes, Im not surprised. He killed her, so keep sending any evidence that could support that my way.
ReplyDelete-J
He didn't kill her. Even if your BDI theory is correct, I don't believe for a second that he strangled her with the garrote. That's John. John ultimately killed her.
DeleteHead blow killed her for all intensive purposes. She was brain dead after that hit
Delete-J
So Burke "accidentally" killed her with a single blow to the head that left no laceration, no blood, no sign that she'd been struck. According to the consensus of forensics specialists who studied the autopsy, she would still have been breathing and her heart would still have been beating.
DeleteSo. What happens next? Her parents discover what he's done and notice that she's still breathing and that her heart is beating and therefore
1. call 911 to request an ambulance.
2. decide to stage a pedophile assault, complete with vaginal penetration and "garotte" strangulation, followed by a 2 1/2 page, hand written ransom note. They then hide the body in the basement "wine cellar" with the intention of calling the police first thing in the morning with the expectation that the body will be found, thus leading, most likely, to their immediate arrest.
So John tries to cover up his sex abuse hours before they are set to board a plane and takes a risk of blood going everywhere by striking her over the head with a bat or a flashlight?
DeleteYes, Burke accidentally hits her over the head and his parent (s) help cover up his crime.
-J
A)"So John tries to cover up his sex abuse hours before they are set to board a plane and takes a risk of blood going everywhere by striking her over the head with a bat or a flashlight?"
Delete1) Yes
2) So far. he's gotten away with it.
3) The greater risk than "blood going everywhere" is "committing murder" in the first place.
a. If the murder was pre-meditated, "blood not going everywhere" was something John successfully planned and executed.
a-1. For each and every speculative assertion,there an equal and opposite speculative assertion,something you, J, Inquisitive, and the grand master of them all--S.C. Schafer, prove into perpetuity beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. If the murder happened in the heat of the moment, "risk" no longer applies. John just got "lucky" blood didn't go everywhere.
B)"Burke accidentally hits her over the head and his parent (s) help cover up his crime."
1) Ibid A3(a-1)
Mike G
Ok, I've been reading this blog soup-to-nuts for a few months now and I must say that DocG's 2:10pm post warranted a comment. I literally fell off of my chair laughing. My chair slipped under me during my guffaw. That is all. Carry on. ;)
Delete"Yes, Burke accidentally hits her over the head and his parent (s) help cover up his crime."
DeleteSo, J, you sincerely believe that JonBenet's parents decided that killing their six year old daughter was a sacrifice they were willing to make for their son?
Why?
Your claim that the "Head blow killed her....She was brain dead after that hit" doesn't hold any water. You don't strangle your child to death on an "assumption" she is already dead. You check for a pulse. You listen to her breathing. You call 911!!! There was no blood, no visible sign of a head injury - by your own admission - so what would have given the Ramseys reason to believe JB was mortally wounded? Why, rather than take their chances and call for help and hope all would be well, thus resulting in the best outcome for BOTH of their children, did they look at the situation and say "O.K, our daughter has a severe concussion, maybe worse, so let's choke her to death *just in case* she's more seriously wounded and someone might suspect Burke". What you're saying, essentially, is that they were faced with a choice: JonBenet or Burke, and they chose Burke.
Why? Why would two parents who were so concerned for the future of their son terminate the future their daughter could have had based on nothing more than a "maybe"? Where is the logic in this?
I think the key part is that JBR would have appeared to be dead. So the garotte was most likely staging and may have even been done AFTER LE was in the house. This is another area where you get many opposing views in this case, nothing is ever definitive.
ReplyDeleteKS, could not have been while LE was in the house. She had been dead a while and already had an odor per Linda A.
DeleteKS, could not have been while LE was in the house. She had been dead a while and already had an odor per Linda A.
DeleteI have already been through the topic of decomposition and rigor mortis on this blog and it os possible for these things to occur on 2 hours under the right condition. It is most likely not the case but there is a 7 hour window from when the police showed up to when the body was found so it is definitely possible but I guess going with closer to proposed time of death is the more logical answer.
DeleteHow do you explain the petechial hemorrhages located on her neck near the garrote then, Keiser? This indicates JB's heart was still beating when the garrote was tied around her neck (we know the garroting occurred anywhere from 45 mins to two hours after the head blow). As John would have most likely had to have done the staging with the garrote during the time he went missing between 10.30 - 12.00 (give or take), and we know JonBenet was still alive when he twisted the garrote, this would mean the head blow had only occurred no later than 8.30 - 9.00 a.m? How can that be? That means JB hadn't been hit over the head until two hours AFTER LE were called!!!
DeleteAlthough, that could be something else to ponder!
Burke was also interviewed by LE later that afternoon, without his parent's consent. LE agreed that Burke seemed to not know anything about his sister's situation. His parents did allow him to be interviewed by the social worker, he was interviewed other times as well and absolutely cleared. There is no reason in the world either parent would have covered this up for Burke. But that they most probably did everything they could to protect him from media glare, and/or distance him from anything he may have heard or seen that night is the more likely scenario.
ReplyDeleteCan we all admit Burke just isn't your average kid? He was odd when he was 9 according to people that knew the family and he is obviously awkward now.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview with the therapist and the detective back in 1996 he seemed completely detached when talking about JB. Even to this day....he said he has never read the ransom note.....yea, thats weird.
-J
Hi all and happy new year!
ReplyDeleteJ - I still have your back. Burke is still far and away the best suspect in my opinion. Of course, that doesn't take away the fact that both John and Patsy were guilty as sin as well.
It seems most people who disagree with BDI do so because they can't imagine the parents covering for him. I dont see that as an issue at all. He was their son...they loved him with all their heart and for all intensive purposes they thought she was dead. Not hard for me to imagine the Ramseys covering up at all...especially a family who held themselves in high esteem...they couldn't possibly let friends know that one of them killed her by mistake. Thats why Patsy called all her friends the next morning to come over...to cement it was an intruder so they could see it for themselves (and to create havoc around the house with evidence).
They never planned to remove her body...too risky and they would have been caught for sure. But they needes tangible evidence that an intruder had been there...hence the RN. Only reason it is so long is they (John and Patsy) tried their absolutle best to make it seem realistic. They went overboard in the end but as it would have it, it actually worked in their favour as it just confused everyone.
They then needed the body to tie in with the RN. They couldn't just leave her body like it was so they (probably John) did the garotte and panties etc. And it became a sexual attack/kidnapping gone wrong. So much evidence points to Patsy being involved but I wont get into all of that again.
And lastly, I haven't completed ruled out Burke making the garotte himself days/weeks/months before. If so, he didnt make it to kill...just practicing his scout knots with whatever he could find in the basement. Maybe he put it over JBRs head to be funny/annoying (as kids do) and then it got tight all of a sudden. JBR panicked, maybe screamed and then came the head blow with the torch to quiten her so she wouldnt wake the parents. With the garotte on this is another scenario in which the parents would go with a cover up.
Hey Zed - welcome back
DeleteWe are very much on the same page. The parents covering for him is what most skeptics fall back on. It's fair...obviously extremes were went to. But I will always argue that even if it was just John, he went to the extreme. Parents would do anything for their children and in this case, they were met with an absolutely horrible decision to make. They chose the route of covering it up.
Im with you on the garrote, because I absolutely believe Burke could have tied one. Whether or not he strangled her, I don't know.
-J
Hi ya Zed, going to nit pick, not *all* the friends, the Stines, who lived super close by, were not called over. They are the friends that had a son close to Burke's age. That later the Ramseys moved in wirh for several months. And then after that, the Stines uprooted their son from school and left the mountains to follow the Ramseys and live in Georgia. Mrs. Stine is the one who told the officer everything is fine on the previous 911 call made from the Ramsey home.
DeleteI'm sorry J, but this wasn't "Sophie's Choice", decide who would live and who would die ("absolutely horrible decision"). There was no blood in the scalp, on her hair, no blood splatter, no way a parent standing over the child in the BDI scenario would have been qualified to gauge the extent of her injuries and declare it a lost cause and not even attempt to get emergency help for her. She was rendered unconscious, but still breathing. It's just so improbable that your solution to this would be to go on ahead and finish her off with a strangulation, a sexual assault for good measure, and concoct a kidnapping for ransom/phony note, all to "protect" or cover. Any parent's first inclination would be to get help, not kill. Even if Burke was engaging in aggressive play with the cord, we have a note that follows this. Anything is possible, but just not probable.
ReplyDeleteInq - I liked you better 10 days ago when you were IDI
DeleteWe don't know who did the sexual assault that night. It could have been Burke. I don't find it probable that a guy with absolutely zero history as being a sexual predator or murderer would all of a sudden bludgeon, strangle and sexually assault his daughter on Christmas. Stats can be thrown out the window on this case because it is truly one of a kind. If it wasn't, I dont think most of us would be on here talking about it.
-J
Wait...Inq is no longer IDI??? Geez what have I missed...
DeletePatsy could have used a douche on JBR as well. She is nutty as a fruit cake and inappropriate. If she was sexually assaulted or staged to look like a sexual assault, her clothes would have been torn, there would be more blood and more staging to look like a sexual assault. The only thing that looks like a sexual assault is a drop of blood.
Delete"Wait...Inq is no longer IDI??? Geez what have I missed..."
DeleteWhat you've always missed and continue to--logic.
Mike G.
Yes Zed, I worked it over pretty good over the holidays. Decided that whoever was so very intimate with that family to have had a key and known their schedules and whereabouts that particular night could also not have been so confident so as to believe they wouldn't come home early, or their dog wouldn't be returned to them before the trip = that no one would see them if they entered the house before they got back, and not make any noise the whole night. Even accounting for a note written in advance, no noises were made, from kitchen to basement to placement of note on stairsteps. Then the retreat. No fibers found from anyone other than Ramseys. Note showed intelligence, it was very pointed and meticulous and particular as to what had to be done yet a stage job. Who exhibited all of those characteristics of someone they knew who got away? Had to let it go. And I'm back to where I was 20 years ago, and now a Patsy purist. She acted alone.
DeleteHahaha @ Mike.....oh my :D
DeleteYour previous comment was very similar to my own a few posts back, Inquisitive - "Sophie's Choice", great analogy. I am hoping J gives a more detailed response to my questions than he did to yours.....sorry J, but you are the master of responding to a question with, simply, another question! Classic deflection technique!
DeleteI see I directed my comment on intruder's to Zed when it was Mike, sorry bout that. Matters not anyway. Thanks Ms D., I, like the author of the ransom note, like movie analogies.
DeleteThe weakest aspect of the BDI theory is that he was shipped off instantly the day after the crime. If BDI I believe Patsy and John would keep a very close eye on him. He could tell anyone at any time. It's too much of a risk. It makes more sense that he didn't know anything so it was easy to send him off to friends, then school shortly after.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't help JDI either Zach. I really don't want to get into the pineapple again, but even if Burke didn't do it, he was downstairs around the time of when this murder could have taken place. It can be argued, but I believe Burke is on the 911 call, so IF Burke saw something or heard something, then explain them shipping him off?
Delete-J
There are problems with every theory. Burke being downstairs around the time of the murder is definitely concerning, but just as valuable and inconclusive as every other theory. I don't put much credence on the 911 call, but it definitely sounds like John said "We're not speaking with you." What Patsy and Burke said could be anything. If he saw something that's different, but he could easily be manipulated if it was something he heard.
DeleteIf your child had just been kidnapped and held for ransom you would not let your other child out of your sight unless accompanied by law enforcement.
DeleteEG
tsk tsk J. I had a come to Jesus moment over Christmas that I could no longer support an IDI theory - even WITH a key:) But I'm not a JDI, that's a separate conversation. There's holes in all of our scenarios. I was just pointing to the one in the BDI's. John is what, in his 70's now? In another 20 years he probably won't be here so in the meantime I still have some unanswered questions for Burke if only he would be polygraphed.
ReplyDeleteI think I speak for this blog when I say that I am happy that you no longer support IDI. :-)
Delete-J
I took the heat, ha, J. Zed, glad you are back as well.
ReplyDeleteIf only Burke had gotten an A in Creative Writing we could lay it all on him, but it's too big of a leap to go from Fish Camp Players to Tolstoy. Sorry :)
ReplyDeleteThe only scenario that reasonably features Burke as the murderer would have to conclude that he was the author of the ransom note. Since I cannot see any conceivable way that Burke was capable of such prose, I will continue to assert that Patsy Ramsey, and only Patsy Ramsey, murdered JonBenet and staged the entire charade that took place the next morning.
ReplyDeleteHercule
My hero Hercule! Yes, I agree with you. That that's a good logical inference -
ReplyDeleteAnd once you see that she acted alone, then all of the rest of it fits. John's deceptive behavior more so for the purposes of protecting Patsy, his reluctance to admit certain things like who's idea was it to call 911, his trips to the basement possibly before LE got there and certainly after looking around for himself, and many other things. I'm just, for wanting to know all of the fine points, wondering at what point he put it together? When he "saw" her in the note, or later after everyone had left and he questioned her. Do you have an idea on that Hercule?
"The only scenario that reasonably features Burke as the murderer would have to conclude that he was the author of the ransom note." Hercule
Delete"...that's a good logical inference." Inquisitive
You guys are ALMOST there! A nip here, and tuck there, and you've got it!
'The only scenario that reasonably features the writer of the ransom note as the person who committed the murder is JDI'
Mike G.
"And once you see that she acted alone, then all of the rest of it fits. John's deceptive behavior more so for the purposes of protecting Patsy"
DeleteHow do you figure that? Why can't John's deceptive behaviour be for the purpose of protecting himself, which seems way more likely than willingly protecting your daughter's killer - wife or not?
"His reluctance to admit certain things like who's idea was it to call 911"
There's already a perfectly reasonable explanation for his reluctance to say whose idea it was to call 911, and you know that reason, so there's no point in me repeating it, as it's been extensively covered by Doc, and it fits infinitely better with the JDI theory than PDI.
"His trips to the basement possibly before LE got there and certainly after looking around for himself".
Well, gee, couldn't it just be possible that he was in the basement doing some last minute staging in order to cover his own, sorry, ass? What is so unbelievable about that? Don't killers usually return to the scene of the crime? Don't they usually try to cover their OWN tracks when the heat is on?
I'm sorry, Inq, but none of what you said makes any more sense coming from a PDI perspective than it does a JDI one!
This is a more obvious case of confirmation bias.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have a question about the colorado Ramsey christmas video . Why did that make for ? Was it meant to be handed out to family or did the public have access to it?
ReplyDelete* What dd they make the video for ?
ReplyDeleteFor whom did they make the video (a), or why did they make it (b)?
DeleteIf a, for themselves, and with whomever they desired to share it. If b, cause that's what families do at Christmas time.
Mike G
I thought they didn't make one that year?
DeleteAnother ting that bothers me...in interviews, except for the the first CNN, PR behavior is more than anything, dramatic and over the top. She is trying to hard to be believed that it looks ridiculous. She doesn't appear to be grieving, grounded, curious, ...just dramatic.
ReplyDeleteI originally thought that John had the most to lose. Protecting his business and image , money and name. But now I think it was Patsy that had the most to lose. John had his life, his health. Patsy was going to die of cancer. It's possible she accidentally killed JBR and then went to enormous lengths( it certainly seems John was on board, how could either of them not recognize the others handwriting) because she knew she was going to die. I imagine her saying to John, "please go with me on this, I am not going to live much longer, I don't want to spend the remainder of my life in Prison. I will write the note"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Another ting that bothers me...in interviews, except for the the first CNN, PR behavior is more than anything, dramatic and over the top. She is trying to hard to be believed that it looks ridiculous. She doesn't appear to be grieving, grounded, curious, ...just dramatic."
ReplyDeleteI disagree completely, particularly in regards to her two following statements which I paraphrase.
1. 'The idea the voices in the background were ours and Burkes is nonsense. I hung up the receiver after the 911 call and immediately picked it up to call our friends. The call went through, which means there was a dial tone, not a bunch of voices...
2) 'You're barkin' up the wrong tree, buddy. I did NOT murder my daughter!
When Patsy gets that assertive, sardonic tone in her voice, you know she's telling the truth. She is "dramatic and over the top" when she hesitates and/or equivocates; that's when you know she's been gas-lighted.
Mike G.
Exactly K, she looks and sounds dramatic. Her words do match her emotions at all. Barb Ferniw reported that there was something wrong with PR because Barb herself was grieving but stared that PR was not. Go ahead JDI's and do what you all do, try and attack Barb Fernie's character and blame her for being a liar, just like you do with anyone who is involved the case firsthand etc. Barb Fernie must be lying .....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, unfortunately we nor anyone else had access to phone records to prove if that is true. She certainly called them right away, but maybe not immediately. I heard all three of the Ramsey's on the recording, so she is lying per usual. Secondly, as far as her saying he was barking up the wrong tree. What else is she going to say? Admit it? Lie, deny and counter accuse is their motto.
ReplyDeleteShe also said " There are two people that know what happened, the killer and the person they confided in" How did she know the foreign faction was only two people?
Pretty direct confession in my book.
"Secondly, as far as her saying he was barking up the wrong tree. What else is she going to say? Admit it? Lie, deny and counter accuse is their motto."
DeleteActually, I believe the expression was "You're going down the wrong path, Buddy", but it's not *what* she said, it's *how* she said it. I agree with Mike, her assertive tone and body language when she delivers that line, amongst a few others, leaves me with not a doubt in my mind that Patsy is telling the truth.
"She also said " There are two people that know what happened, the killer and the person they confided in" How did she know the foreign faction was only two people?
Pretty direct confession in my book."
How the heck do you see that as a confession???
As a vigorous PDI, you're reading into her comments exactly what you already believe to be true. No objectivity in your comments whatsoever. Case in point: "She is trying to hard to be believed that it looks ridiculous. She doesn't appear to be grieving, grounded, curious, ...just dramatic." Pure opinion only, and one that only PDIs seem to be able to see. I see a grieving mother, and one that doesn't appear ridiculous at all.
I am not a PDI and I find K's comments and assertions to be spot on. If you watch her depostion it is a complete debacle of lies, I cant recalls, and Lin Wood interjections so that she has time to think and answer and can not be questioned properly (for good reason). The notion that this is conformation bias is nothing but an excuse to keep your JDI theory intact. The difference between JDI's and everyone else in this forum is that JDI's will swear up and down that every clue, piece of evidence, logical inference to be made all points to JR when it clearly does not. The non JDIs and all other theorists here have the ability to decipher that there is much conflicting evidence to go around in this case and none of it "only points to JR", while JDIs try and make every piece of evidence and logical inference fit around their theory of JDI. Ms D, just curious what your excuse is to PR having bought those HiTek boots for BR then saying no one in the house owned hi-tek boots thus sending LE on another wild goose chase. Let me guess your answer, (probably the same as Doc's) she forgot that she had bought BR boots with compasses on the shoelaces ? Am I correct ?
DeleteHow many prints of this HiTec boot were there, and where was it again? Since you all know everything.
Delete"Since you all know everything."
DeleteIs that an accusation?
There was only one imprint from a HiTec boot and that was only the HiTec logo all by itself. The rest of the footprint had been obliterated, no doubt because this was an old print. If it were fresh the photo would have revealed the entire print, not just the logo. Another perfect example of Lou Smit's genius for coming up with red herrings.
I agree Doc - hard to determine when it got there and equally hard to determine who's it was. Lou Smit was grasping at straws.
DeleteThis is logic for you. Two things to assume. JR did the strangulation. PR was on board for the cover up.
ReplyDelete- Burke did the head blow. However, Burke could not kill JBR, he could not manage the strangulation. JR would have to do that.
If BR did the first head blow, PR and JR would not do all that, just to cover for a 9 year old. They would plead it was an accident. They would only cover for themselves and sex abuse charges. So it is possible BK started it and JR finished it. Unlikely PR would be on board though.
- JR did both. However it is unlikely PR would be on board for the cover up. She might be on board only to cover for themselves and sex abuse charges. But unlikely.
-PR did the head blow. But she could not do the strangulation. Jr had to do that. JR would not be on board for the cover up. He might be on board only to cover for themselves and sex abuse charges. He has more motive to cover for the sex abuse. And PR has motive to cover for the head blow.
Those are the options.
Oh and the other thing to assume is, FW or someone knew about some sex abuse rumor of JBR. That could provide the motivation for the R's to assume that JBR would be checked out for sex abuse this time at hospital, unlike in past.
ReplyDeleteAny theory that begins with assumptions is inherently flawed and the antithesis of logical.
ReplyDeleteCC