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

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

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

Saturday, January 14, 2017

The Complaint: 3

Still waiting for more action on the lawsuit front. So far no word from CBS as to how they plan to respond. If I see something new, I'll add more commentary here.


P.S.: Just now I read a very thoughtful and convincing comment, placed under an older thread where it may well be missed by most reading here. (NB: always try to post your comments in the most recent thread where everyone can easily find them.) I decided to post it here for all to see, along with a (somewhat revised) version of my response.


It's your habit of seeing it from one perspective that makes it hard for you to accept other possibilities.

The note works just as well after chickening out (from dumping the body) as it does for the original plan. It works precisely because it doesn't make any sense in a conventional way.

The only thing "incriminating" about the note would be the handwriting. And your work on that topic has shown strongly that we can't really say who wrote it, based on handwriting.

All that's left, with regard to the note, is logic. There's conventional logic then there is something we might call Mega-logic, or overall logic. What was needed wasn't a logical reason for a kidnapper to leave such a note, as well as leaving the body behind. What was needed was the creation of confusion, the inability to pin it on one or the other, or make sense of why they'd do it that way if they were both in on it. This is the overall logic.

After chickening out, they were going to end up with the body being found in the basement. One or both may have realized that the note, written for plan A still works for plan B, because, as you point out, why would PR call 911 with the body in the basement if she did it? PR is off the hook.

JR is off the hook too. Why would he allow PR to find the RN? If he were acting alone he'd have maintained control of the situation. He'd have found the note and he'd have made it very clear that they were not to call 911. It's far less likely PR would have called if JR had found the note and took command of the situation. While it's possible PR foiled JR's plan, it's equally possible they realized the note still works to create uncertainty as to who did what. In that case there is no harm in PR calling 911.

Some call, to someone, had to be made and not too long after 6am. They could have cancelled their flight for any reason, or no reason, but if they hadn't called the pilot he'd have called them.
At some point, early that morning, they were going to have to wake up and find the note, and with the flight scheduled when it was, they didn't have much leeway. The 911 call needn't have been placed, just the call to the pilot, but that would establish that they were up and that they must have found the note. Since they chickened out about dumping the body, there was no reason to delay the inevitable.

The IDI case isn't as weak as you believe. It's not hard to believe someone came in w/o leaving a trace of themselves. With PR supporting the broken window story, there's an obvious point of entry. The legions of IDI theorists out there makes it clear that it's not completely implausible to many people.

The body may have been placed in the store room precisely because it would be harder to see. A casual inspection of the basement would not find her. Indeed the police and FW both failed to find the body. The R's have a plausible reason for not finding her. And why would they even bother searching since the note makes it clear she's been abducted?

What "The Ramseys" needed isn't complete absence of any evidence linking them to the crime; that would be nearly impossible. What they needed was reasonable case for IDI, and a state of confusion as to why certain things would have been done if PR acted alone, as opposed to JR acting alone, as opposed to PR and JR working in concert. That's the Mega-logic that they may well have used to their advantage.

Of course your theory is possible too. I'm not arguing that you are wrong, just that you may not be right. 

My response:
I appreciate the critical thinking that went into this post, and sure, as you suggest, all sorts of alternatives are possible. However: I do think it best to seriously consider the simplest explanation first, before we go off on all sorts of tangents to consider more complex alternatives. John is abusing his daughter, and concerned that she might expose him, decides to kill her -- and writes a phony ransom note to stage a kidnapping, planning to use the warnings in the note as an excuse to not call the police. Naturally, he says nothing to his wife about what he's done. He assumes the warnings will dissuade her from calling the police until he's been able to remove the body from the house. She calls 911 anyhow, the body is found, and as a result both he and his wife become the chief suspects in their daughter's death.

For me -- and believe me I've studied this case from every conceivable perspective -- this is not only the simplest scenario, but the ONLY scenario that explains literally every mystery associated with this case. Other scenarios might seem possible, but when you consider all the evidence then sooner or later they veer off into the bizarre, too unlikely to be believed.

My theory explains the contents of the note, Patsy's early 911 call, the conflicting reports as to whose idea that was, the body hidden in the basement, John's finding the basement window open and then closing it without telling anyone, John's unbelievable story about breaking that window earlier, and then being unable to recall whether it had ever been repaired, the handwriting evidence (which as I've demonstrated looks a lot more like his than hers), the refusal of "the Ramseys" to cooperate with the police for months, and finally, it relieves us of the need to explain why one spouse would want to help the other cover for his or her actions in taking the life of an especially beloved and cherished daughter. And if one prefers to believe they'd be willing to cover for their son if he did it,  then one must still explain why they would do it by staging in such an extreme and brutal manner, involving vaginal penetration, strangulation with a "garotte," the hiding of the body in a cold and filthy basement room (for no reason), and the writing of the longest ransom note in history. And then calling the police on themselves in such a manner as to cast doubt on the document they worked so hard on, and hand the police a piece of valuable evidence as to the identity of the person who wrote it.

If you can come up with a believable scenario that takes all the above into account, I'd be more than happy to post it.

218 comments:

  1. Just wanted to clear something up that was posted the other day about the Christmas home tour. That took place in 1994 where the public toured the home. It did not happen in 1996. The Ramseys were to have an open house in July of 1996 in Michigan. They did have a much smaller party where Santa showed up in 1996.
    news articles and police interviews here
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-tour-boulderhouse1994.htm

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lin Wood is now being cast as David? Gimme a break. This guy has created a cottage industry by suing anyone who dares to challenge the Ramseys' carefully crafted intruder narrative. To hell with him. I'd love to see the CBS case thrown out.

      The Ramseys named completely innocent people as suspects in the media and in their book, Death of Innocence. But they were rich and could afford Lin Wood on their side and these innocent people were poor (except maybe for the Whites). The Ramseys didn't care about vetting information. They didn't care about maligning innocent people who didn't have the resources to defend themselves. Only when it's done to them do they lose their minds. They're massive hypocrites.

      If John and Burke wanted the truth to come out, they could come out and tell the truth. All they want to do is set their pitbull lawyer on anyone who disagrees with their bulls**. John and Burke court the media and then cry foul when the media talks about the story.

      Delete
    2. I have to agree too Zachary. I got the impression over the years that everyone that knew the R's were silenced by their attorneys and hired investigators to not even speak to law enforcement. Silenced how, not sure if threatened or bribed to keep their mouths shut, but something I've never seen much in a murder case from an affluent area, but usually seen in areas known for no snitching and a distrust of the police. Off the top of my head, the only other one that comes to mind is the Dawna Natzke murder in Arkansas.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comment about, "Only when it's done to them do they lose their minds" was a mistake. I shouldn't have phrased it like that.

      I don't believe the information in the 2-part doc was improperly vetted and I don't believe that stating JBR's death was a tragic accident is maligning the family. I, for one, found the doc convincing so, to me, the resulting lawsuit against CBS is the height of hypocrisy.

      Burke keeps his head down for 20 years and then decides it's time to use the milestone anniversary to make some cash. And that's exactly what he and JR are doing, aren't they? Looking for a massive payout to refill their empty coffers. Their dead daughter and sister is the 6-year-old gift that just keeps on giving.

      At least now perhaps they're giving the dead girl some thought. JR told Anderson Cooper a few years ago that he doesn't even think about her much anymore. I bet he would never say that about Beth.

      I thought there was something in the law about not going into court if your own hands were dirty.

      Again, to hell with Lin Wood -- and John Ramsey.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and who is the "we" in "we cannot allow CBS to continue to put out spurious information..."?

      Are you Lin Wood?

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

      Delete
    4. That'll preach Anon. Mark Klaas still wears a button on his jacket with a picture of his murdered daughter Polly when making appearances.

      Delete
  4. Dog, does anyone know how long CBS can take before responding?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. We cannot allow CBS to continue to put out spurious information even if you think the Ramsey's have it coming.

    Are you serious right now
    So now you are an RDI who is backing Lin Wood and the Ramseys yet thinks that they should profit once again off of their daughter's murder ? I dont know whose posts are more bipolar like and make less sense, yours or Leighs.

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

      Delete
    2. Did you not claim to now be a PDI or have you changed your mind to a completely opposing view in the past 30 mins ?

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

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

      Delete
    5. I do believe PR is a Ramsey, but I could be wrong....and ny point was that you think a Ramsey was guilty yet want them to collect more money off of theur daughters death. I find it kind of sick personally.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Hercule has a tendency to make things up, Keiser. The pj bottoms were too big to be JB's and I have never heard or seen photos of knocked over trophies and scattered tiaras either. He wants a 'altercation' so he makes things up to prove it."

    You could not be more wrong. Take a gander:

    HANEY: You can see the trophy laying down?

    PATSY: Right, yeah.

    HANEY: Does that look unusual now that you have had a better look at it?

    PATSY: It just seems like I took all of them, but that big one, to the playroom and put them up on the shelf because there were so many of them, and she had them all stacked around here.

    DeMUTH: What about these crowns on the floor there, is that unusual? Is that what that is?

    I am not sure if the information regarding JonBenet's clothes that Steve Thomas told me is available to the public. I simply do not remember reading it. Steve was adamant that the clothes belonged to JonBenet and it was not unusual for her to wear bigger clothes. For a child that is being rushed into adulthood that behavior would be consistent with wearing larger clothes.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However, wearing boys size long johns with a fly, and size 12 girls underwear that would fall to the floor if not wearing tights or some snug pants to me doesn't equate to rushing into adulthood. This wasn't a poor family, and even if you shop at thrift stores you'd think adults would purchase clothes that fit their children. Wearing oversize clothes can be one way to cover oneself to look less appealing to others that have violated the person or the person perceives others may want to do that.

      Delete
  8. Hercule, the response to the statement you made regarding a PR-JB altercation is exactly what has to be frustrating to anyone with a logical mind - trying to explain to someone who chooses to use words like "bi polar" or "making things up" as they do not have much of a logical leg to stand on. I admire your patience in trying to explain to the less informed. I had forgotten about the disaster that was JB's room only partially captured in crime scene photos. I'm glad you are back.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is the first I am reading about evidence of an altercation in JBR's room. That does tend to lean towards PR, as she would be the one frustrated over JBR's constant bathroom issues, having been the one who had to clean her up and do the laundering of the sheets. PR wanted the perfect house, especially during Christmas--what with decorated trees in all the rooms and open houses, etc, having a child who soiled herself on a daily basis didn't quite fit in with that perfect picture.

    I had also read that JBR's body was "wiped down" and that the irritation or injury, if you will to JBR's vaginal area could have been due to vigorous wiping with a washcloth. That, too, would be consistent with PR losing patience and being rough with JBR when cleaning her up after a hectic, busy day that didn't end the right way according to PR's perfect picture of Christmas.

    I do have a hard time believing she'd use a garrote to kill her daughter though. Shove her, yes, causing the head injury, but strangling her with a garrote is a stretch for me to believe.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here EG. Discussing whether it was intentional or accidental brought to mind yesterday the mess her room was, the trophies scattered around and whether or not Patsy could have gotten into an altercation with JB or not, in her room. It could have been something Steve Thomas alluded to as well so this all came up yesterday when Hercule was discussing it. Whether P was upset over bedwetting and or bed soiling we don't know. I suggested it could be a verbal altercation of some sort but not knowing the cause. So I think for now EG that is where the discussion was headed. And a shove could be the cause of the head injury as well.

      Delete
    2. For anyone that doesn't have all these networks that showed crime scene photos, the authors captured many from the various programs. See if this link works
      https://shakedowntitle.com/mediashake/gallery/
      (side note, the female author often posts on topix as "juror 13") (addl'l side note, for those that would rather see zoo animals playing in the snow, I have that link too) :)

      Delete
  10. Yes, it is more correctly brought out in transcripts where Patsy is being questioned about the photos. I'm not sure if there are photos still out there, but would be quite the project to match the interview with the photo being discussed.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes me wonder if any specialist did a reenactment of a skull getting clobbered with the base of a trophy.

      Delete
  11. "I do have a hard time believing she'd use a garrote to kill her daughter though. Shove her, yes, causing the head injury, but strangling her with a garrote is a stretch for me to believe."

    I know it is, but if you have never sat with someone who is just about to die, its not always expiring in peaceful repose. I was in my late 40s before I did. It can be very disturbing.

    I was thinking about how they always show on TV about shining a light in a comatose person's eyes. The heavy jerking breathing and loss of color from the eyes can be frightening, if you're not prepared for it. I wasn't, at that advanced age. And, of course, I cannot say for sure that JonBenet exhibited any of that. I pointed out before that in this scenario, Patsy will be needing to explain to John where JonBenet is very soon.

    In the hospital, if a person is at this stage of dying, they are often given morphine, just to quiet the body down. But morphine also hastens death. I believe the garrote was used to hasten the dying process and ending her misery.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always felt that the covering JBR with the blanket spoke volumes. It was a personal touch from someone who cared for her. An intruder wouldn't bother to do that or attempt to hide the body.
      The garrote, in a way, was impersonal. A person who loved her, couldn't strangler her with bare hands.

      Too many things don't make sense as far as they way the parents behaved that morning. As I've said before on this blog, they did the complete opposite of what that ransom note said. As if they knew it was all BS, therefore didn't have to follow any of the instructions.

      EG

      Delete
    2. EG, that blanket with the static cling little pink nightie has often been said to have come from the basement dryer. Also, that Burke was reported to have not been in the basement, etc. that night or morning. But his touch DNA was found on the pink nightie. So if it was transfer DNA, and not Burke handling the laundry fresh from the dryer...it would seem that the killer/s had contact with Burke very recent. So to me, even less chance of IDI.

      Delete
    3. Burke's DNA found on the nightie? That's news to me. Do you have a source for that?

      Delete
    4. Yes
      http://www.cherigriffiths.com/phpbb3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=194&t=12320&start=75
      Look at the daily mail link on post. It's been mentioned a few times in various places.

      Delete
    5. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10137-DNA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book
      Info from Kolar's book, so public knowledge since at least 2012.

      Delete
    6. I consider this, since I have to do a lot of laundry for myself, my husband, my dad, and my dogs. After washing, I'm the only one handling it, then it goes in the dryer. I would think the dryer would degrade most of my DNA from my hands during the drying process until I remove it. Now if I've handled something of my family member or dogs before I reach into the dryer, or had personal contact with them...but even Jonbenet's own DNA wasn't found on the little pink nightgown, and she was of course touched while alive earlier by both her mother and father.

      Delete
    7. Interesting. I read Kolar's book some time ago, but don't recall that passage. Of course, Burke's DNA could have gotten on that blanket in all sorts of ways, including transfer via Patsy as she retrieved the laundry from the drier.

      Delete
    8. But that blanket stayed on the floor in the wine closet, John only carried his daughter up, minus the blanket. So Patsy's DNA should not have been on it, imo. I don't believe she ever stated she was doing laundry after coming back from the Whites while wrapping presents in the basement and removing the blanket and leaving it downstairs.

      Delete
  12. It's easier to imagine the mother taking the white blanket out of the drier and wrapping the daughter in it than the father. The mother, at some point knowing the blow to the head - either intentional or accidental - was not going to result in any kind of a good outcome, then had to throw suspicion off herself as contributing to her daughter's death. Indeed GS, if she had started to come out of it with a seizure a panicked Patsy would have wanted to both stop it, and make sure it looked like someone else did it by looping that cord around her wrists. Keeping all of this from John (and LE later that morning) would have been the goal, for as long as she possibly could. Why call 911? She had to, once she committed to writing a note, the stage was set for a panicky call to 911 so that everyone would believe the reason her daughter wasn't in her bed is that she had been kidnapped.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is for Hercule, if you know-or are still in contact with Steve Thomas.
    I was wondering if he ever saw where Patsy kept JonBenet's wigs, falls, hair extensions. Because from her pics in her casual state, and sadly the death photos, the child did not have a thick, voluminous hair. That Xmas video at the mall, definitely fake hair added for that.

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for the comment 1/14 11:44 a.m. Anonymous - very Thought-Full.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's something to consider. If either parent did this, as an accident, do you really think Burke did not hear anything?

    Here is something to consider. JR and PR stayed up all night, talking about what to do. Maybe in the kitchen. Burke came downstairs and was there with them.

    Because Burke said he went downstairs. The parents sent him upstairs again. Maybe after hearing them argue, and then maybe spying in from upstairs and figuring it out, later on, Burke went down to the basement at some point, to look at his sister's body. That is why the chair was there, for him to reach lock. That is why his footprint was there. Maybe Burke was the one who covered the body, that is why his touch DNA was on it.

    But Burke lied his ass off later, about not hearing anything. He did not want to be next.

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think Doc makes a mistake a lot of people make. And he is looking for "simplicity".

    Simplicity does not always make the most sense. Clearly if these people valued simplicity, they would not be taking the more life complicating route of murdering their daughter. That is not a very "simple" act.

    We see evidence of heavy staging. These are people who did not value simplicity, but dealt in artifice and trickery. So I don't know that touting "simplicity" is the way to go here. It does not match the evidence we see at the crime scene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc devoted hundreds of hours becoming informed about this case before developing his own theory about it then writing it down in book form. Nowhere does he conclude a correct theory must be "simplistic" because the Ramsey's "valued simplicity". The opposite of simplicity is complexity, not "heavy" staging. The over-staging of a kidnapping that turned out not to be a kidnapping makes it "easy", for people with half a brain, to logically infer from a set of indisputable facts, certain foundational aspects of the case. But after that, solving it requires recruiting, activating, and exercising more complex and higher thinking regions and centers of the brain, respectively.

      You speak of evidence at the crime scene as a poor match for "simplicity". Those are your words, not Docs. Doc has said time and again that material evidence doesn't solve this case. What does is a unique blend of circumstantial evidence and logical inferences drawn from undisputed facts; facts that include conflicting testimonies extracted from key suspects and witnesses in the case.

      It isn't Doc making the mistake a lot of people make; it's you making the mistake most people make. That "they" murdered "their" daughter (or covered for Burke, depending on the "flavor" of the week), makes life for you complicated, life for "the Ramsey's" simple. That "he" murdered "his" daughter makes life simple for us, complicated for John. In this respect, I'll take "simplicity" as "the way to go" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. But don't confuse a simple life with a not-so-simple theory.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. "I do think it best to seriously consider the simplest explanation first, before we go off on all sorts of tangents to consider more complex alternatives."

      Doc's words above. I know Doc thinks having JR do it all, is the most simple solution.

      But it is not necessarily the solution that fits the evidence. You can't run with a theory just because you think it seems the simplest. Because f it does not match the evidence, it is logical that you have to start getting a little more complex.

      But I have seen that it is not too good to contradict the blog owners theory. I don't think he and his buddies like it too much.

      So I will tone down my observations, especially if it contradicts "the theory".

      Delete
    3. Amen, Mike! Very well stated.

      Delete
    4. SC, the generally accepted scientific standard regarding simplicity is Occam's Razor. But Occam's Razor is often misunderstood. Occam didn't say only that the simplest explanation is to be preferred, but the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence, which is another thing entirely. So maybe I should have made myself clearer. When I invoke "simplicity" I do so in the sense defined by Occam. Thus for me, my theory is not only the simplest, but also the simplest consistent with the evidence.

      You can always argue, of course, that my theory is not consistent with the evidence -- but then you will need to be specific as to what evidence you have in mind.

      And by the way, you and some others often write as though I routinely censor the comments of those who disagree with me, which is not at all true. I remove only those comments that contain personal insults or else, in very rare instances, totally irrelevant or redundant comments. What you are really complaining about is that some of us strongly disagree with you. If you don't like debating with others who disagree, then you should not be posting on the Internet.

      Delete
  19. There is only need for complexity when you insist on treating the Ramseys as an indivisible unit.

    The beauty (and simplicity) of Doc's analysis is in the recognition that PR and JR are individuals, and that allows a breakdown of each person's agendas. No convoluted plotting is needed.

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Going off my previous posts about whose DNA was found on the little nightie stuck to the blanket shroud. It's about whose DNA or personal items were found and where and whose were absent. Forget the ransom note for now. Would the killer wear gloves so not to disturb prints found on the tea glass and pineapple bowl, and blanket and nightie and move a chair to block the door to the train room, and move the boy's knife to the basement, as well as use the basement toilet and not flush. Why use a narrow suitcase for the window when there is already a handy sturdy chair there? The boy had his own set of golf clubs, his own baseball bats, took sailing lessons, was in boy scouts. There is more son and mom DNA or prints found than dad's. Of course prints and DNA of the family and guests would be thru out the home, but not all those tested were found on the items tested. But son and mom's do show up where dad's doesn't. I have said before, a short statured person would need a chair, stool, step ladder to latch the wooden piece on the wine closet door. However many hands touched it that day so unknown if it was checked for prints and if anything viable was found. The parents were asked by LE who smoked. As the cigars found in the room. Talk about a whole bunch of denial and two conflicting statements surrounding that! What we don't know is were there ashes, a half smoked cigar? The son had male playmates that would play in the basement. Imo, young boys are more likely to experiment earlier with smoking materials than young girls. Both the son and the White boy had hi-tek shoes. Unknown if the Stine boy did.Of course everything found can and has all been explained away by either the DA, Lacy, Wood, Smit, the Ramseys, et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your suggesting that Burke smoked cigars?

      Delete
    2. The police interviews asked both parents about the cigars and smoking. I don't know why that was part of their questioning but it was. Photos of Jonbenet do look like some sort of darkening to areas on her face. We don't know if Burke or his friends were questioned like the parents about the cigars. The fact that the police were interested in cigars in the home make me curious.

      Delete
    3. Oh, Good Lord Doc, I LAUGHED OUT LOUD at your comment!
      I can picture it now.....Burke down in the basement, partaking in a Cuban cigar, and upon being caught by JonBenet, he was so humiliated that his nicotine habit had been discovered, he killed his sister, and burned her with the cigar just to teach her a lesson. Oh my, thanks for the laugh, I needed it today. :D

      Delete
  22. In response to Hercule, who said this:
    "It is a very complex case that cannot be solved without applying behavioral analysis and psychology. There is simply too many false leads, red herrings, and misdirection through which to sift. Doc thinks the case can be solved by looking only at the facts. There are, unfortunately, not enough facts in this case to reveal the killer. The facts that we do have, however, are important because when combined with the behavioral psychology of the suspects there is but one person who could have murdered JonBenet Ramsey. Despite John's innocence, I do think he agreed to defend Patsy but only because he did not want to lose favor with Lockheed Martin. The CNN interview a few days after the murder was not so much to convince America or the Boulder police of the Ramseys' innocence, but was instead orchestrated to convince the higher powers of Lockheed Martin of their innocence. For that, I am not a fan of John Ramsey."

    I disagree, but as you believe this case can't be solved without a certain degree of behavioural analysis, I am posting the following link and would be very interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

    http://www.lsiscan.com/ramsey_s_t_v__interview.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I strongly believe in this sort of analysis, but I also understand why Doc is suspicious of it. It requires resolute intellectual honesty lest one unwittingly begins to flirt with confirmation bias.

      The points that stand out most to me are numbers four and five. More than once in interviews, John expresses an interest in knowing "why" or, "how" such a "monster" could do this to such an innocent little girl. The trick, here, to avoid confirmation bias, is to put yourself in John's shoes and imagine yourself saying the same thing. I can't. If it had been my daughter, not only would I have implicitly understood sexual abuse as the motivating factor, I probably would have, in my mind, and out of anger, over-exaggerated the degree of it that took place based upon what the appertaining evidence suggested. Why? Because I'd be hellbent on finding out WHO the pervert was so that I might have a 'word or two alone with him' before handing him over to the police!

      "But the thing to remember about her..." caught my attention distinctly the first time I heard John say it, which was long before I read this article. I summarily dismissed it a) knowing I already believed John was guilty and 2) having learned from Doc that, in this business, one has to be extra-careful to avoid confirmation bias. Now that this apparent expert brings it up, I feel more comfortable talking about it.

      What a strange thing to implore someone to remember about your daughter, especially someone like John who is as stone-faced and expressionless as they come. Then there's the "uh" that precedes the "if I would frown". Uhh...John? Were there any other expressions or looks on your face JonBenet didn't "like"? Ones that perhaps a little girl, at the prepubescent age of six, was emotionally unprepared to understand and physically unable to respond to non-verbally? This segues perfectly to a question I have.

      The authors says the following:

      "I would recommend to start the follow-up interview with the following question:"

      'I have inside knowledge that you might have been abused in childhood, and quite likely sexual abuse. How do you relate to it?'

      "Please be on alert to the fact that the subject might answer with a question. In any case, the subject should not be told the source of the information!!!"

      Who is this author/behavioral analyst and who is he speaking to? Is is referring to John as the person to receive a follow-up interview? If so, was anyone else aware of rumors that he might have been sexually molested as a child?

      This would be extremely significant if true.

      Mike G.



      Delete
    2. Despite the fact that this person suspects John, as I do, I can't agree that this type of seat of the pants psychological profiling is meaningful. Truly scientific studies HAVE been conducted, by the FBI for example, based on statistics regarding the use of certain types of expression by people known to have lied, so it IS possible to say that, for example, a certain type of expression has been used by, say, 75% of known liars. But what about the other 25% of cases, where it was used by people known to have been telling the truth.

      Profiling of this sort is useful at the early stages of an investigation, where one is looking for potential suspects. But it is no use at all for determining guilt or innocence and I would not be surprised to learn that the great majority of judges would not admit it into courtroom testimony.

      Delete
    3. No, I agree with both of you. I've never put too much stock into this kind of profiling, as you probably have gathered by previous comments. The reason I posted the link for Hercule specifically is because, if behavioural profiling/statement analysis/body language analysis is key to this investigation - as he has stated he believes is the case - then he surely must concede that John sexually abused his daughter, which certainly gives him a much more powerful motive than Patsy to kill his daughter. Then, of course, the clear deception he shows when being asked relatively innocuous questions that wouldn't elicit deceptive responses from an innocent party, further points to his involvement.
      My point is, expert opinion (if one is to subscribe to this kind of analysis) tells us that John Ramsey sexually abused his child, so Hercule's PDI position surely is only weakened, rather than enforced, if he accepts the behavioural analysis he says is key to solving the case.

      Delete
    4. I don't disagree with anything said. If profiling does nothing else but convince investigators to focus on the right suspect, it is useful. John was, of course, a suspect in the early stages of the investigation, but not, so far as I know, by virtue of any behavioral/statement analysis of the sort Ms D posted. Now, twenty years on, even with the recent findings, comments from Stan Garrett, and new tests being conducted on the DNA, no one knows for certain how much John has been "ruled back in" as a prime suspect. Twenty years of accumulated interviews, depositions, statements, letters, and books by the Ramsey's are eighteen or nineteen more years of the same than what was available in the "early days of the investigation"(many of which were spent by the Ramsey's hiding behind lawyers). In this respect, I have to disagree Doc. Who knows for sure whether it might not be some verbal or behavioral quirk of John's, observed by one or more influential investigators assigned to the case, that triggers a reconsideration of him as the likely writer of the ransom note? Behavioral/statement analysis, unlike investigating some "intruder", isn't a sideways distraction. It's something anyone can do to become a better detective/interrogator in their spare time.

      Mike G

      Delete
    5. JR's lip-licking habit really bothers me. I would not want to be in a room alone with that guy.

      Delete
  23. Btw, added a new pic on my page. At top. It's a slightly enhanced version.

    So can anyone comment on it?

    diamondLil, since you had a strong opinion last time, I was wondering what you think.

    Does this pic still look like some infrared splotch, a dog, a person, or something else?

    And what makes you think what you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And don't forget to click on pic to enlarge it, so you can see it better.

      Delete
    2. Skimmed over the page Ms. D. I think there is something to it.

      JR seemed formal when speaking about his daughter.

      Also this:

      "One should notice that the overwhelming majority of parents suspected of child abuse (including sexual abuse) relate to their children either by first name or by the gender/sex. "

      I don't know if that's true. But it makes sense. And the Ramseys did it there.

      Delete
    3. You adulterated the pic SC. You must already know who was in the vehicle. Since you did not just blow up the car interior, you added your outlines, then people will see the outlines that you manipulated. I did enlarge the orig pic the first time, along with your choice of outlines.
      Facts not in evidence.

      Delete
    4. Yes true I added some outlines. But the wide shot in the car has few outlines.

      In the wide shot, I added some outlines around the outer edges, because it is not clear there.

      Those outlines will have to be explained later through more testimony. For instance, you take a face reconstruction, and you look at the ear lobe. And then you can guess, that from the side, the back of the neck and the back of the hat, is in line with the earlobe. And that is how you got the back lines there. So you would have to demo that.

      Also, I have other pic versions, where you can see the hat outlines better, but then the face area is too dark. So I would have to take the other pic versions, and use the hatline and shoulder lines from that, and combine it with the first version, to draw in the hatline and shoulder line.

      So that is why I drew the outlines there, because you just to assume the lines are there for now, until those are explained.

      But actually, really the hat outline and the shoulder outline is not the most important part of the pic.

      The most important part is the face area. And I think it's pretty clear there is a beard there.

      I drew in some outlines, but I also have some pic versions below, without all the lines there. Unless you are color blind, I think you can tell the difference between the line of reddish skin tone, and the black of the beard. I think that is a pretty clear line there.

      But first, you have to get people to admit that there is a human driving the car. And for some reason, people do not want to do that.

      Delete
    5. Okay, I just added a new face pic at top. The second pic, Pic 2, is a slightly enhanced version of the first pic, Pic Orig.

      I touched up Pic 2 a bit. I lightened the ear area, and darkened the hat and eyes a touch, etc.

      If you make different pic versions of this pic, you can either lighten it, or darken it. If you lighten it, you see the earlobe better, if you darken it, you can see the hat and eyes better. But you can't see it all on one version.

      So I just combined the best feature versions, onto one pic version, Pic 2. I call it a "combo brightness" version.

      Really though, I don't think the versions look 'too' different. Any opinions, on if enhancing the picture is cheating? Don't forget, all the enhancements would be transparent and explained.

      Delete
    6. SC, at this point I think you need to explain what you're getting at with these images and what relevance they might have to the Ramsey case. If they have no relevance to our discussion I'm going to have to delete any future posts on this topic, sorry.

      Delete
  24. Also Ms. D, I was wondering why you said before you could tell nothing from my pics. And then later on, when I told you what a friend of the family said, (about that larger wide shot pic of car), then you said like, yes of course I also can tell it is a car with a driver.

    Why didn't you just say that at first? If I ask, what does this look like to you, why did you say that it didn't look like anything to you. But in fact, it actually DID look like something to you, because you admitted that later.

    As you can see, as with DiamondLil, not everyone agrees that that looks like a car with a driver. They want to think it is an infrared spot or a dog or something.

    So that is why I asked that question. Because the image does not look the same to everyone. So I just wanted some general thoughts first. But for some reason, people don't want to say what they think about it. They want to hide what they think about it. And that is odd to me.

    So I was wondering why you did that, to get insight on why other people do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be looking for. There was already an outline of a driver drawn in, so I presumed I was supposed to be looking for something else, and I didn't know what that was, so I said to you "I'm sorry, but I know what I'm supposed to be looking for", but never said I didn't see anything. I didn't even know why we were looking at it at the time, because you hadn't given us any information.

      Delete
    2. Well yes, I did draw in some outline in that one pic. But it was just around the edge. Just a big curve really. I explain right above here, why I did that. I wanted to give people a little help.

      I don't know, it's just funny how everyone has a different interpretation of that picture.

      I think to get people to see it, I would have to really sit down and explain it to them. Like point out each feature and explain how I drew it.

      I tried that before and had some luck with that.

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

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

      Delete
  25. Lil, your link Jan. 14 7 p.m. of the Gallery Shakedown pictures also had a copy of Officer French's statement when he arrived at the Ramsey home, what he asked, what was answered and what he observed. I was wondering your thoughts or anyone else's, assuming this typed Officer French report is accurate, on the following points:

    1) (quoting French) "I spoke with Mr and Mrs. Ramsey while Burke continued to sleep. Ms. Ramsey told me that she had gone into JonBenet's room at about 0545 hours to wake her in preparation for a short trip the family was to take later that day. She found JonBenet's room empty and then discovered the note as she walked down the stairs. She immediately called the police."

    I thought Patsy went downstairs first, stepped on or over the note, turned to read it, and then frantically went to check JB's room.

    2) Officer French questions John who states JB was put to bed in a red turtle neck sweater and white longjohns. So this is now consistent once again with what Hercule said, about a balled up wet red turtle neck in the sink and not as Patsy had stated that she only changed JB out of the leggings and into the longjohns and left the white sweater on her, then never saw her again.

    3) John also says in Officer French's statement that he read to both children before bed. I remember this 20 years ago, and how that particular statement changed from John from reading to them to not reading to them.

    It seems to me Officer French's statement would be the most accurate account, since he was first on the scene, and not how the Ramsey's recount it later. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While not all police statements are completely accurate, to me it just shows from the beginning how many inconsistancies, denial, conflicting stories, etc. was happening.

      Delete
  26. Inq, yes your number could be explained as Patsy just be stressed and didn't realize that she was getting the event order incorrectly.
    However John later states that Patsy put JBR to bed and he did not see what she was wearing. So him saying the red turtleneck is a red flag. If she went to the party in the white star shirt how would he even know that the red turtleneck was in the equation from the earlier rift with Patsy over wearing the matching outfits.

    Your third point about reading... in his later interview from 1997 he recants and says he read to himself and not to the children.This to me is another thing JR can't explain. I would like to ask Burke if he remembers what or if his father read to him. I think if he did that would prove a lot about Johns lies from the start.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Correction on first sentence...should read your first point.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks Kath. If JR says JB was put to bed in a red turtle neck and white longjohns, and Patsy was the one to not necessarily carry her to bed but get her ready for sleep, she may have wanted to take her out of a scratchy sweater, her velveteen leggings, and into a red turtle neck and white longjohns, which if she wet or soiled the bed, could have gotten the turtle neck top wet - accounting for it in the sink. Changing her into the white sweater would have happened after that happened.

    To me John is still doing the lying to cover for Patsy. If JB is found dead in the white sweater he would want LE to know that as far as he knew at no point in the evening did Patsy have anything to do with changing her sweater in the first place. So he later says he carried her to bed, in that white sweater, and that's all he knows. The French statement is likely the truthful one, that John saw her in the red turtle neck top and white johns after Patsy dressed her that way. She admits to changing her tights, but she doesn't want to admit to putting her in the red top - because that would tie her to the reason it was changed back to the sweater. Over time both J and P changed their stories to synchronize them as best they could.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I tried to find Doc's discussion on the red shirt but I couldn't find it on the blog. I remember it being a good read.

    To me the red turtleneck says that JR would not have known about it unless he was the one that changed her clothes. French certainly would not have been mistaken on who said what. He ,(French), would have just written down what was told to him and by who.

    The red turtleneck points to JDI. Which I am certainly a JDI.


    The only thing that concerns me on this is Patsy knowing that she put JBR to bed in red turtleneck but she was found in white star shirt. Patsy had said she put her to bed in white star so once again why lie to cover JR? So which was it? Red or white?

    If as PR states which is white...how would JR even be aware that there was a"red turtleneck"?

    Sorry I know what I am trying to say is confusing and only muddies the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was Patsy ("Ms. Ramsey" per officer French) that said JB was put to bed wearing a red turtleneck and white long johns.

      I always thought this was strange because if your daughter is missing, you are FOR SURE going to give the officer a correct description of what she had on, RIGHT? This could point to PR's innocence since she was obviously unaware, at that time, JB was going to be found in the white shirt with the star on it.

      JB could have gotten up for whatever reason and changed back into her white shirt with the star on it --- remember she refused to wear that red turtleneck to the Xmas party.

      While French's report lacked a lot of details, it appears he did complete his official report on the 26th (vs. Ardnt who did her's sometime in January). So, details should have been very fresh in his mind.

      Later, Patsy does say she put her to bed in the white shirt -- not sure why she would change her story.

      Also not sure why she would change her story of going to JB's room first "to wake her up," and then went down the stairs and found the note. Again, this had just happened, so it should be fresh in ones' mind.

      Danni

      Delete
    2. Patsy changing her story about when she went to JBR's room is consistent with my theory that both John and Patsy (and probably Burke as well) lied about exactly what happened prior to the 911 call. I think there might well have been some discussion, if not an argument, regarding whether or not to call the police, and John later manipulated Patsy into going along with a simpler version that sounded less suspicious and made him the one who told her to call.

      Patsy's change of story regarding the red turtleneck vs. the white top is not so easy to explain. That truly puzzles me, though I can't see what she would have had to gain by deliberately lying about that. If she'd put her to bed in the turtleneck and she was later found in a different top, then it could be assumed she'd been changed by her attacker. Or changed herself prior to the attack. So why would Patsy try to lie about that? I see no reason for John to lie either. Thanks for picking up on that discrepancy, which I'd forgotten about. French's report can be found in Woodward's book, by the way.

      Delete
    3. The Whites party photos from that day, that the public hasn't seen, will show what she and possibly the whole family was wearing. I highly doubt an intruder would change the victims's clothing, leaving both articles there. If worried about leaving their evidence on an item, then take it away from the crime scene.
      Patsy had a lot to do still for that trip, and yet told LE about some spot she was pre-treating on a garment. Guess it boils down to priorities. Not having the children straighten their rooms before leaving on a trip, leaving food and dirty dishes out overnight, other living areas messy. An old broken window and yet leave all that for a Michigan trip and a Disney cruise.

      Delete
  30. That moment when you say almost exactly the same things as the post to above, but when you say it you get accused by Doc of being repetitive and saying nothing new. smh

    One thing we all can agree on (I think) is that the John and Patsy got home from the party with 2 sleeping children that they put to bed shortly after 9pm. Everybody with me so far? Now THIS is where the Doc theory goes into absolute speculation and fantasy. Everything else is fabricated and I guess we could say that goes for all theories. The difference is that Burke tells Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs after being put to bed. We have Burke's pineapple bowl on the table and we know JB ate pineapple. If you dont like me bringing this up again I really don't care. It is much more logical that JB heard BR playing, went downstairs to see what he was doing and ate pineapple. Around this time is when she would HAD to have been killed. Any JDI needs to explain him getting her out of bed for some sex game or any variety of reason, none of which is very logical. Stop getting so caught up in the shirt fibers or anything else that points to John involved in the STAGING process. John is included in the Burke theory because he helped stage.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J, I thought about you and the pineapple again today. And since we have so much speculating going on here, my self included, if you can acknowledge that:

      a. yes there was a bowl of pineapple on the counter with a large spoon in it with Burke and Patsy's fingerprint on the bowl and

      b. there is a glass next to it with a teabag in it with Burke's fingerprint on the glass

      but that you have no idea when those items were put on the counter (or table)then you can no longer use those items to show that Burke was downstairs at the same time JB was when she would have taken a piece of pineapple - then we can eliminate the whole pineapple query and move on. I'm being respectful of you I hope you know. Granted the ME said fruit was found in her small intestine consistent with pineapple, but you can't say Burke was also eating pineapple when she was downstairs.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Inquisitive, I agree. So, J, what is it about my theory that "goes into absolute speculation and fantasy"? Sounds to me like you're the one who does that.

      Delete
    3. J-Burke getting up could mean nothing. He admits to getting up and playing with a toy. He probably got tired and just went back to bed soon there after.

      So why would he admit to getting up if that's when he either one overheard something or did the actual head blow. Sounds to me as just a little boy who was still intrigued with his Christmas presents.

      Delete
    4. It's the 20 years of the family saying all went to bed and no one got up or heard anything. Then on Dr Phil he says he got up and John put him back to bed...so with the time frame of when the ME thinks the injuries and death occurred to the family and attorneys and Smit, Lacy, etc saying the Intruder was in the home is too darn hinky to me.

      Delete
    5. Lil- I missed the 3rd Dr. Phil show. Did Burke actually say that John put him back in bed later that night?

      I do remember the talk about earlier John and Burke working on putting together some toy but the getting up later... I thought Burke said he snuck out of bed while everyone was asleep. Not that JR put him back in bed.
      ???

      Delete
    6. One or more of the three, John, Burke, Dr Phil, mentioned John putting him *back* to bed, with the flashlight. Of course Lin Wood also talked but can't recall if he put in his two cents. It made some discuss -then did John leave the flashlight upstairs in Burke's room then go to bed? Or go back downstairs to leave the flashlight, or did Burke get up yet again and use the flashlight?, but, no one is claiming *that* flashlight in the police photos, sigh. But discussion on this on topix and I likely have a few links on my thread on the corner.

      Delete
    7. "Any JDI needs to explain him getting her out of bed for some sex game or any variety of reason, none of which is very logical."

      Actually, if John Ramsey was sexually abusing JonBenet - which JDIs assert is the case, and there is evidence to support such an assertion - this is the, single, most logical scenario.

      Theory A: Father abuses his sexualized, six year old daughter, fears he is about to be exposed, decides to silence her in order to protect his reputation, along with his billion dollar business and - most importantly - avoid a lengthy prison sentence.

      Theory B: Nine year old son is incensed his six year old sister removed a piece of pineapple from his bowl (or any other scenario - why he clobbered her isn't necessarily important - he was majorly pissed at her, clearly), mortally wounds her with a whack to the head, prods her with a toy train track to see if she'll wake up - she doesn't, so he fashions a garrote-like device around her neck, twists it until she is dead - then his parents feel bad for *him* so write a phony ransom note. All the while, not one single child psychologist or investigator detects any signs of deception or pathology from him and he grows up without any further incident (He's clearly more of a criminal mastermind at nine years old than you accuse us of believing John is - which isn't true, by the way. John was just lucky)

      Who would have had the most to gain by silencing up JB forever?
      Is it in any way conceivable that Burke wrote the ransom note?
      How often does an adult, male abuser murder his victim vs a nine year old murdering a sibling and have the parents stage an elaborate cover up?

      Delete
    8. "Any JDI (theory) needs to explain him getting her out of bed for some sex game or any variety of reason, none of which is very logical."

      John got JonBenet out of bed perhaps for some sex game that went wrong, or to kill her to keep her quiet about previous sex games he had had with her.

      There---that explains it. And it's logical in light of the fact that JonBenet had been sexually abused, there were no signs of an intruder, and Patsy wouldn't have called 911 if she had written the ransom note.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5afabDb2ZdA

      Good night all.

      Mike G

      Delete
    9. First off, if a certain poster continues on this site I am out for good. I want nothing to do with that nonsense.

      No, its NOT logical actually. A) you dont have ANY proof whatsoever that IF she was being abused it was by JR. If you are going to send me stats on the male figure in the house , I DO NOT CARE TO SEE IT. It doesn't apply to this case

      B) Burke said he was up after being put to bed. Why does he admit to this? I don't know..Im not awkward and weird like Burke. SO, if the kids are put to bed at lets say 9:20 pm and he goes downstairs to play with toys and enjoy a snack, where does that put the timeline? Burke would be downstairs until at least 10:15-10:30 at MINIMUM. SO, now all of your logic tells you that John Ramsey waits around the corner for Burke to not only go upstairs, but go to bed. Then that is when he sneaks into her room so he can abuse her, kill her and stage the house? I guess our definition of logic differs greatly

      What is LOGICAL is that Burke snuck downstairs because he said he did. He played with toys, got out the bowl of pineapple. Added milk, sat down for a snack and a half asleep JB wakes up, goes into Burke's room to see him not there as we know they slept in the same room on occasion. She goes downstairs looking for Burke and something happens that leads to a head blow. BDI has the pineapple bowl on the table. BDI has JB's pillow on the kitchen counter and BDI has Burke ADMITTING to being downstairs after we were originally told he was.

      Where JDI goes from reality to pure speculation is when the parents put both kids to bed after the party. Pause the tape because you have ZERO actual evidence to say how or why JB came downstairs. With Burke being out of bed, John would not have risked getting her out of bed to abuse and murder her when Burke could EASILY have heard anything.

      -J

      Delete
    10. Ms D- To say this murder was intentional to silence her is also pure fantasy and speculation. Not a single person has EVER come forward to say JB said anything to anybody about abuse. Nobody has ever come forward to say they saw any signs whatsoever that she was being abused. Patsy never said a word about it, so the "silence her" narrative was created by Doc without any evidence of any kind.

      -J

      Delete
    11. I'm to blame for the abuse motive, J, based on the findings of the six medical experts in 1997. You can hang premeditation on me as well, based on Patsy's three after hours calls to the pediatrician on 12/17.
      CC

      Delete
    12. Hey CC - My point wasn't on the possibility of abuse. It's more that A) no way to know who was abusing her and B) no proof to say she was about to spill the beans or already had. Therefore very hard to conclude there was a motivation to shut her up.

      -J

      Delete
    13. I agree with your (A), but think Patsy was about to have Dr Beuf do a thorough exam, including a pelvic, to determine the cause of the continuing vaginitis. He would have discovered and reported the sexual abuse rather than JBR spilling any beans.
      CC

      Delete
    14. Doc is certainly not the one who "created" the sexual abuse "narrative", that is preposterous. How much research have you done into the case? How many forums do you visit? How many articles have you read? Clearly not enough if you think Doc and the JDIs on this blog are the only ones who believe John Ramsey was sexually abusing JB.
      One more thing, I like the way you end your theory whilst it's still logical - the pineapple, the milk, JB going downstairs, a blow to the head...all reasonable. Then your version of events conveniently end. You only offered us half of the story (the plausible part) but, as usual, omitted the rest (the part where it loses any credibility it might have had) as most BDIs do, and for good reason. Because after the alleged blow to the head, your theory becomes so convoluted and implausible, that it requires a complete suspension of disbelief in order to buy it. You know Burke didn't write the ransom note, and the logical inference to draw, going by the contents of the note alone, is that the writer of the note and the killer are one and the same.
      The rest of your comment I'm not going to cover again, at the risk of being repetitious.

      Delete
    15. I posted the above comment before you - J, and CC - posted your last three comments. My response was to J's earlier comment.

      Delete
    16. That's fair...better explanation than her ratting him out. Then that brings me back to this problem.....IF he wasn't as concerned about JB talking, but more concerned about her body being found, then why does he ever let the 911 call happen? I am not saying this to go in circles, but imo, he would have been the one to find the note so he could control Patsy. He isn't leaving it up to chance that she believes his War and Peace RN.

      -J

      Delete
    17. Ms D - Because you can't read clearly, doesn't mean you have to be upset with me. I never said Doc started the abuse narrative. I said Doc started the "SILENCE HER" narrative. Even though JB never said a word to anybody that we know of, JR just had to shut her up. CC's point about her going to the doctor checkup and it being found out makes way more sense. Doc talked about JB going to the party in Michigan and telling somebody. Thats what I was talking about

      -J

      Delete
    18. He may have intended to "find" the note. He told LE the alarm was on his side of the bed, but he woke before it went off and showered. I'm sure he felt he needed the shower if he spent the night as we JDIs think, but it could have cost him had the BPD not been so inept.
      CC

      Delete
    19. Oh, I can read just fine, thanks, J. I never said JB was going to tell anyone - I too believe it was the impending pelvic exam that had him worried. By "silencing her", I mean eliminating her. Shutting her up....there's no need to argue semantics. But perhaps John was worried she'd talk....the fact she hadn't until that point means nothing - maybe he'd only been abusing her for a few weeks, maybe she told him she was going to tell mommy. Who knows? The fact is, sexual abuse is one of the most common motives for murder, not a piece of stolen fruit.

      "So the "silence her" narrative was created by Doc without any evidence of any kind."

      Without any evidence? Yep....o.k then. If you don't accept the several medical experts reports, then yes, there's no evidence, *sigh*. Of course, your scenario has an abundance of evidence to support it.....fingerprints on a bowl that may or may not have been used that night.

      Delete
    20. I think we're all a little unnerved by someone else's recent postings. Frankly, even the pineapple bowl looks good to me right now.
      CC

      Delete
    21. That's true, CC!
      It's no secret that J's damn pineapple annoys the hell out of me, But I've got nothing against the guy....I even kind of enjoy his comments sometimes, but don't tell him! :D

      Delete
    22. Nah, Im starting to come around that the Ramseys had breakfast that morning and cleaned up everything except for a bowl of pineapple and a glass. They are just so darn unlucky that only Burke and Patsy’s fingerprints were on the bowl and JB ate a piece of pineapple shortly before she was murdered. I mean, they are just sooooooooooooooooo unlucky and could use a course on how to clean properly. I wish I could go back and say to silly Patsy “Make sure to clean up that bowl of pineapple off the table that’s sitting in milk….you know milk was spoil Pats!” If only I could go back and tell her……

      -J

      Delete
    23. I like him too, and fondly remember when he was a JDI. It'll be our secret.
      CC

      Delete
    24. Great Ms D - I just unloaded a whole lot of sarcasm heading your way only to see you say something nice about me. I hope this goes without saying, but it truly is never personal on any attacks on this site. We are all passionate about our theories of this case.

      -J

      Delete
    25. CC - yes, I was a JDI for a few years on this site. Nobody's perfect :-)

      -J

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

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

      Delete
    28. Haha, J, I know it's nothing personal. Likewise. And I do enjoy shit-stirring you, and I'm sure it's mutual. ;)

      But......and there's always a "but".....no one said Patsy missed the bowl when she cleared up after breakfast, and sorry, but you know this is true, because we've offered an alternative many times now. But here goes again: Burke may have helped himself to that pineapple somewhere between breakfast and leaving for The Whites, and there is nothing unusual about that at all. Kids prepare snacks and don't eat them.....do you have kids? As Patsy had put that bowl away earlier that morning, her print were on it.
      I am genuinely asking you - what is the problem with this scenario?

      Delete
    29. *Prints......damn this blog for having no "edit" option!!!

      Delete
    30. There is really nothing wrong with any scenario including the one you said above. I will argue that the most logical scenario is that it was taken out that night. Had JB taken a piece of pineapple out that had been sitting out since earlier that day, I can't imagine it would have tasted good at all. Yes I have kids...if a cracker snack is taken out, it has gone unnoticed and not cleaned till the following day. I will say that a fruit snack or anything with milk generally speaking gets thrown out quickly after eating. Of course there are always exceptions.....yes fruit has been left out that I forgot to throw away. The catch in this case is that JB ate a piece shortly before being bludgeoned over the head and the pineapple bowl was still out the next day because neither John or Patsy was aware of it.

      I know this topic has been gone over and over....you aren't going to budge and I'm clearly not going to budge. If it wasn't for Burke's reaction on the interrogation tape to that bowl I might look at it differently, but that just wasn't an innocent reaction when you couple it with his fingerprints being on the bowl.

      -J

      Delete
  31. You know what's funny though, you all. People really seem to love dead females.

    But if you are a 'live' female facing problems of violence, no one gives a shit about you.

    Take if from me, I know.

    It's funny how people investigate murders, and we have this blog here for years, with everyone dissecting all the tiny bits of evidence, but no one will give me the time of day, to prevent MY murder.

    And I have seen in this in my own life. Too. No one gives a crap if you live or die. But after you are dead, ohh, she was so wonderful, let's solve her murder, let's discuss this for 20 years.

    That shows, that the only good women to most people, is a dead woman.

    Sad but true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you talk to people in your life like you write to us here calling them stupid idiots and fools I can see why.

      Delete
    2. Nice. Because I don't agree with "the theory", you want me to die.

      But after I am dead, you all will be like, oh, she was so wonderful, let's discuss her murder, 24/7 all day long for 20 years.

      My point stands. The only good female to most people is a dead female.

      A dead female cannot speak her own mind and act like a real person, she becomes whatever you want her to be. That's why people like dead women.

      Delete
    3. SC, sorry you are having a bad day. There are tons of people who care, you just have to look in the right places. Without us women, this world would most surely come to an end.

      Danni

      Delete
    4. Yes, I can see all the great support I am getting on these pics. The tons of responses are overwhelming.

      It brings me back to my point, the only good female is a dead female.

      I am sure the Ramseys felt the same way. Especially PR. After their daughter was dead, oh our beloved daughter, she was so wonderful. Because now they did not have to deal with her wetting the bed and her mouthing off.

      That's how it is. Your worth as a female is increased by death.

      Delete
    5. SC, if you feel threatened you need to contact the police. Or hire a PD. There's certainly nothing we can do to protect you. And by the way you're posts are getting increasingly irrelevant. More of same and I'll have to delete them, sorry.

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

      Delete
    7. Dismissive and uncalled for.

      Delete
    8. SC, how can you not see that your comments about people here "loving murdered women" is not in the least bit disturbing and highly offensive?! It is inaccurate to the extreme, uncalled for, and in all honesty, it sounds very unbalanced. Do you see any other comments by anyone here that are remotely in the same vein?

      Your comment,"Because I don't agree with "the theory", you want me to die" is the single most offensive thing I have ever read on any blog. What a horrible thing to say to anyone, more so people who have never even implied such a thing, and actually do care about your well being. Disagreeing is one thing - wishing death is another. I am worried about how you came to such a conclusion.

      We can all get a little heated, a little ugly (well, maybe not all of us, but some of us - myself included, certainly, and I'm the first to admit it), but this kind of talk about wanting women dead is not normal, and it is vile. I'm a woman and I don't believe "the only good female is a dead female" and that you would even claim such a thing from people who are seeking justice for a young girl who was murdered defies comprehension.
      You're trying to turn a public blog into a personal diary with these kinds of statements.

      BUT, at least we now have a little bit of insight into what might be going on in your life, and as a survivor of sexual abuse (which may or may not be the case with you, I'm only going by your last few comments), I wish to tell you that we DO care. That we argue about the details of the JBR case has NOTHING to do with our level of empathy for anyone who might be suffering. Let me ask you: when you have said hurtful things to others here, have you ever considered they might be going through a tough time also? I doubt you have - and the reason for that is because this is a crime blog where people willingly put their theories forward and invite rebuttals. It is not a self help group, and I don't say that in a way that is intended to come off as harsh, I'm simply saying this space was only designed for the public to bounce ideas off of each other, and that means, obviously, we're not all going to agree. You may be a victim in real life - and if you are, I sincerely implore you to reach out for help - but you are not a "victim" here than anyone else. You are but one of many posters who people don't agree with, and you have certainly given every bit as good as you've gotten - don't forget that.

      Let this be a lesson to ALL of us - you and myself included, SC - that behind the comment on the screen is a very real person, one who wants respect and understanding. You can't expect to receive respect if you don't give it in return, and I am certainly going to try to be more aware of that from now on.

      I truly wish you the best, SC. No one here dislikes you and I can PROMISE you, no one here wants you dead!!!

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  33. Regarding Ms D's post on:
    http://www.lsiscan.com/ramsey_s_t_v__interview.htm
    (great find Ms D!)

    I strongly believe in this sort of analysis, but I also understand why Doc is suspicious of it. It requires resolute intellectual honesty lest one unwittingly begins to flirt with confirmation bias.

    The points that stand out most to me are numbers four and five. More than once in interviews, John expresses an interest in knowing "why" or, "how" such a "monster" could do this to such an innocent little girl. The trick, here, to avoid confirmation bias, is to put yourself in John's shoes and imagine yourself saying the same thing. I can't. If it had been my daughter, not only would I have implicitly understood sexual abuse as the motivating factor, I probably would have, in my mind, and out of anger, over-exaggerated the degree of it that took place based upon what the appertaining evidence suggested. Why? Because I'd be hellbent on finding out WHO the pervert was so that I might have a 'word or two alone with him' before handing him over to the police!

    "But the thing to remember about her..." caught my attention distinctly the first time I heard John say it, which was long before I read this article. I summarily dismissed it a) knowing I already believed John was guilty and 2) having learned from Doc that, in this business, one has to be extra-careful to avoid confirmation bias. Now that this apparent expert brings it up, I feel more comfortable talking about it.

    What a strange thing to implore someone to remember about your daughter, especially someone like John who is as stone-faced and expressionless as they come. Then there's the "uh" that precedes the "if I would frown". Uhh...John? Were there any other expressions or looks on your face JonBenet didn't "like"? Ones that perhaps a little girl, at the prepubescent age of six, was emotionally unprepared to understand and physically unable to respond to? This segues perfectly to some questions I have.

    The authors says the following:

    "I would recommend to start the follow-up interview with the following question:"

    'I have inside knowledge that you might have been abused in childhood, and quite likely sexual abuse. How do you relate to it?'

    "Please be on alert to the fact that the subject might answer with a question. In any case, the subject should not be told the source of the information!!!"

    Who is this author/behavioral analyst and who is he speaking to? Is is referring to John as the person to receive a follow-up interview? If so, was anyone else aware of rumors that he might have been sexually molested as a child?

    This would be extremely significant if true.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  34. SC- if you are indeed in a situation that is violent then please get out of it.

    BTW,dead females,have nothing to do with your treatment on this blog. I think I speak for all if not most on this blog...that we really do want justice for JBR.

    We take this blog seriously and like to have "adult" thoughts and conversations on here.
    If you feel everyone is picking on you then you have to think to yourself why.
    And there are those that care about you and do not want to see you in trouble and if you are seek help.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I know this has been said before, but it bears repeating.

    The sole reason I do not believe either one of the Ramseys, or both of them, covered for an accidental death, inflicted by EITHER Burke or Patsy, is that I think LOGIC tells us that a parent (especially Patsy) would immediately call 911, with the hopes of resuscitating their beloved child. Furthermore, I do not believe either parent would be capable of such horrendous staging to protect their son. Why would it be necessary? And intruder could just as easily strangle her without a garrote and leave her body out in the open.

    Now some would be quick to say that if either parent could not go through with such disturbing staging, then how could JR do it if he is guilty? Well I guess you would have to first believe that JR was abusing JonBenet. If he could do that to his own daughter, I believe he would easily be able to stage her body and scene in order to protect himself. Let's face it . . . you are crossing a huge line when you abuse your own child. What's going a little farther to protect yourself??


    bb

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. SC- I am not sure why you are being a smart*** about me making a suggestion to get help. I could have ignored your comment all together.
    If you have no friends or family to go to for help then reach out to an agency. Google the ones in your area. They will help you.
    And I do care about your safety and I dont know you other than this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No you did not understand my comment. My friends and family are in denial. As are all official agencies as well. They do not care. They get scared hearing about it. They don't want to think about it. They want to think it doesn't mean anything.

      They also don't want to look at these pictures. No one will even talk about them.

      That is a universal human reaction. Whether it friends, family, women's groups. Strangers online. No one wants to hear about it.

      My theory is, everyone has some bizarre fear, some basic primal fear, that somehow 'they' will be targeted if they 'get involved'. That even applies to online strangers. It's just some weird basic human instinct.

      And, again to tie this to JBR, it is the same in child sex abuse. I have not been in that situation, but I had read many testimonies of people who have. Usually the child tells, and no one believes her. Or they pretend they don't.

      Perhaps in this case, we have Fleet White, who maybe was the only guy with enough courage to say something to JR. And as a result, JBR was dead by that night.

      Delete
    2. SC, if you feel threatened by someone and would like to share the details, I invite you to email me about your situation. But posting here as you are now doing is inappropriate and irrelevant to the topic of this blog and I will have to delete such posts.

      Delete
    3. I agree. I came back and wth? Wow, getting way off topic. Perhaps all the meltdown entries should be removed. I'll be cheering the Chiefs on later tonight, so hopefully things will calm down when I come back to read.

      Delete
    4. Steelers just won. Sorry about that. :-)

      Delete
    5. Kathy is trying to be supportive, SC. Geez.....it seems we're damned if we do, damned if we don't!
      What is it you want from us? Articulating yourself in regards as to what it is you expect from the people here, rather than your unfounded beliefs that we want to see you harmed, will certainly shed some light on how we're failing you.

      Delete
    6. Doc G, yes, bummer that my Tide lost the National Championship and now my Chiefies won't get to be in the Super Bowl and then the Greatest Show on Earth is ending...what a week. First world problems, grumble.

      Delete
  38. And to tie my situation back to JBR, it is possible JBR was talking a little too much about what was happening to her. And as a result, her life was ended shortly afterwards. And like is often the case in these situations, she probably did not get any support, from even her mother.

    Burke on the other hand, kept his mouth shut for many years, and he is still hale and hearty today.

    That is kind of what I find in my situation. People do not want to hear about it. They do not want you to talk about it. And if you do talk about it, they are going to take it out, on 'you'. That is how much people care. And that includes both men and women. In fact, women even more actually.

    We are not as advanced in our regard to our value of women and girls as we think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on Sc, it's not that we "don't want to talk about it". It's just that this is crime blog, not a therapy group. Surely you can understand that?

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  40. This from Steve Thomas's book:

    "JonBenet had fallen asleep in the car on the way home, and John Ramsey carried her upstairs, where Patsy replaced the child's pants with the long-john bottoms. The white shirt with the sequin star stayed on, she said. That was the first we had heard that she was asleep and carried to bed and clothes were changed. On December 26 Patsy had told police that JonBenet went to sleep wearing the red turtleneck top, which was later found balled up on the bathroom sink. Now it was the white one in which the body was found. Inconsistent."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inconsistent, yes. Relevant? Hard to say. If Thomas had proposed some reason for her lying about red top then that comment would be more meaningful.

      Delete
    2. Some have proposed that the red turtleneck was on at the start of the assault, grabbed and twisted and that the shirt was the original source of strangulation, leaving the larger mark on neck from a person wearing a ring.

      Delete
    3. Right, Doc. And I still find it difficult to have the respect for Steve Thomas he may think he deserves, as he quit. Then he pilfered files from the office to put together a book which mainly reads like "his opinion." If he thought switching from the white sweater to the red one and then back to the white one was significant he should have proven how so. Not with just innuendo.

      Delete
    4. I've always wondered about the significance of the red vs white shirt, also. I suppose it has been proven that she did have the white shirt on at the Whites', though I've never seen the photos they say were taken there on Christmas Day.

      And Patsy is the source of that the story about the argument over the shirt, which makes me wonder how much of that is true. Why did she feel she needed to tell that?

      So did Patsy decide that on the following day, the 26th, that she and JonBenet would be dressed alike, so that is why she changed her shirt when she was asleep? Just think the little neck opening of the red turtleneck would have caused JonBenet to wake up.

      Was this the source of *that* much contention that it caused the original argument that led to the blow to the head? Or maybe the spots on the red shirt were something incriminating like blood or urine?

      GS

      Delete
  41. Doc anyway, I am done commenting on here.

    Doc obviously wrote some book on this, and he clearly has hopes to make money that way, and he will not let any other theory stand here, because he clearly doesn't want anything to blow a hole in his cash account.

    Doc's theory make little sense. Doc is basing his whole idea on the assumption that no one will call 911 with the body in the house. In fact, he calls that strong logic. That is not "logic". It is an assumption that is obviously ridiculous on its face. Because these are clearly people who staged the crime, and staging a fake kidnapping could all be part of it.

    So one cannot assume there is 'no way' 911 will be called in this situation. There are many possible explanations for someone to call 911 with the body in the house. And I and others here already listed them.

    One good possible reason being, JR knew about cadaver dogs. Doc wants to just pretend JR never knew about that. But cadaver dogs are something many educated people know about. Kind of common knowledge. And Doc has no evidence for assuming, JR did NOT know about that. Doc wants to pretend that fact away.

    Also Doc's assumption that PR would for sure not call 911 with that ransom note. Again, ridiculous on its face. And I think J has posted on that here. Anyone with any intelligence, would assume PR would call 911. It's not a TV show, it's real life. If JR didn't want PR to call 911, then like J said, JR would have taken more steps and greater care to handle the note himself.

    Also you want people to disregard the unusual way PR acted afterwards. Changing the stories, changing her testimony. Hanging up on 911, her unusually foggy memory on important details, not remembering what JBR was wearing that night, not looking thru the house that morning.

    It adds up to great suspicion on Patsy Ramsey. Anyone with half a brain can tell that.

    So conclusion, the page theory does not work. I am not saying it is not possible, anything is possible. But to assume all this stuff is "logic" is false. It is far from logic.

    And for anyone to post the truth here, they get lambasted. So no point in posting here, other than to kiss Doc's butt.

    Honestly, I first saw this blog, read it because of the anniversary. But I really came on here to get opinions on my pictures. I thought this would be a good place for that. But then I also got interested in the topic a bit. But I see online people are just as cowardly as real life people.

    And the blog is also getting tiring. So no reason to post here anymore. Maybe you guys will be here in 40 years, still typing the same thing, over and over. Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book was self-published by DocG and is $6 on Amazon. Hardly a get-rich-quick scheme. He even explains that it was an effort to summarize, in a more succinct way, all that he has written and analyzed via his blog.

      You don't know the truth, SC. If you were disingenuously here, seeking input for your pictures, then shame on you. The rest of us here to discuss how to arrive at justice for a little girl whose parent(s) beat the system because they had influence and money (and some luck).

      Delete
    2. Ahhh......the cat's out of the bag! I said only a couple of days ago that SC was not here for the same reason the rest of us were. And now, we have confirmation! Not nice, SC - and very dishonest - yet you claim to be the victim in all of this.....I agree with Anon, "shame on you".

      Delete
  42. SC, you said you are leaving here but I would like you to leave knowing that I know some of the comments directed at you were unkind. Most were kind. It's just that if you are attempting to work out some personal problems here, this isn't the place. I think you should take Doc up on his generous offer to email him privately if you have some legitimate concerns regarding your safety. This site started with a theory, which was then opened up for comment, refutation, analysis, and what have you. Anonymous has a good take putting it into context at the top of this page, and Doc had a good counter. I know I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SC,

      I agree with Inq. If I can help you in any way let Doc know what's going on and I will reach out to him.

      Peace to you SC and I truly wish you nothing but the best!

      Delete
    2. You are good eggs, her blog is open to comments so I left mine there.

      Delete
  43. Some of Sunday's posts here brings to mind comments I read on an international fragrance forum. The scent molecules are what they are, but how people's noses interpret them are varied. I laugh at the arguments and descriptions there, when the same perfume will be described as 'skanky, watermelon vomit, fresh, stale, b.o., fecal, dirty panty, aquatic, urinal cake, baby wipes, ball sack, inner tubes, cat piss...' so there is a division on just about everything under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "That is a universal human reaction. Whether it friends, family, women's groups. Strangers online. No one wants to hear about it."

    Hate to be a naysayer, but when a woman says that she has reached out to "women's groups" regarding domestic violence and wasn't believed -- well, that makes me think it's all in her head.

    Sorry.

    Moving on...

    ReplyDelete
  45. I had completely forgotten that Patsy had called into LKL during his coverage of Princess Diana's death. She equated her daughter as "America's princess". If not for a mention of this on a topix comment I wouldn't have gone searching.

    I chose these 3 links to post on my forum. Now at least I hope non one posts that Patsy was being "gaslighted" to make the call. ;)

    One of the articles also states it was Patsy that had the remodeling done in Boulder.
    https://www.google.com/amp/people.com/archive/cover-story-mystery-couple-vol-48-no-14/amp/
    I'll post the other two next

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.westword.com/news/the-princess-and-the-peons-5057814

      Delete
    2. http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/03/jonbenet.update/

      (this captcha is annoying as I have to click on those pictures every time before my posts can go thru)

      Delete
    3. I thought this was an interesting observation from the westword article:

      "Just as it was Patsy Ramsey who courted attention last week by calling Larry King--when, for perhaps the first time in eight long months, the media was focused in a completely different direction. Events that had nothing to do with JonBenet--until Patsy Ramsey made the connections--had pushed the Ramseys from the front page of the tabloids."

      GS

      Delete
    4. I had forgotten about Patsy calling in to Larry King. For those who think John was manipulating and controlling and gaslighting Patsy do you think he would have approved her going off on her own and calling the Larry King show? Looks more to me like the take charge aggressive "fix it" Patsy.

      Delete
    5. And "I love the attention. I like seeing my picture on the front of magazines"

      GS

      Delete
    6. Yep, hardly the little woman. Devious, conniving, competitive comes to mind.

      Delete
    7. agree with the both of you. She was able to have a mind of her own and take charge in areas of her life pre- and post- murder.

      Delete
    8. Straw man arguments abound, as usual.

      No one suggested Patsy was "the little woman", no one suggested she was weak. Strong minded people can be gas-lighted, especially when they feel vulnerable, unprotected and unsure. Especially when the truth is too difficult to face - even the strongest of people manage to live in denial, and you all know this to be true. These are counter claims to false arguments, making them worthless.

      Delete
  46. This will invite comment no doubt, but the red shirt/white shirt can be explained by offering up this possible scenario. Patsy had had an argument the day/night of their own Christmas party 2 days before with JB over whether she should wear a dress or not. JB ended up relenting and put on a dress. When it came to the Christmas day party at the White's again, Patsy wanted JB to dress a certain way - to wear the red turtle neck, black pants, and be a match for her own outfit. JB protested and won out by being allowed to wear the white sweater with star.

    She falls asleep in the car and is carried in to the house and put on her bed where Patsy may have changed her black pants into the white longjohns but also could have put her back in the red turtle neck top which John says he sees her in.

    Patsy may have stayed up a little later but it's possible she did go to bed. If you remember in the video taped depositions Darnay Hoffman was really trying to get John and Patsy in particular to say what Patsy usually wears to bed, which I though was peculiar, but now I see that it may be partially relevant as to whether she went to bed at all that night.

    Patsy could have awakened around midnight either to the sounds of JB being up and taking her self to the bathroom, or she got up automatically to check to make sure the bed wasn't wet. JB would have been asleep at least 3 hours after being carried in from the car and probably very awake, and could have changed herself back into the white sweater. Then gone on downstairs to perhaps wait for Santa's secret visit he promised, still being in the magical fairyland of the Christmas night. She may have refused to go back to bed, wanting instead to stay up, irritating Patsy. Patsy grabs her by the sweater neck and twists also depositing the circular abrasion on her cheek. A struggle. An unintentional blow to the head. Then panic settling into contrived coverup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything is possible. What do you think Patsy hit her with? It has already been determined that the indentation in her skull could be the flashlight or the bat. I have struggled with dressing my daughter before, but honestly, even the most frustrated mom would probably not think "oh hey, here's a flashlight, I'm going to bop her with it and then she'll cooperate." Mom's threaten, take away toys/privileges, even spank or pop the rear-end, but how many go looking for a heavy weapon of sorts to bring the kid into line? Especially a mom who Burke says never spanked or really disciplined them except to fuss at them. So, I don't find this scenario likely.

      Delete
    2. Additionally, could not John have grabbed her shirt by the neck and twisted it, while trying to force her to do something, whether it be something illicit for him, or just parental control over a conflict such as going back to bed?

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

      Delete
    4. Inq- I think that JR stating to French that he saw JBR in the red turtleneck was later corrected by lil (I think) that it was actually PR's statement. That kinda changes that situation since she later recanted.

      Probably nothing to the red/white debate unless JR had mentioned it since he wouldn't have known about the red unless he actually changed her.
      As far as PR is concerned I think that ST did make a big deal about this and used it against PR to add to make his case against Patsy.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous, I think the overall stress of the holiday season led Patsy to do something totally out of character (not that I know her character). But John planned that day after Christmas trip which he even admits in an interview that she wasn't on board for, but came around. She knew all of the preparations would fall on her. She no doubt had to do all of the preparation work - the packing, the gift purchases, the wrapping. John was the software engineer, Patsy the domestic engineer. On top of that was the birthday cruise she would have had to get ready for, not just herself, but her two children and husband. She was also in remission from cancer - alot to deal with. I too don't believe she would have struck JB in anger with the handy flashlight, nor a bat as a way to deal with whatever transpired, and honestly I can't know what transpired, but the triangular neck abrasion suggests a "burn" or twisting motion by someone who may have grabbed her around the sweater neck, the round abrasion on the cheek may have been the result of a ring on the finger as the hand is in a grab motion type fist, all of which may have precipitated a blow to the head during an altercation or the result of a shoving accident, or maybe JB grabbed the flashlight herself and Patsy took it out of her hands and it happened that way. And yep, John could have done the grabbing just as well, but the more likely candidate for having her stress level elevated, is P. This is all IMO. I'm willing to let go of the idea Patsy was up all night however. It's possible she had gone to bed prior to the midnight hour, but JB had to have gotten up because of the pineapple, and the logical one to have attended to her would have been Patsy.

      Delete
    6. Revised line above should say "I don't believe she would have struck JB in anger" to I don't want to believe she would have struck her in anger.

      Delete
    7. I posted up thread about those trophies in the bedroom. So any one of those could have been used to hit her on the head with. None of those may have been tested if LE thought all of the altercation took place in the basement at the time.

      Delete
  47. Just finished reading an article and I found these statements to be very interesting, so I thought I would share:

    “It is clear that if somebody had the opportunity by means of one force trauma to kill JonBenet Ramsey, why would they stop after one single blunt force injury to the head. Why not just continue the assault with the original weapon. Based on the evidence and the sequencing of the cause of death from the autopsy, the strangulation is the important focus.
    It doesn’t make any sense to hit somebody in the head hard enough to break their skull, so hard that the bone goes down inside the calvarium (skull cap), after you strangle somebody. Not only is the murder of the 6-year-old girl senseless, but the manner of the assault is incongruent. The time investment of the assault of the head is very short. The time investment of the strangulation is very complicated and arduous. Because of this they must be looked at as two discrete events.” – Dr. William Morrone, Principal Investigator/Toxicologist and Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of Bay County

    Danni

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Danni, this is good stuff. The 2 acts are so different that it always pointed away from just 1 person.

      -J

      Delete
    2. But the person who could write a note deflecting attention from themselves, could also stage a murder to make it look like someone else did it.

      Delete
    3. Hmm, could it be: John was doing erotic asphyxiation with JBR. He took a flashlight in her room, maybe pretended he was going to take her down for her secret Santa visit, but first he just wanted a "little sugar." Could it explain rope fibers in her bed? Patsy woke up and went to her room to check on her or take her to the potty. She grabs the flashlight and aims at John, at first not even realizing it was John. She misses him and hits JBR on the head. He lies and says he was playing a game with her about a secret Santa - maybe he had the santa bear with him and said, "see Patsy, I wanted to give her this." She fails to see his physical condition because she's so upset about hitting JBR. They see that she's still breathing but think that the blow is going to kill her or render her brain dead. John says, lets see if she comes to...I'll take her downstairs and we'll watch her to see. If she's gone, we have to think of something to explain this. While watching her labored breathing and realizing she is either going to die or possibly be a vegetable, Patsy says "I can't take the thought of her being a vegetable, I'd rather her go be with Jesus." John says, "I agree." (Of course he did, he was almost busted.) They concoct the ransom note. Patsy, still not knowing John was molesting her, has a knee jerk reaction and calls the police, against what they had agreed to. Maybe she was bothered by why John was on top of JB and a little worried about what she did see, but not letting her mind go there (to incest). Later, John finishes her off with the garrotte - either on the morning when Linda Arnt was there, at which time he realized she was still breathing, or earlier, with Patsy agreeing that she needed to go be with Jesus. The 911 call was Patsy, chickening out and saying she wanted a proper burial.

      Well, this is a RDI scenario. I'm personally on team JDI, but have been mulling over this possibility in the back of my mind.

      Delete
    4. Sort of similar to the Andrew G. Hodges book "A Mother Gone Bad". I wonder why Lin Wood didn't sue Andrew Hodges - maybe because Andrew Hodges doesn't have as much money as CBS or Dr. Werner Spitz.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm sorry to be deleting so many of your posts, SC, but you were already warned. Evidence of an attempted assault, on you or anyone else, is something to share with law enforcement. And if you can't get any help from them I can't imagine how any of us would be in a position to help you. So whatever you post here regarding your own personal issues is not going to help you. It seems as though you are posting here simply out of a need to get attention, the classic motivation of what is called a "troll." I have no idea what you expect of us, but whatever it is, it is not appropriate for this blog. Look for it elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  50. Just ignore SC guys. Trolls need fuel to survive. Hide your cabbage.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Inspired by something I read last night. (Maybe someone else is familiar with it, because of course now, I can't find the link.)

    If DA Alex Hunter had been able to reach a plea bargain agreement with the Ramseys, what do you think that plea bargain would have been?

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ramsey's wouldn't accept a plea bargain. They would fight tooth and nail to promote the intruder theory and whitewash themselves to the public.

      Delete
    2. Well, you never know. If the indictment would have gone through, the idea of a plea agreement, I bet, was batted around.

      GS

      Delete
    3. Steve Thomas was hoping to get John to finger Patsy as part of a plea bargain that would get him off on a minor charge. But of course John was to smart to try anything like that. He needed Patsy's support and turning on her would have been a huge mistake.

      Delete
    4. This is a good question, though.

      "It is clear that if somebody had the opportunity by means of one force trauma to kill JonBenet Ramsey, why would they stop after one single blunt force injury to the head. Why not just continue the assault with the original weapon."

      GS

      Delete
  52. Hi all, in regards to the three after hour calls to the pediatrician on the 17/12 (we write day first in Australia), has the contents of this conversation ever been released?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  53. off topic - for those of you that like reading other true crime books. and you live close to a Dollar Tree, today I found a book on Jodi Arias, as well as the book written by the man who thinks his father was the Zodiac Killer. Both in hardback, for a buck. (and some cool cookbooks as well, The Snacking Dead: A Parody in a Cookbook by D. B. Walker and The Lucky Santangelo Cookbook by Jackie Collins.)

    ReplyDelete
  54. And as your comments are directed at all that come to this blog, I in return suggest you seek help as you are clearly suffering from paranoia and i mean this sincerely

    ReplyDelete
  55. Up thread here regarding head blow, the crime scene photo of the skull is deceptive. It depicts a red skull fracture, with the oval shaped blow as a hole, when in fact it was a dent mark, which was sufficient to crack the skull end to end. The bone was removed for the picture, when the skull bone flap was still in tact in actuality. The interpretation was that the flashlight caused the blow since the oval end fit the head wound, but mostly because a flashlight was sitting on the counter, providing a possible clue to what was used.

    In the Michael Peterson case, the paperback novel writer who bludgeoned his wife to death as she was traveling up a staircase, the odd three-pronged marks on her skull were attributed to the blow poke that her sister gave them, which was missing. Peterson stated that she fell from the top of the stairs down. He later blamed it on an owl attack. Still later he "recovered" the blow poke calling in a tip it was in his garage, but covered in old cobwebs so it could not have been the weapon. In the case of JB we can guess the flashlight was used for the headblow but we cannot be for certain. If something else was used it was carefully hidden away, or replaced where it belonged, or it was the result of hitting her head on something else that would not have been a "weapon" per se but combined with the speed at which she may have been traveling and a fall for example, may have made the dent, and resultant head crack.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I liked her better when she said she wasn't posting on here anymore

    ReplyDelete
  57. SC: Can you please leave this blog? You add nothing to it, make it all about you, and have a severe paranoia issue. I suggest getting help for it.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I am prepared, I believe on behalf of everyone on this blog, to concede anything you want: your unparalleled brilliance, penetrating insight, powers of reasoning and deduction, your victimhood here and in your personal life . . . ANYTHING, if you will just please make good on your earlier statement and go, leave us to wallow in our stupidity.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. It is, it's terribly painful. Spare me any more of it and just go. Go now.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Ditto. Please, can we get back to this case? I will never respond to SC again, for any reason whatsoever.

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

    ReplyDelete

  60. But I mean, was that reasoning really so hard to figure out? I don't think so. But still you go off on, 'frankly preposterous, creative writing', and all kinds of shiite. But you statement is just flat out idiotic. And wrong. That's called not being that smart. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that is what it is. SC, my statement is not idiotic, your statement is idiotic.


    Fleet White was interview by BPD many many times. He was interviewed by Steve Thomas many many times. The Ramseys can NOT sue Fleet White nor anyone else for giving LE information during an interview nor for giving testimony during a grand jury. FYI ! As far as Fleet White knowing about molestation for year and years and not saying anything publicly, you are speaking about the same Fleet White who was on a personal crusade to get this case into a court of law and to get it prosecuted correctly ? Yeah that makes perfect sense, I wish I could have seen this earlier. Genius detective work SC !

    ReplyDelete
  61. Why are some continuing to engage and argue with SC. It only adds fuel to the fire. If Doc wants to he can send her comments to spam but that's not up to us, it's up to whether Doc sees fit to do that.

    As for my comment earlier 9:14 it was intended for GS, Lil and EG and one of the Anonymous's in here and Danni as we were briefly discussing head blows. I'd also like to get back on target here and let Doc deal with SC.

    ReplyDelete
  62. SC Shafer January 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM

    Don't worry CC. I'm leaving

    SLOW CLAP............SLOW CLAP...............SLOW CLAP

    ReplyDelete