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.

Monday, January 23, 2017

The Complaint -- Part 6

More room for ruminating . . . .

257 comments:

  1. WHAT WAS FOUND ON THE MORNING OF THE 26TH WAS NOT WHAT "THE MURDERER INTENDED TO BE FOUND. THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PART OF HIS PLAN. IF YOU BASE YOUR THINKING ON WHAT'S EVIDENT ON THE SURFACE, WHAT LIES LURKING IN THE DEPTHS WILL FOREVER BE UNKNOWABLE!" - Doc

    #ALTERNATIVE FACTS

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doc- you went on to say that the RN might even have been intended to never have been found. Then that just leaves soooooooooo many more questions. If the RN goes missing and he claims they wanted it back, then he would have to explain what they looked like, how they sounded, where he met them, etc. If the note's sole purpose was just to fool Patsy, then why the 3 pages?
    For me it's pretty simple....the note was was 3 pages and offered so many different potential suspects by all of the various references, to keep the Police busy. They would have to explore ALL of the following potential suspects:

    - Somebody from the Pageant circuit
    -Foreign group that might have had it out for John Ramsey
    -Somebody john worked with because of knowing his Bonus
    -Somebody who knew movies well
    -Friend of the family
    -Could be Male or female

    The list could really go on and on. Ultimately it goes back to this.....IF the staging wasn't done and what Patsy woke up to, was a half stage job, then the 911 call is simply never allowed to be made.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to explain what they looked like. Most kidnappers request that the ransom be dropped off at some spot where they can pick it up later. The note could have been included in the same paper bag as the ransom. Obviously the kidnappers would not have wanted John to ever lay eyes on them.

      And yes, you are right, the note suggests all sorts of possible suspects -- but it does much more. It's designed to frighten Patsy into not calling the police (as should be obvious), and also discourage her from searching the house; and similarly to provide him with the perfect excuse not to call the police himself until after delivery of the ransom; to suggest someone who resents John, probably someone who had business dealings with him; to set up a timeline giving John a full 24 hours to complete his staging and dump all the evidence, including the body; to give John some flexibility in the timing by offering to call early if he raises the ransom promptly; to place John in charge of the situation by emphasizing his role and saying nothing about Patsy; and finally by providing John with the perfect excuse, in case his car is spotted in the vicinity of where the body might later be found: he was "only" delivering the ransom at the spot demanded by "the kidnappers."

      If Patsy wrote that note there would be no need for all those details. Just a few lines informing "the Ramseys" that their daughter had been kidnapped, a warning not to call the police, and a request to stand by the phone for more info. And certainly no need to hide the body in the most remote room in the house. If this was a kidnapping gone wrong, we'd expect the body to be found out in the open, where a panicked would be kidnapper might have left it, not tucked away like a papoose, in a blanket, and in tiny obscure room locked by a little piece of wood on top that most people wouldn't even notice.

      And if the note were intended as evidence of a failed kidnapping, there'd have been no need to mutilate the body of her daughter to stage a pedophile attack. Why point the police in two different directions? A kidnapping would be more than enough.

      Delete
  3. I agree with you J. Note covered many bases, did it not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It absolutely did which makes zero sense if its only purpose was to fool Patsy Ramsey.

      -J

      Delete
    2. Agreed, .any times over. If planned then days of planning only to suggest to PR that she should call 911 ? I think not. Beyond that, everything in this case points to the incest or sexual exploration being known about PRIOR to the murder and it all points to one person, and its not JR.

      Delete
    3. Doc has said many times that the note served several purposes, let's not be disingenuous here.....

      Delete
  4. I have a few observations and then some questions for Doc. First the observation. I was wrong - the beauty and the beast pillow that looks like a big blurry blog on the video, is there, in the video, - at the foot of the bed. I compared the blob with the still photos and it matches. Of course there's still a missing pillow from where one would assume one places their head at the headboard, so whatever pillow may have been removed and found downstairs that still points to the possibility that she got up and went downstairs on her own - wasn't carried, wasn't stun gunned, etc. My question for anyone is what is the pink garment at the head of the bed? And the significance of it if any? Can't be the pink nightie, that wouldn't have been removed from the crime scene in the basement.

    Now, questions for Doc and if you've addressed this as I'm sure earlier, please just refresh my memory. Here goes:

    1. If you believe John wrote the note, what kind of intruder do you think he had in mind by signing it "Victory! S.B.T.C."?

    2. What is the significance of the scattered peanuts on the basement floor near the window?

    3. If John moved the suitcase over under the window did he also plant a shoe scuff mark on the wall?

    Gracias

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inq, that pink blob at the head of the bed is a "pull-up". Looks like someone was going to put JonBenet in a "pull-up" diaper, but tossed it aside, doesn't it?

      GS

      Delete
    2. A pink pull up? If so then yes. That whole house was a virtual landmine of clues. Maybe it was tossed aside in favor of the big panties.

      Delete
    3. That pink blob at the head of the bed has sleeves and is not a pull up. See Lou Smit's crime scene photo 002 or 003 called "Jonbenet's bedsheet".
      CC

      Delete
    4. *gasp* I hate being wrong. I do see a sleeve *now*, CC. I guess we shouldn't be surprised by Burke not recognizing a bowl of pineapple, though, now should we?

      It looks like it has a built in bra to me, too! Photos can be awfully tricky.

      GS

      Delete
    5. I thought I saw a bra in that too. But I'm still mystified as to what it is. I'll check out the crime scene photos 002 and 003.

      Delete
    6. 002 and 003 same as the video, looks like a garment of some sort with sleeves

      Delete
    7. Inq: to answer your questions.

      1. I have no idea what Victory, SBTC might mean or why John or anyone else might have signed off that way. My guess is that he deliberately closed with something totally enigmatic, just to blow smoke.

      2. The packing peanuts on the basement floor were originally in the window well. I believe John must have scooped up a bunch of them and scattered them on the floor to make it look like an intruder entered and/or left via that window. As we can easily tell, however, no intruder or anyone else went through that window, so this is obviously staging.

      3. The scuff mark also looks like staging, imo, yes.

      Delete
    8. Could the packing peanuts (I didn't know they were in the window well) have blown in when the window was open? We don't know how long that window was open. Didn't one of them say it was to ventilate the area, but also a pretty peculiar thing to say in the dead of a Colorado winter. Anyway thank you for your answers Doc.

      Delete
    9. Are the packing peanuts evident in the crime scene photos, and are they at acandyrose? Don't think I've ever noticed them before.
      Odd to have in the window well, unless by way of a leafblower.

      Delete
  5. actually anyone can answer but specifically JDI's

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been lurking for awhile and decided to jump in and post. Like many people I have been following this case since it happened but revitalized my interest with all the 20th anniversary activity. I very much enjoy the (mostly) civil discourse and arguing on this blog and the great care Doc takes to keep it running and interesting.

    In the category of total hogwash or something interesting to discuss (or both) - you decide. To my ear it appears to be short on facts but a very interesting listen. I have not read his book nor have I researched the author.

    from samarkandy on r/JonBenetRamsey

    Hear what Stephen Singular has to say:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNe4Ir7N5bM

    -MNLizzieB

    ReplyDelete
  7. "In the book, "Mind Hunter" the chapter I referred to features a case and provides the following information:"

    Did a little research on this and see that there is no crime scene photo of this book on John's nightstand, so no proof he actually ever read "Mind Hunter".

    But the scenario in Mind Hunter surely does describe the crime scene at the Ramsey home.

    And the fact that its not there, does not prove it never was there.

    But, if no one in the Ramsey family actually read Mind Hunter prior to the events of December 26, does that mean that the killer really DOES fit a psychological profile described by John Douglas?

    Or did I have the answer before, that someone was following a "script"?

    Either way, it does look like John Douglas was paid off, not to testify that the crime scene fit a psychological profile that he was acquainted with.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Steve Thomas, Sergeant Tom Wickman reported seeing "Mindhunter" in the Ramseys' bedroom. Patsy's side of the bed featured historical romance novels, and so "Mindhunter " has always been thought to be John's.
      CC

      Delete
    2. GS -earlier today I read on old news article where Douglas was interviewed. In it he said he spent 4 & 1/2 hours interviewing the Ramseys and their retelling of the morning of finding her body, he "knew in his heart" they didn't do it.
      So here is another trained person that their heart was involved in their decision making.

      Delete
    3. Or his wallet.
      CC

      Delete
    4. A criminal profiler should not be thinking with his "heart". His job is to deduce, from the known evidence, what kind of person committed the crime - his personal feelings should not factor into it. His statement sounds phony to me, and I would be very surprised if he believed anyone other than John Ramsey to be JB's killer.

      Delete
    5. Ms D, there is a sample of Mind Hunter on amazon.com. On page 4 you'll find that Douglas, who from what I take, developed criminal profiling through his own experience and without much formal training in psychiatry or psychology, more or less states it is a gut feeling, and not the facts, that he goes with:

      "...unlike the traditional FBI agent who dealt with "Just the facts, ma'am", my job required me to deal in opinions".

      Here again we see that "profiling" per se, is a soft science.

      GS

      Delete
  8. Here are some acronyms for SBTC:

    Southern Baptists of Texas Convention
    Skill- Biased Technological Change
    Skill-Biased Technical Change
    Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club (UK)
    Small Business Technology Coalition
    Shall Be the Conqueror
    Saved By the Cross
    Seattle Bicycle Touring Club
    Stream-Based Trace Compression
    Sleeping Bear Trading Company (Michigan)
    Solid Bare Tinned Copper (grounding connections)
    Slow Boat to China
    Stockport Binocular and Telescope Centre, LTD (UK)
    Serene Bastards of Tarbae Chaos (gaming)
    So Be The Child

    ReplyDelete
  9. Or maybe SBTC means absolutely nothing and was just four random letters the Ramseys chose to cause confusion and for people to try interpret something from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen folks guessing, perhaps on topix, where Save Burke This Christmas was tossed out.

      Delete
    2. Personally, I'm going with "Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club" ;)

      How about "Strangle/Bind The Child"?

      Or perhaps the first two letters stood for "Santa Bill"?

      Maybe "Sadistic Bind & Torture Club"?
      "Spare Burke The Chair"?
      Could the B have been for "Boulder" and the C for "Colorado"?

      Or.....perhaps John Ramsey was thinking of the BTK killer, and an acronym just sounded good to him - and this is certainly my guess - so he arbitrarily strung four, random, letters of the alphabet together. A foreign faction has to have a name, after all, and John - being a movie buff - probably thought an acronym sounded like something a foreign faction might go by.

      Delete
    3. I only thought with a google search of acronyms of SBTC might provide some interest. Those were the acronyms associated with S.B.T.C., although certainly feel free to add your own. I think a bigger clue would be who was prone of the two, Patsy or John, to want to use abbreviations.

      Delete
    4. I think I may have mentioned once before that I drew a parallel to the Patty Hearst kidnapping by the Symbionese Liberation Army. That took place in the mid 1970s. S.L.A. a small foreign faction.

      GS

      Delete
    5. I actually laughed out loud at that one, GS. The SLA were a home-grown group of American left-wing self-styled revolutionaries.
      CC

      Delete
    6. I think the inspiration behind the acronym is rather obvious. In the media, "factions" whether they be "foreign" or "domestic", are usually known by an acronym, so the author signed off with a random series of letters in keeping with the theory that the crime was committed by some kind of cabal - "we respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves" suggests the author was perhaps hinting there was some kind of political motivation behind the kidnapping. Really, the entire note reads just like one would expect to see in a b grade, Hollywood movie. The author has clearly watched too many, shitty, crime films, read a lot of pulp crime fiction novels and drew inspiration from these to point to someone outside of the home, plain and simple.

      Delete
  10. You would think the note would nail whoever wrote it yet it had the opposite effect

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, that was also my thought, initially. They had a note, hand written, so it was just a matter of time before the writer would be identified. Looked like it was going to be open and shut. Boy was I wrong.

      Delete
  11. "Did a little research on this and see that there is no crime scene photo of this book on John's nightstand, so no proof he actually ever read 'Mind Hunter'".

    That's incorrect. Lou Smit spotted the book among other books in one of the crime scene photos. Wickman and Arndt also saw the book near John's nightstand. Smit showed the photo to Mike Kane and used that information in the June 1998 interrogation.

    KANE: Okay. What about “Mind Hunter”, John Douglas’s book was there in the house, had you purchased that?

    JOHN: No. It was there in ‘96? Interesting.

    KANE: Was it interesting?

    JOHN: I never never heard of John Douglas or that book before.

    Interesting indeed, John. Did that question take him off guard? He was so sure that Pam retrieved that book before it was discovered. Despite the revelation, not much is made about that truly damning lie John was caught in telling.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the link on a candyrose on the interrogation of both John and Patsy concerning Mind Hunter.

      http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-mindhunter.htm

      GS

      Delete
  12. Check out this tweet Linda Arndt sent Lin Wood on Sept 20, 2016!

    https://twitter.com/Lindaarndt18/status/822306615583879173

    Also, tons of informative Lin Wood tweets can be seen on his twitter page. You have to scroll a lot to find them. Here's are a few to get everyone going. What an arrogant SOB this guy is!

    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/809947707670462464 (on Cina Wong)

    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/804848604934508544 (Stab at Spitz)

    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/784480491021955072 (promotes P.Woodward book)

    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/780040545527820288 (on DNA)

    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/780038143286403073 (on pay stub)

    And the last one here concerns the Broken Window! Doc?

    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/780034061138092033

    Mike G.

    P.S. There is a tweet about the pineapple evidence too, but I'm unclear what Wood's spin on it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wood is right about Cina Wong, her evidence was ruled inadmissible and her credentials questionable. But he's wrong about the window with the spider web. Maybe he's never bothered to check out Kolar's video. And the spider web is only part of the story, as there was no smearing of any dust or dirt on the windowsill either.

      Delete
    2. It's really remarkable that Wood is still sticking with Lou Smit's old theories as though nothing had happened in this case over the last 19 years. A good lawyer would nail him to the wall over this sort of thing, and the intruder theory along with him.

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

      Delete
  13. There's a new book on the case available on Kindle.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01NCKGIHV/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_8E1vyb4KHZZ77

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well since we start the new week with the mention of pineapple, ha, perhaps only J may appreciate this, and others may have seen this way back when.

    A person on topix posted back in 2010 where she(?) ate several pieces of pineapple soaked in barium and did a fluorsope to track the movement.

    "learnin" posted she has a stand alone thread on it as well but haven't found it yet.

    So in her test, pineapple took about 30 minutes to go from stomach to upper GI or first part of her small intestine to paraphrase her.

    Granted this is an adult test vs done on a child.
    http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T36LEBSUHLAM35MGM/p17

    I am impressed at how many volunteers out there over the years do try to determine certain elements in cases to help prove or disprove or replicate a timeline to themselves, the public, and who knows, maybe even turn over findings to LE.

    ReplyDelete
  15. DocG - I just have to ask. Is there anyone over the past 20 years connected to this case that you would give an 'atta boy' or 'atta girl' too? And why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. Hadn't thought much about that. However, among those involved in the case or the investigation that actually made a positive contribution, I'd mention:

      1. Larry Schiller, whose book Perfect Murder Perfect Town remains an authoritative and also relatively even-handed study of the case.

      2. James Kolar's book does a great job of debunking the intruder theory as well as keeping track of the various questionable actions and statements of John Ramsey. It's only when he gets to the part about Burke that he goes off track, imo.

      3. Surprisingly I'd give high marks to Jameson, despite our many disagreements and totally different viewpoint. I've always admired her honesty and also her willingness to at least consider contrary views. She phoned me once to offer me a free membership in her forum, because she wanted all viewpoints represented -- and I was touched. Unlike other forums I was never banned from hers, though she frequently got upset with me.

      4. Charlie Brennan has done a great job of reporting on the case and also bringing important evidence to light. I corresponded with him for a while, and though I could never get him to agree with me, I admired his willingness to consider all possibilities.

      5. Fleet White has been steadfast in his pursuit of justice in this case. Despite his unwillingness to name a suspect it seems clear he is convinced of John's involvement, though I imagine he thinks Patsy wrote the note.

      6. Though I don't always see eye to eye with Cyril Wecht's interpretation of what happened, his book remains among the most authoritative and penetrating. Like me, he feels sure JDI. I've corresponded with him from time to time and he has always been supportive.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for responding to this one, Doc. It was an interesting question and I was curious on your take as well.

      Delete
    3. Cool, thanks DocG for your replies and thoughtful insight on your picks. Good to know that some you have even had behind the scenes contact with, so it gives you a better feel for the individual.

      Delete
    4. You mentioned the poster/forum owner 'jameson'. What is your opinion on her allegedly getting intel or leaking info and getting paid by the tabloids on an open case tho?
      Or for anyone that has done that in a case, sell their info, as we know the Ramsey case is not the first and won't be the last.

      Delete
    5. I'm more curious as to how she managed to get hold of that info. One of the mysteries surrounding Jameson is how much she apparently knew right from the start that no one else outside the immediate investigation, and the Ramsey family, knew. It was initially assumed she could have been close to the family, or even a member of the family, but she always denied that, as did the Ramseys.

      Delete
    6. Well hmm, I do see so much reference to her all over the web connected to the case. Did she ever deny a connection to the family attorneys or to LE? For some reason I thought it was said she did at least meet the family, maybe helped with reward posters ? So much buzz, it runs together.

      Delete
  16. Doc, a few questions that I can't get past:

    1. Why does there have to be a disturbance to indicate an intruder? Whose to say the intruder didn't have a key? I still feel that if an intruder did do it, he or she did not act alone and there is a good chance they could have been hired to pull off the kidnapping.

    2. Has it been confirmed that John left for nearly an hour the morning the police arrived?

    3. Given the sexual assault, wouldn't there be DNA in her groin area? If John did this, surely his DNA would be there unless he wore gloves, which is equally bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One big problem with any intruder theory is the lack of any conclusive evidence that an intruder was ever in the home that night. Someone who left a long "ransom note" along with a dead body would have had no reason to hide any other trace of his presence, yet there is no such trace to be found. A note written on paper not from the house or with a pen not found in the house, or a "garotte" made from materials not found in the house, etc., etc. These are the sorts of things we'd expect if any intruder was responsible for this crime.

      And yes, someone with a key could have gotten in. But that doesn't explain the scene at the basement window, with its clear signs of staging. For me the most compelling reason to reject the intruder theory is the logic of the case, which I discuss at some length in the first two posts on this blog. In a nutshell, no intruder theory makes sense.

      2. John didn't leave the house, if that's what you're getting at. At least there is no first hand evidence of that. But he did vanish from Linda Arndt's sight for over an hour late in the morning, when everyone else was with her in the sun room. She was the only police officer present and that's what she reported.

      3. Since no DNA in her groin area was ever reported, it seems clear the attacker must have worn gloves. Why would that be bizarre?

      Delete
    2. Thanks Doc.

      Regarding the attacker wearing glove; what sexual deviant would molest someone with gloves on? Doesn't seem like they would get any satisfaction out of that.

      Delete
    3. John didn't molest JB that morning, he wasn't looking for sexual gratification, he penetrated her vagina in the hopes of covering prior abuse.....and it seems to have confused a couple of the experts at least, so that part of his plan worked well.

      Delete
    4. A sexual deviant who knows that DNA from his bare finger could put him away for life.

      Delete
    5. The DNA is likely on the paint brush handle, done away with along with the rest of the black duct tape, rest of the white cord, missing pages from the pad of paper soiled underwear and whatever was used to wipe her with.

      Delete
    6. Wasn't there a substance found in JB's vagina that is consistent with talcum powder? Latex gloves are often coated in talc, which would be a strong indicator that her killer was wearing latex gloves when he digitally penetrated her. Keep in mind, the medicine cabinet where Patsy kept the materials she required when undergoing chemo (gloves, alcohol wipes, syringes etc.) was in disarray that morning. My belief is that John, once he realized he was no longer going to get to dispose of the body, used the alcohol wipes to wipe JB down and wore the latex gloves whilst arranging the crime scene in the basement......unless the crime was premeditated, in which case he would have been wearing the gloves all along, of course.

      Delete
  17. The note to me is very detailed - you said above Doc if Patsy wrote the note there would be no need for all those details. The note is also conversational - "get rest" "use that good common southern sense" as if by someone who is used to writing thank you notes and Christmas letters and making lists for her housekeeper with detailed instructions as to what was to be done, and organizing all household matters. To me John's note would have been more terse and to the point, or John wouldn't have written one at all. It would not have been sitting out with the unpredictable element of having it misinterpreted by a frightened Patsy with the risk of calling LE. True, the note is to confuse, misdirect, but it's author was panicked, and thought she could confuse her own husband.

    The sex attack was to make sure the intruder was thought to be male. And a pervert- who likes to tie up his victims. What was the point of duct tape on the legs? That I don't get at all. One of the LE personnel said the staging looked childish - I don't know if he was implying that a child could have done it, or just that it was immature and crude. Might have been Eller who said that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was no duct tape on her legs.

      I think the RN is arranged like an introductory letter from a business looking to sell its products or services - which is essentially what AG and it's CEO did.
      CC

      Delete
    2. "The sex attack was to make sure the intruder was thought to be male."

      Again, Inquistive, you render an opinion, present it as fact, then offer no evidence. What about the portions of the autopsy suggesting long term abuse would need to be "covered up" to lead a medical examiner to support your assertion
      in court? This is not a game anymore Iquistitive. Think about what you write before writing it.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    3. While I believe JDI, I have been having similar thoughts regarding the ransom note. Simply thinking about the note itself, I find PR more likely to create a dramatic histrionic note. It seems as though John would have written a more concise and sensible one. It's been quite interesting to mull over.

      SL

      Delete
    4. The note doesn't strike me as resembling a thank you note or a Xmas message, Inq. Not remotely.

      Delete
    5. Not the content - the context.

      Delete
    6. Yes, of course, I got that. I still see no resemblance.

      Delete
  18. Gumshoe:

    I can understand your questioning Doc on points one and three above; they can be answered by rendering an opinion or speculatively. But John's purported absence can only be "confirmed"
    by the collective testimonies of all who were present at the scene, none of whom were Doc.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mike. I guess my question around John's absence is more or less questioning if that's been confirmed by testimonies of BPD or is that something that is still refuted by a lot of people. What I struggle with the most on this case is how many conflicting stories there are and not knowing who to believe.

      Delete
    2. From all I've read, no one has ever refuted claims made by Linda Arndt et. al. that John was out of eyesight for at least an hour between 11:00 A.M. and when he discovered the body at 1:00 PM.

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. statement above makes no sense Mike. Arnt said John was missing from approx. 10 - 11. Not 11 and 1. He was directed to search the house again around 1, by Arnt. Perhaps you are attempting to say that above but it's not concise sentence structure.

      Delete
  19. Mike, one of the Linda Arnt comments you linked to was from her twitter account where she tweets: September 20, 2016 "Is Dr. Spitz getting too close to the truth for you Lin? Yeah you better try and shut him down Lin, we don't want the truth do we?" Since Dr. Spitz said there was no sign of sexual abuse why would Lin Wood want to shut that down? It bolsters his John Ramsey did not abuse his daughter defense. Unless Linda thinks Burke really did the crime and Wood is trying to shut that down?

    In any event that tweet sounds like she still harbors some bitterness. I thought there was no doubt in her mind when she made eye contact with John who did it. She let the whole scene spin out of control that day, and although she wants to lay it on not getting back up, she could have asked permission to not allow anyone into that house other than the Ramsey's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. correct me here if wrong - did Spitz say no sexual assault or no sexual abuse or did he just not address it at all?

      Delete
    2. You ask questions you've been around long enough not to have to ask. Linda understands the predicament suing CBS puts Woods in if CBS, in the process of losing the case, nevertheless convinces a jury no "intruder" could have committed the crime. Do I have to explain why this would be a predicament for him?

      Delete
    3. above Mike G, Inquisitive, not Doc.

      Delete
  20. Last question first Mike. Evidence of black tape. 1997-04-30 JR interrogation by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo:

    "TT: when you saw the white blanket was JB covered up. How was she laying there, 'cause I wasn't there that day.

    JR: she was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to one side."

    Next question Mike -

    IT's been asserted here if Patsy wrote the note as intended evidence of a failed kidnapping there would have been no need to mutilate the body to stage a pedophile attack - asserted by Ms D and Doc several times here. Yet both agree, in fact many here agree, the note was detailed and covered many bases. It was asked why the pedophile attack? So yes, it's an opinion, that Patsy wished to cover all bases, and point to a male intruder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The note never even hinted that there was a sexual motivation, Inquisitive. If Patsy wanted "to cover all bases and point to a male intruder", she most certainly would have alluded to that in the RN. The absence of such information in the note suggests that, at the time the note was written, no sexual staging was part of the plan - the note was specific in regards to a sole motive: money.

      Delete
    2. Part One:

      What's your question? You never asked one.

      Part two:

      I wasn't asking you to "agree" you were opining. But now that we've established it as "fact" that you were, perhaps you can apologize for it and stop doing it. I am not going to fall into your trap by asking what evidence do you have that Patsy intended "to point to a male intruder". Herewith, another song by Joni Mitchell. Note the years passed for "the boy".

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9VoLCO-d6U

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. Nor will I ask you what evidence you have John was originally going to remove the body and wrote the note to scare Patsy out of the house along with Burke. Deal?

      Delete
    4. No deal.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    5. To me, it doesn't seem like the staging was done to look like a sexual assault.It seems like it was done just to look like a heinous crime that no loving parent would do. If it was intended to look like a sexual assault, why were her clothes not off, or torn, or her bottoms off? Her shirt was not even raised. It seems like it would be easy to stage a sexual attack. The only reason a pedophile is suggested is because of the underwear change and a very small amount of blood on he thigh and in her vaginal vault. That seems like abuse/sexual abuse not a pedophile attack. Her vagina was not mutilated Her neck was mutilated. There was evidence of hymen erosion and there was a small amount of blood in her vagina. Of course, I have no idea what this all means, just my observations.

      Delete
    6. "Nor will I ask you what evidence you have John was originally going to remove the body and wrote the note to scare Patsy out of the house along with Burke."

      The note is the evidence you've requested. It never ceases to amaze me how often we hear the refrain "no evidence" as though the most important piece of evidence in this case didn't exist.

      Delete
    7. Doc - disagree strongly on this one. The RN is evidence that there was an intruder (in the Ramseys mind). Nothing more.

      Delete
  21. Now here's a very good (IMO) detailed account of the 911 call made by Patsy and how the ransom note was referred to as she made it. Perhaps it's old news, but I find it interesting.

    statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/remembering-jonbenet-analysis-of-911.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am enjoying reading this analysis.Seems pretty accurate to me. The call seems completely fake!Can you imagine saying " We have a kidnapping" I would be screaming for help for my daughter. So bizarre.

      Delete
    2. Right on K1234. Further on it gets even more interesting. Thanks for reading

      Delete
    3. Right on both of you ! For those of you who can not pick up on the obvious signs of how fake it is ...you can just just continue on with your "wrong" theory and claim that statement analysis means nothing. I am not a forensic linguist but even I can see the misuse of verbiage that are used as distancing and alibi setting. It amazes me how many people in here seem so clueless when it is so obvious. She almost asked for an ambulance among the other linguistic mistakes. To me however, it does seem lile she just found out that morning, probably right before she made the call, that however, is up for debate. The what did you do and tone used used tells me she just found out but that is just IMO

      Delete
  22. -I believe John and Patsy BOTH wrote the note.
    -I believe they never intended to take the body out of the house.
    -I believe they wrote a 3 page RN providing a long list of potential suspects to keep the police busy. If the police are busy looking for clues in the 3 page RN, they aren't looking at John, Patsy or Burke
    -I believe the 911 call was staged by Patsy as was inviting friends over to help create chaos and keep the police at arms length from them
    -With both parents involved, it would make it hard for them to get caught in lies because they were on the same page and would always be able to cover for each other.

    Bottom line is that luck played some part, but ultimately their plan WORKED. No arrest was ever made, nobody was ever charged and nobody did jail time for this crime. As awful as the RN looks...it did what it was supposed to and even to this very second we are all on here debating who wrote it and why.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to make it clear...If Patsy was the only one who would ever see the note and its sole intention was fooling her, then there are sooooo many things wrong with it.

      -Using Pen and Paper that were HERS for starters
      -It would have been much shorter as she clearly would have been hysterical and not focused on every word
      -If John was to take control anyways, then what would be the purpose of listing soooooooooooooooooooo many potential suspects? It doesn't make sense!

      All Patsy would care about would be A) her daughter is missing B)Somebody took her C) how do I get her back

      Its that simple.......all the extra fluff was completely unnecessary and useless IF it was just meant for her. The note was meant to fool the police....that is the only way to interpret the length and the extra meaningless details.

      -J

      Delete
    2. I like that J, in many ways. I'm not going to argue you down. There were many little hints early on that they were both in on it - one in particular if we go back to the call and the "open line" conversation - if we could agree that what was detected was indicative of Burke being up and on the sidelines and that he said "what did you find" or words to that effect, as some here believe he did. That would imply a conversation was taking place before the 911 call and during, as to what to do. Also implying they both had knowledge. And a united front. I have no problem with other possibilities. If you will though please read the link I provided above.

      Delete
    3. Hey Inq - I will take a look. On the Real Crime Profile Podcast on this case (was taken down pending the lawsuit) they delved very deep into the analysis of her 911 call. None of it makes sense on any level if it was a real call. SO much of what Patsy says is very abnormal for a mother in that situation.

      -J

      Delete
    4. Ransom notes are staged "to" (do something), not "as". Or are you saying the "invitation" was staged, which too is a meaningless statement. The invitation was real, not staged.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    5. I have absolutely no idea what the question is Mike, sorry

      -J

      Delete
    6. "The note was meant to fool the police....that is the only way to interpret the length and the extra meaningless details."

      The note didn't come close to fooling the police; they were ready from day one to arrest John. Alex Hunter wouldn't let them.

      Mike G

      Delete
    7. Oh Lord, Mike. Where did you get this "fact"?

      Delete
    8. J, how many times are you going to continue with the blatantly false statement that JDIs believe the note's "sole intention was to fool Patsy" when Doc, as others here, have repeatedly explained to you it actually served several purposes?

      Delete
    9. J, I keep making the point that there was no such "sole intention" behind the note. Over and over I've made it clear that the note had several functions, yet you keep insisting that, according to my theory, fooling Patsy was the "sole intention" of the note. Please stop misquoting me, OK?

      The ransom note is obviously a ransom note, how is that so hard to understand? It's intended to mislead the police into believing there'd been a kidnapping. But since there was obviously NO kidnapping then obviously something went wrong. That's the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the note.

      You can twist and turn it every which way, offering all sorts of convoluted explanations for why it HAD to have been written by Patsy, but none of them account for the contents of that note. And as I've insisted many times, NO one stages a kidnapping gone wrong. Moreover, no kidnapper would go to the trouble of packaging his victim in a blanket and hiding her in a remote basement room after his kidnapping plan went wrong. He'd have just left the body where it lay and gotten out as soon as possible.

      If the Ramseys had deliberately invited the police into their home knowing the body would be found, why hide it in that remote room, covered in a blanket? How did that make them look more innocent?

      Delete
    10. Ms D and Doc - This is very simple and you both can give as many explanations as you want, but it really just boils down to this, which is why I keep saying it.

      IF Patsy Ramsey doesn't BELIEVE the note, then the JDI theory completely falls flat on its face. The reason I say the SOLE purpose of the note was to fool Patsy, is because that really was the sole intention of the note. Doc, you even said that John could have disposed of the note, so you can't bounce all over the place on this. Patsy HAD to believe the note....that's it!

      -J

      Delete
    11. To clarify my above comment...sure, the note according to your theory might have had multiple purposes, but none of that matters if Patsy doesn't believe it.

      If the Ramseys had deliberately invited the police into their home knowing the body would be found, why hide it in that remote room, covered in a blanket? How did that make them look more innocent?

      Because of the garrote, paintbrush and blanket covering her, they must have felt that the police wouldn't suspect them. There wasn't blood anywhere in the house. No murder weapon....so nothing truly pointed directly at them and they probably felt the RN was convincing enough. The note could be interpreted as the money drop coming on the NEXT day, so maybe they thought the police wouldn't stay at the house. Once they realized the police weren't going anywhere and believed the call was coming that day, John knew he had to reveal the body.

      -J

      Delete
    12. J what you say sounds extremely rationale to me and is most likely the truth. Shame we may never know :(

      Delete
    13. J- it's not that Patsy didn't believe the note(she said she didn't read all of it)... it's just that she believed in getting the police involved to help more.

      John just under estimated her response. He assumed she would be too terrified to call 911. BUT she did call thus ,imo, making her innocent.

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

      Delete
    15. OK, first of all I never said John would have destroyed the note. I said that was one possibility. Same with the notepad. His plan could have been to destroy both, or he may have had some other plan in mind. If he traced or copied a computer font, as I suspect he did, he could have felt confident that he'd be "ruled out," as indeed he was.

      And no, for the umpteenth time, the sole purpose of the note was not to fool Patsy, though certainly that was an essential part of the plan. Sometimes your inability to process simple logical alternatives really amazes me, J. Right up there with your eagerness to repeat the same lame objections over and over again.

      Delete
    16. You have literally named a hundreddifferent alternatives revolving around what John might have done so it's hard to keep up.

      - he might destroy the note or keep it or say the kidnappers took it
      - the blood splatter on the head blow might not have because he could have made that part of his staging OR he could have cleaned it up and it wasn't an issue
      - Burke might have seen something while being downstairs but he also might not have. If he did, John could have gaslighted him to lie
      - the pineapple bowl fingerprints could be explained by Burke emptying the dishwasher or maybe there was just not fingerprint transfer from John
      - The RN could have been written weeks in advance or maybe a day or maybe that night but was planned out regardless
      - The RN that may or may not have been planned out ahead of time didn't matter that it was being written on patsys paper with patsys pen because he would have destroyed it during stage time. (Leaving out the fact that if patsy didn't believe the note there was no staging, but you like to leave that little small detail out)

      Your theory always will have a rebuttal because you have so many different versions that there isn't a single thing you will concede on based on some fantasy that John was going to spend a full day doing chores around the house and oh I forgo, stage an entire crime scene. OHHHH And the big one I got for you is this Doc

      If Patsy Ramsey wakes up and sees the house one way, but then after returning a day later to a house that is now staged with no JB, HOW DOES JOHN RAMSEY EXPLAIN THAT?

      -J

      Delete
    17. I'm not a mind reader, J, so sorry but I don't see the point in claiming I know precisely what John (or Patsy or Burke) might have done or thought at any given time. The note would have given John all sorts of options, including the ones you mention above, and we have no way of knowing which of these he would have had in mind when he wrote it.

      As I've made clear from the start, I go by the facts and logic of the case, NOT on the basis of unfounded assumptions, which is more your style. And yes, I do speculate regarding various possibilities, largely in order to demonstrate that my theory is consistent with all the evidence. But my theory is NOT based on those speculations.

      As I outlined in the first two posts on this blog, my theory is grounded in 1. certain undisputed facts; 2. simple, straightforward logical inferences based on those facts. As for the rest, I see a responsibility to demonstrate that there is nothing in my theory that is contradicted by any of the evidence. And on that score all we have is possibilities, NOT certainties, which is why I've refused to be pinned down on the sort of specifics you've raised.

      Delete
    18. "If Patsy Ramsey wakes up and sees the house one way, but then after returning a day later to a house that is now staged with no JB, HOW DOES JOHN RAMSEY EXPLAIN THAT?"

      What an odd question. Obviously he'd explain her absence as due to her having been kidnapped.

      Delete
    19. I knew I didn't ask my questions clearly enough, so I will try again.

      Patsy and Burke will wake up that morning seeing the house as is, based on what John was able to stage that night, correct? Ok, so according to your theory, he is going to send Burke and Patsy off while he gets their daughter back and then also stage the scene. Obviously JBR will not be there when Patsy and Burke get home because shes dead. In addition, the house will now be staged, so it will look different than when Patsy left. That is my question...how do you explain Patsy seeing a different looking house and JB obviously not being home? John wouldn't have accomplished anything and the Ramsey house now looks like it was broken into.

      -J

      Delete
    20. We already know that answer J. The fact of the matter is that PR knew what was going on the whole time. At the least, after she woke up that morning. The 911 call is staged. The part where PR is frantic is most likely not staged, I am sure she was very upset, but to claim it is geniune because she is upset is really shotty detextive work. The part where she does not have a clue what is going on IS staged. We have a kidnapping, we need an AMmmmm ....police. There is no gaslighting and there is no chemobrain. Those are called excuses to keep making our theory work. Doc will say PR had no reason to lie about things like the pageant bear and BR's shoes and that it makes no sense. It makes absolute perfect sense. She tied up LE and sent them on wild goose chases, the latter of which, (the HiTek boots) LE and others are still searching for to this day.....see Michael Helgoth.

      Delete
    21. Hey KS - Oh, I completely agree. No doubt Patsy was involved. Sometimes I get to caught up in trying to disprove the JDI theory, that I don't discuss my own theory.

      You and I are on the same page for sure

      -J

      Delete
    22. "In addition, the house will now be staged, so it will look different than when Patsy left."

      What do you mean by "the house" being staged? John would have completed his window staging by going through that window himself at some point, displacing the grate over the window well and smearing the dirt on the sill. Since none of that evidence would be visible from inside the basement, it's not likely Patsy would have noticed any difference -- assuming she'd have gone down to the basement that morning anyhow. If she went down there the next day, John would have explained the broken window and all the other evidence as due to the "intruder's" break-in.

      He would also have cleaned up the windowless room where he'd been storing the body. But as we know she never thought to look there and probably would not have looked there that morning or the next day either, which is why he chose to hide the body in that remote spot.

      What other part of the house were you thinking of that he would have needed to stage? The disruption in JBR's room would already have been seen by Patsy that morning and there would have been no reason for John to alter anything there. What else?

      As for JBR not being there, John would have told her the story of his delivery of the ransom followed by the "kidnapper's" failure to return JonBenet as promised. He would also, doubtless, have called the police after returning home without his daughter, so the police would probably have been there already before Patsy and Burke returned.

      I fail to see what your problem is, J. And as far as Keiser is concerned, well sometimes I am just at a loss for words when I read what he has to say. There is NO reason to assume Patsy had any intention of calling for an ambulance, whether the call was either genuine or faked. If faked, she'd have known her daughter was dead and if genuine she would have assumed she'd been kidnapped. What you think you hear, Keiser, is due to your own confirmation bias, which sticks out like a sore thumb every time you open your mouth before sticking your foot in it. Pardon the mixed metaphors, folks. And the demeaning language -- but sometimes I'm just at a loss for words when responding to such outright nonsense.

      Delete
  23. GS - I'd like your opinion of that statement analysis. It's lengthy but telling. And of course bolsters PDI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're giving credence to Avioam Sapir's SCAN, which maintains he can make anyone an expert in the technique who gives him 26 hours and $600? Your "evidence" is as suspect as most of your purported facts.
      CC

      Delete
    2. who's purported facts? If that's directed at me then I would think as an attorney you would research everything I "purported" as fact before you offer your "wrong" summation - as I supported above with the question of black tape clearly stated in the questioning of JR by TT. More details of that on acandyrose. I have no idea what you are talking about of Avioam Sapir SCAN, never heard of it enough to give "credence" to it.

      Delete
    3. I'm referring to your near-daily offerings of outright untruths and misapprehensions, Inquisitive, and to your current enthusiasm for the widely debunked statement analysis technique, better known as SCAN.

      Please don't bother to raise your usual pallid defenses, or I'll be forced to go back to September and embarass you with a list.
      CC

      Delete
    4. GS: Go to the authors web-site. He takes this analysis and combines it with others done to conclude:

      "Analysis suggests that John Ramsey had been sexually abusing his daughter, and that Patsy Ramsey knew of it, and conspired in a cover up after the fact, by writing a fake ransom note; and conspiring with him to use their wealth to hinder the police investigation."

      Mike G

      Delete
    5. If you want to waste time on that CC I'll be forced to counter with every one of your snide asides to nearly everyone you take issue with. I think, if you are an attorney, it's one of the oldest tricks in the book - to put a witness on the stand, find one misstatement or mistake, then attempt to discredit everything they say from there on out. I think some in here are afraid of you but I'm not. I usually choose to ignore you but rest assured if you want to drag up September statements I'll be prepared, time and motivation willing.

      Delete
    6. That would of course turn this site into a pissing match and I don't think Doc would allow it. And no one would be interested.

      Delete
    7. Not necessary. My point has been made; thanks.
      CC

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

      Delete
  24. A little off topic, but I found this article today pertinent to our discussion on side effects of antibiotic use and the often claimed observation that Burke appears to be autistic.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/gut-bacteria-offers-new-hope-for-autism/ar-AAm9K6Y?li=BBnb2gg

    GS

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll take a look GS. In the meantime just a portion taken from the statement analysis on the 911 call:

    "911 Operator: Do you know how long she's been gone?
    PR: No, I don't, please, we just got up."

    "we just got up"

    "What is the purpose? The time has been sought by the 911 operator. This sentence "we just got up" is very very important. By offering this, it shows that she is concerned with alibi building; making sure, even without being asked, that police know they just got it (the note): attempt to lead police into thinking they they were both asleep."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense. "We just got up".

      As a 911 operator taking a call at 5:52 A.M. the logical inference is the daughter had been taken in the middle of the night, exact time unknown because all were asleep. If the police believed Patsy and John "were both asleep" it had nothing to do with the 911 call and everything to do with how they responded to questions once they were at the crime scene. Besides, alibi's can't be corroborated by two suspects in the same place at the same time when the murder occurred, especially when the "same place" also happens to be scene of the crime.

      Time for a change shift dealing with you, J, and GS. It appears CC is here to take over. Thanks CC. Have a nice day all.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    2. I read the article you linked to, Inq., concerning the analysis of the 911 call, and "why" something about it doesn't sound genuine to us. I never considered that it was the way certain pronouns were used, but maybe that is what it is that makes so many suspicious, on a subconscious level.

      I know Mark Beckner, when he was answering questions on reddit, "passed" on a question about the 911 call, so I figured that there was something about it that maybe LE didn't want to reveal to the public.

      But the analysis did show, as I pointed out before, that Patsy was able to turn the missing JonBenet situation into something that was all about "Patsy's welfare", instead of JonBenet's welfare.

      That was demonstrated later that morning when all of her friends surrounded Patsy, instead of making themselves useful by fanning out in a search, or something of that nature.

      I know at the time the "Amber Alert" did not exist, but if I were the Ramseys, I would have wanted a house to house search and road blocks set up immediately. Some constructive pro-action, instead of holding Patsy's hand.

      GS

      Delete
  26. First respondents include the 911 operators. I find it interesting how she asks as many questions as possible, trained to get the caller's statements on record for use later. Not exclusively as I have thought in the past to aid ambulance drivers or police in getting an accurate read out before they arrive on the scene although that would certainly be a major part of it. Thus the 911 operators are really the first responders, as they can gather information that can be helpful later on most particularly in an analysis of how responses to questions were answered.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Doc, above, you say "But since there was obviously NO kidnapping then obviously something went wrong." But isn't it possible that the ransom note was written as a result of something going wrong and not the other way around?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't understand your question. Can you be more specific? What do you have in mind?

      Delete
    2. Doc, what I'm saying is that, to me, it seems plausible that it could have been a potential kidnapping. The ransom note could have been written while the Ramsey's were gone that night, and then once the kidnapping started, something went wrong and JonBenet was killed.

      To play devil's advocate on myself, it seems a kidnapper would still have a motive for taking a dead body since the parents do not know that she's dead. Also, if you're going to kidnap someone, why sexually abuse them during the act? Seems like you'd want to get in and out as fast as possible.

      Delete
    3. Yes. And what is it that could have gone wrong with that kidnapping? It's certainly easier to remove a dead body from a house than a living child. Which leads us to ask: what does it mean to stage a kidnapping gone wrong, unless your staging includes some reason for it going wrong. I see none.

      Delete
    4. Good mind twister there Doc - and in light of that question I can see why you are considering pre meditation - that there was another intention initially, which wasn't ultimately how it went down.So that if I am to stay with a PDI scenario then I have to account for why the note had nothing to do with what was found. Right professor?

      Delete
  28. Some time ago, I posted of my total confusion of what scenario could possibly be considered if I didn't believe Jdi, Pdi and Bdi but I did believe PR wrote the RN with Jr's help. I felt that something was mis sing. Last night, I listened to the video posted by MNlizzie in which S. Singular talks about a kind of partial theory. The basics of it are that the indictment wasn't followed through because of things in those sealed documents that we do not know of. His theory is that the parents staged a cover up after they got their daughter back. You will need to listen to it to get the whole idea. While it doesn't solve it for me with no evidence of the who or why, it does add to my thoughts of what kind of position could they have been in, was it blackmail, photos of some sort I don't know. What I feel sure of is PR wrote that note and they both covered something up. I'm ducking now in preparation for being shot down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assume you are referring to child pornography.

      GS

      Delete
    2. GS, Singular was, I'm still left wondering

      Delete
    3. Singular's theory, which by the way is very old, is a classic conspiracy theory, along the lines of the Tawana Brawley case, if anyone remembers that. All sorts of important people were involved, which is why the truth has been hushed up. It's awfully easy to concoct a theory of that kind out of thin air. Fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a pedophile group ever existed, or could get away with such activities for very long if it did.

      Delete
    4. Would someone come forward with pictures, like Mark Karre? That would be the evidence needed, I would think.

      Delete
  29. "But isn't it possible that the ransom note was written as a result of something going wrong and not the other way around?"

    It's not possible in so far as it should be treated as an obstacle to establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By that fact alone, logic dictates its opposite should be treated as fact, even when doubt that it should, is closer to, albeit at least, beyond reasonable, than it is to absolute zero.

    Unfortunately, the standard of proof for too many people on this site for posting, than positing a theory as reasonable, is having just a shred of doubt that ANY theory posted is reasonable. That is not only irresponsible, it insults the worthiness of an innocent six year old child to receive the justice she deserves.

    So we begin with, not that the ransom note was written as a result of something going wrong, but that something went wrong that can be directly attributed to the ransom note. What could that possibly be? Patsy called the police when the note said the consequences for that would be the death of her daughter.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction....for posting, THEN positing....

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. I do think, Mike, that it can help to entertain different possibilities, as a way of playing devil's advocate, and although that sounds frivolous it can help figure out what might have actually happened to JonBenet.

      For that reason I'm trying to find out if there are any other cases in which a crime has been staged to cover for an accident.
      I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here can think of such a case.
      So far I've come up with a nursing home that covered an accidental drowning of a resident, but not with a crime, rather they attempted to convince the family the resident died of a heart attack ("staged" a heart attack, I guess).
      The only other instances I've come across are the (unproved) defence argument about the death of Caylee Anthony, and blog theories about the disappearances of Madeleine McCann and Ayla Reynolds. In both these cases a kidnapping is said to have been staged by one or both parents to cover for their accidental deaths (falling down stairs, excess use of medication). Of course, in JBR's case the theory is that a botched kidnapping was staged, though J has more recently suggested that JR and PR were attempting to stage a completed kidnapping and did not expect anyone to want to try to find JBR's body inside the house on the 26th.
      Plot-lines involving the staging of a crime to cover up an accidental killing have also been used many times in T.V. and film plots - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrimeAfterCrime
      I'd love to know if anyone has examples of this actually happening.
      b&b

      Delete
    3. Thank you Mike for correctly adding the "beyond" to reasonable doubt. Because at least on the trial I was a juror on (murder for hire) our instructions were that - beyond a reasonable doubt. Not doubt, not reasonable doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt.
      We at least know that whatever the state presented to the Boulder Grand Jury, in spite of Lou Smit's presentation, the GJ found enough to sign true bills. For that may be the only wisp of justice for Jonbenet.

      Delete
  30. Completely different topic, but I think it's relevant to our overall discussion. Folks here continue to ask how Patsy could have been "gaslighted" and/or not questioned John's position on events. For those of you who have been fortunate enough not to have a major health issue, medications and the trauma itself oftentimes make one a very different and compliant person (I had brain surgery to remove a tumor three years ago and the anti-seizure medication alone made me half crazy. It took me over a year to get back to my normal.) Check out this link on "Chemo Brain," if you're questioning Patsy's behavior...
    http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/physical-side-effects/changes-in-mood-or-thinking/chemo-brain.html
    Just throwing it out there for discussion and better insight into to what Patsy was dealing with both physically AND mentally post-chemo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Candace, when I have more time I will try to read the link. My mother underwent chemo, but it was the radiation to her brain that robbed her of her dignity, for a short time. And the doctors did not warn of the side effects of that.

      It's my opinion that not just chemo brain affects a person, but those that I call "diabetic brain" as well. I can personally attest to having to deal with people that are Type II diabetic and if they are not compliant with that, watch out - their attitude stinks, their memory stinks, combative, belligerent and so forth.

      So my curiosity is if any of the Ramseys had blood sugar issues at the time. Wouldn't solve the case of course, but might explain some behavior noted by others.

      Delete
  31. People are so certain that Patsy wrote the note that they can never explain why she would write it on her own pad. Or come up with an explanation as to why she would kill her daughter that she doted on. Patsy was confused as to why she was asked about the underwear and she didn't even know about her husband's bonus. But yet she so "cleverly" wrote this note.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is why I don't believe the letter was written days in advance and that it wasn't a planned murder.
      To have it written on something not in the home would require one of the Ramseys to leave the house after 10pm and purchase some and be seen by the public. Or even going to John's office to grab something there, he could be seen on cctv or by another person. Same with having to run to the store for tape, cord, etc.

      Delete
    2. Because if it was written on the pad from the home that belonged to patsy, something unplanned happened at that house that night.

      Delete
    3. The tape and the cord were bought 3 weeks earlier by PR at McGuckins, no mystery there .

      Delete
    4. Lil - Totally agree. The Pad and Pen tell me it was written that night because to run out to a store and purchase those 2 items at 11Pm would be a red flag.

      -J

      Delete
    5. Yes, it's likely the note was written on that pad because what happened was unexpected and that was all the writing material that was available. But as I have also argued, there is a possibility John might have been planning the murder in advance and used paper from the pad simply because it was convenient or because all the stores were closed on Christmas day. And please don't ask me once again to explain, because I've already done that, several times. Look it up.

      I'm not insisting that it was pre-planned, but I don't think we can rule out that possibility.

      Delete
  32. In case anyone missed this article, it mentions the Netflix that I posted on the other blog. But the article is also written by an attorney.

    JonBenet’s brother fires back at CBS
    Jack Greiner 4:37 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2017
    http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2017/01/19/jonbenets-brother-fires-back-cbs/96793574/

    -snip-

    "That allegation has significance beyond simply making CBS look bad. There is some legal strategy behind it. Given the public interest in the JonBenet case, it’s likely Burke Ramsey could be considered a “public figure” at least as to any reporting on the case itself. That means in a defamation suit, he’d have to establish that CBS broadcast the show with “actual malice.” That is, CBS knew what it was reporting was false or was reckless. In that type of case, merely getting it wrong isn’t enough. So if a group of experts looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that Burke Ramsey did it – and even if that conclusion was erroneous – CBS would win."

    Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This, and the poorly written Complaint, is the reason I think Lin Wood intended to settle from the get-go: I don't believe Burke would have been considered a public figure prior to his appearance on Dr Phil - an appearance engineered by Wood.
      CC

      Delete
    2. The CBS "investigation team" didn't just "get it wrong." They based their thinking on a fantasy with NO evidence to back it up, yet claimed to have solved the case nevertheless. The did indeed demonstrate "reckless disregard for the facts" and if that can be an argument for "actual malice" then Wood does in fact have a case.

      Delete
    3. Doc can you please preface your OPINIONS as just that...OPINIONS. You don't know that CBS got it wrong.

      -J

      Delete
    4. Doc, claiming that experts with inside knowledge of the case got it wrong make me ask how did they do that ? They showed reckless disregard for the facts ? Where ? You claiming your opinions as facts makes it no more correct. You need to realize that while there is a small chance that your theory is correct, it is based on less fact than CBS' and is more fantasy than theirs is. The whole scenario is based off what could be called an inference at best and that is that no one would call 911 with the body in the house. "Your inference" is NOT a fact and already ignores and makes excuses for almost all other evidence in the case to even be that.

      Delete
    5. What would be really interesting though Doc is if Lin Wood has to spill his guts on just what the facts are, no? What are the facts that were so recklessly disregarded.

      Delete
    6. KS - Ding Ding...SPOT ON!

      -J

      Delete
    7. As Wood demonstrates in the Complaint, they claimed the program was based on a fresh investigation but in fact almost everything they presented was based on Kolar's five year old book.

      They took us through a recording of the last part of the 911 call, and informed us in no uncertain terms exactly what John, Patsy and Burke had said, despite the highly questionable nature of the sounds we all heard. If they'd honestly confessed that their interpretation of these sounds was subjective, and that they could have misinterpreted something, that would have been honest, but they acted as though they had finally, after all these years, determined the truth -- which was clearly NOT the case, as a great many of us heard nothing remotely like the words they claim to have heard. Moreover, they led the audience to believe that they were spontaneously hearing those words for the first time, while in reality they were simply aping phrases reported in Steve Thomas's book published back in the late Nineties.

      Over and over again, they made the classic beginner's mistake of confusing a possibility with a fact. So just because it was possible that JonBenet could have grabbed some of Burke's pineapple, they assume it must have happened that way. Based on the equally questionable assumption that Burke had prepared that pineapple in the first place, or was even near the bowl that night. Sure, it was possible, but they proceeded as though they had established these events as facts, which was certainly NOT the case.

      Their whole theory was based on pure speculation, yet they congratulated themselves at the end for having solved the case. I'd call that reckless disregard for truth, no question.

      There is NO evidence linking Burke to this crime, yet they recklessly built a case against him based purely on their own wild speculations, prompted by obvious confirmation bias. And no, that's not just my opinion, it's clear to anyone viewing that show with an open mind.

      Delete
    8. Try this, KS and J: There are four theories of the crime. Each has its group of believers who claim "evidence" points to their perp of choice. The fact of the matter is that no one has ever been charged with the murder, and all four theories are nothing but speculation and inference based on a few chosen facts (the pineapple bowl, for example, for BDI, the Israeli shirt fiber in the panties for JDI, etc.). A JDI "documentary" would bring out the prior abuse, our interpretation of the RN, and perhaps show an actor demonstrating how an ex-Navy man would fashion a garrote. And it would, in the process, defame John Ramsey, just as Burke has been defamed by CBS - with malice and a reckless disregard for the only truth we have: what evidence exists is inconclusive and insufficient to charge anyone with murder.
      CC

      Delete
    9. Doc - There is absolutely no chance that you watched that special with an open mind. Not a .0000001% chance that you did. I read your post that was up within minutes of the show ending and you went on a rant.

      -J

      Delete
    10. Hey CC - For the record, I 100% get that Burke is suing them. It absolutely is ruining his name. I also believe Burke has gotten away with murder literally for the past 20 years. Suing and actually going to trial and testifying are completely different and just because he sued doesn't make him innocent by any stretch.

      -J

      Delete
    11. Quite right, J, the two are not mutually exclusive.

      Had CBS presented a true documentary, a real piece of investigative journalism, they would have presented all four theories: let Steve Thomas make his case for PDI, the successor in interest to Lou Smit handle IDI, and Doc present JDI, perhaps one per night over four nights, and let the audience decide. That would have demonstrated objectivity and balance, and if prefaced with the proper disclaimers, saved them a costly lawsuit.
      CC

      Delete
    12. While I agree, CC, that there is not (yet) enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that John is guilty of murdering his daughter, I do believe there is more than enough evidence to prosecute, based on the preponderance of evidence.

      Once John is faced with prosecution, he will then have every incentive to share what he knows with the authorities, and if he can make a convincing case that he was "only" covering for either his wife or his son, that might help to get him off. As I see it, a good prosecutor would totally destroy any attempt on his part to promote the intruder theory, so he'd have no choice but either to plea bargain or tell what he knows about what really happened, regardless of who actually committed the murder.

      If I were the DA, that's how I would proceed. But first, of course, it would be necessary to re-investigate the decision to rule him out by interviewing the "experts" who came to that decision, forcing them to explain the science behind it. And if they continue to insist that John could not have written the note, I'd confront them with the comparison I've put together, where exemplars from his writing and exemplars from the note are scrambled together, and challenge them to identify which is which.

      Delete
    13. Who here watched both cbs 2 part shows in it's entirety? I did. We do not know what wasn't aired. We do know they spoke to the Whites off camera. The British lady can certainly be considered someone with fresh eyes on the case. New info came out post Kolar's book, that is the true bills. A female CO attorney gave her thoughts on the true bills, so that is new info. And anyone with eyesight if they watched the program til the end, yes indeed a disclaimer was put on the screen. My gosh, so many seem butt hurt with cbs and the people on it for the portrayal even before the lawsuit.

      Delete
    14. I know you do, Doc, but the standard for prosecutors to bring a criminal case is the same as for the jurors who hear it: "beyond a reasonable doubt". "Preponderance of the evidence" is the standard used in jury instructions in civil matters.

      Bringing a criminal case using a lesser standard is irresponsible, as a trial - particularly this trial with its panoply of experts and witnesses - is a many-many-multi-million dollar undertaking, and Garnett's taxpayers would, rightly, have his head if he tried and failed.

      Boulder and its officials looked like incompetent fools on the world stage in 1996-97, again in 2008 with the exoneration, and yet again in 2013 when the GJ findings were released. Boulder and its sitting DA will be reluctant to try any case that's not a guaranteed slam dunk at this point, imo.
      CC

      Delete
    15. "They took us through a recording of the last part of the 911 call, and informed us in no uncertain terms exactly what John, Patsy and Burke had said, despite the highly questionable nature of the sounds we all heard. If they'd honestly confessed that their interpretation of these sounds was subjective, and that they could have misinterpreted something, that would have been honest, but they acted as though they had finally, after all these years, determined the truth -- which was clearly NOT the case, as a great many of us heard nothing remotely like the words they claim to have heard. Moreover, they led the audience to believe that they were spontaneously hearing those words for the first time, while in reality they were simply aping phrases reported in Steve Thomas's book published back in the late Nineties."

      First off they did not state anything as fact, although it is, as far as I am concerned. Where and how do you come up with that they were not honest ? Thats bullshit, straight up. They got it exactly right and they sat there and went through what they heard. It starts getting ridiculous when you call everyone involved in the case liars, including investigators who were on it and legitimately trying to solve it. Pretty much every single person in this case is a liar if there theory is not the same as yours, which is more speculation than theirs. Not only that but CBS did, in fact, try and prove out most of their theories. And no, most people do not agree with you on this. As I have said before about the 911 call, whether you hear anything or not, all evidence does not go through Doc G, there is more than enough evidence on the 911 to call it fact. Do what you have to do to keep your theory intact.

      Delete
    16. The only person who was dishonest is Lin Wood with that absolute joke of a list he put out. Are you kidding me ? That has to be the biggest joke of a evidence presentation I have ever seen and I have 0 respect for anyone here or anywhere else that backs up that farce of garbage he spewed up.

      Delete
    17. I agree with that assessment, KS. That was a poor piece of lawyering.
      CC

      Delete
    18. Actually Keiser, and I've said this before, what you think you hear on that recording would NOT be inconsistent with my theory -- any more than the version of what happened that Patsy presented on the A&E documentary. It's my belief that their official version of what happened prior to that call is a fiction -- and if it could be proven that Burke was with them after the hang-up that would bolster my theory.

      My take on that recording is based on what I hear, and also what I don't hear. And what I don't hear are the voices of Patsy, John and Burke. Which doesn't mean they aren't there, just that this is just one other piece of inconclusive evidence. Yet to the CBS investigators, "this is huge," because for them it establishes that the Ramseys were lying. That's made very clear in the show. Which would be fine with me since I too believe they were lying. But I'm sorry that recording is far from proof. And I'm not the only one who feels that way, not by a long shot.

      Delete
  33. It is very possible that JR, in covering for BR, came up with a plan to dispose of the body before PR woke up.

    He planned to tell PR and did tell PR when she got up in the morning but got a frantic response. Thus PR, not accepting that JBR had passed and wanting to call for help, was torn between calling for an ambulance or calling for police. JR won out as far as her not saying anything about what happened but not in the disposing of JBR's body and not calling 911. JR most likely, showed PR, JBR's body and thus why all of her fiber evidence is all over that crime scene. It could all have been transferred but that is highly unlikely and the fiber evidence does hold some value and make it most likely, that PR was, at some point, in contact with that crime scene despite JDI swearing otherwise. Anyone claiming that PR knew JR was molesting JBR, then killed JBR for that reason and then covered for him and slept next to him for 10 years, needs to take a whole bottle of logic pills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying that John wrote the note? That's what it sounds like.

      And no, I've never claimed that PR knew JR was molesting their daughter. It's hard to believe that anyone who's been following this blog for any length of time would make such an obvious mistake.

      Delete
  34. Keiser- there are the statements made by both Patsy and Burke saying she burst in his room and said "oh my gosh" and "where's my baby". Pre-911 call. However I don't recall statements made by any of the three that either parent asked him directly "do you know where she is, did you hear anything ".

    But from the get go - the parents were adamant that Burke was still asleep when the 911 call was made
    And any evidence was always denied and later conflicted with Burke and his friend's statements.

    IE parents say No, Burke never owned hi-tek footwear
    Burke, we learn later, does recall owning a pair, and friend said so as well.

    Anything with Burke the parents denied or distanced themselves.
    Even when it could be harmless-
    the knife, the bat, shoes, asleep, who would drink tea or eat pineapple.

    Heck, Burke could've accidentally have broken that window months prior, or snuck in just for fun and it's his scuff mark, but John may have decided to take the blame way back so Burke wouldn't get in trouble with Patsy for goofing around.

    Even the unflushed toilet in the basement Patsy threw out Burke's little friend's name who must be responsible for that.

    Then the parents have both medical records sealed and off limits.
    Why? If John said it was an "inside job" and they believed someone who knew their house and their routines, then couldn't there be the possibility that the "intruder" knew Burke and may have victimized him in the past?

    I think innocent parents would release everything to LE in hopes to enable the investigators to catch the "monster" in Boulder.

    ReplyDelete
  35. IMO the practice not is proof that the note wasn't written in advance ( days before). The writer wouldn't have left it on the pad. No way .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *practice note

      Delete
    2. There never was a "practice note." They found a sheet with "Mr. and Mrs. |" at the top. That's it. It's never been made public so we have no way of critically examining it to determine whether it's consistent with the writing on the ransom note or not. And even if it is, that tells us nothing about whether it was written in advance or on the night of the murder. If leaving it in the pad was a mistake, then that mistake could have been made at any time.

      Delete
  36. Ooh boy, I just got back from nutville, haven't spent much time there but you have to look at this letter! I know a few of you mentioned that you do use the manuscript "a". Well so does this "team jbi" but take a gander at their recent letter they posted on fb, doesn't this look similar to the ransom letter?
    https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/16143191_1395046603871133_6937975113021400309_n.jpg?oh=ecc6e5967bd958537c42a866ba7b5f4d&oe=591270AB

    Posted 4 hours ago titled "a special message"
    https://m.facebook.com/jonbenetinvestigation/
    They also have a forum, and state they talk with John.
    Maybe Boulder PD needs to have a look at that message.
    At least Doc G, since you have analyzed the samples extensively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did that letter come from and who is Team JBI?

      Delete
    2. Wondering about who is answering that tip line, if that is even a real number.

      Delete
    3. That letter was posted on the fb page, so second link goes to front page of fb. Now the person posting also posts on a forum. I was reading the forum first and they had a link to the fb page. My impression is team jbi, is that English is not their first language, (on forum would type how a killer likes to keep a 'taffy' when I think they mean 'trophy').
      Posts that the killer got stuck in the elevator in basement and there are pry marks...killer likely has MS due to handwriting.
      Then I saw that ugly scrawl on the fb page, omg! Just crazy.

      Wanted to see if any of you saw similarities to the original and this thing.

      Delete
    4. LOL! You know, at some point years ago someone got the bright idea of creating a "JonBenet Ramsey" font, based on letter formations in the ransom note. Looks to me like this message was printed using that font -- or else written by someone deliberately imitating letters from the note. It's much too close to the real thing to represent anything other than an amusing joke. Maybe not so amusing. Are we amused?

      Delete
    5. I find this a bit amusing. How do I download this font?

      Delete
    6. Yes, it does look deliberate and nope, not amused, as "team jbi" purports that the family is innocent. So I really do wonder if LE shouldn't be emailed that link/pic. Granted I understand that most here as well as judges don't consider handwriting experts as really legit, but maybe LE should have a chat with the fb owner.
      Anyone care to screen grab that? Have to say, I've not come across anything like this since revisiting the case when the anniversary approached.

      Delete
    7. Here's a website with all pertinent info, including the email address of the creator. Dates from 1997, so good luck contacting this guy. Fun fun fun.

      Delete
    8. Somebody finally took you up on your idea, Doc. I think this font should be called Boulder96.

      GS

      Delete
  37. Does anyone have any information/opinions on what has been reported about Patsy purchasing rope and duct tape from McGuckin's early in December?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I've ever read is items she purchased match in price to those items, but receipts don't describe items and apparently didn't have the sku#, but I think dept area. The items match where they would be found in that dept.
      It was also said the cording and tape was something Patsy would use on her paintings.

      Delete
    2. Correct Lil, the items were paid for in cash woth no sku #, the items match the exact prices of the tape and cord. Draw whatever inference that need be from it. I personally think she bought those items, without any doubt, I do not think she purchased them for a preplanned murder of JBR though. If I am not mistaken and I may be, she denied purchasing them in an interview which makes it all the more stranger, if just a coincidence.

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

      Delete
  38. This case goes further up the ranks then any of us want to even know or think about, in my opinion. From the beginning, the FBI should have taken complete control of this case, as it was a kidnapping by a "foreign faction", therefore their jurisdiction completely. Agents should have been swarming the area and roadblocks set up immediately.

    Lockheed Martin had a protocol that if one of them or one of their family members were kidnapped, steps were to be taken. Nothing was done at Lockheed Martin, not even a memo sent out to executives. WHY NOT?

    I am starting to believe Doc when he says we don't know what JR was doing on his many trips to the Netherlands, etc.

    Something stinks, from the top all the way down.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  39. I just watched the Menendez Brothers 20/20 and one of the major takeaways that applies to this case is that when the police first got to the Menendez House, they didn't do proper tests on the sons or treat them like suspects because A) The money and B) the 911 call pointed outside the house. Had they done a gunshot residue, the sons would have been arrested on the spot. In the Ramsey case, there was obviously no body, so therefore no murder weapon was being looked for. There was also no blood and no sign of a struggle, so ALL the focus by the police went exactly where JATSY (Im combining their names because they are a team) wanted it to go....outside of the house!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  40. And that my dear J, is a good example of abductive reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No its not. What theory is J putting out based on what inference from what observation???

      Delete
  41. Definition of Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory, which accounts for a most likely explanation. to paraphrase J above:

    No seen body, no weapon being looked at, no blood, no sign of a struggle, but a note saying there had been a kidnapping. As J says all focus by police "went where JATSY wanted it to go - outside the house" most certainly an example of abductive reasoning- a theory based on that observation, which accounts for a most likely explanation - that the focus was outside the house.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And we can all agree that the note had many purposes, but I think you and I can agree J, that the main purpose was to take the investigation outside the house, and away from the people in it. To me J made an excellent point and I agree with him. We may not agree who did what, but he has provided a "logical inference which accounts for a most likely explanation" that the intention was to take the investigation outside the house.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the support Inq, i appreciate it. Obviously JATSY got some luck that morning with so few cops showing up, but the fact that they were wealthy and had a great reputation in the community absolutely made their lives easier with the police. There were no signs of the murder taking place in the house. Like I said, no blood really meant that things naturally would point to outside the house. The RN did what it was supposed to do ultimately. Once it was determined to be a kidnapping, then the police HAD to sift through the long list of potential suspects that the note provided.

      -J

      Delete
    3. You got it J. Jatsy is so great a term too. Mind if I borrow it from time to time?

      Delete
    4. Of course not, use away

      I was between JATSY and POHN.

      -J

      Delete
    5. I like Jatsy. Could write a book by F. Scott Fitzgerald called The Great Jatsy.

      Delete
    6. The attention of the police was outside the house until the body was found: INSIDE the house. So, J, you want to claim that the Ramseys assumed the body would never be found in the house? That they were planning on removing it AFTER the police arrived?

      Delete
  42. I do not think saying focus outside house is theory. It is just statement of fact. DocG has a theory JDI based on inferences. That by J is not a theory and not example of abductive reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I know you do, Doc, but the standard for prosecutors to bring a criminal case is the same as for the jurors who hear it: "beyond a reasonable doubt"."

    AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
    Fourth Edition of the
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS for the PROSECUTION FUNCTION

    Standard 3-4.3
    Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges

    (a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.

    CC: I believe Doc believes that charging JR is "supported by probable cause". My question is this. Are prosecutors' beliefs that admissible evidence "sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt" and jurors' beliefs that prosecutors have proven their cases beyond a reasonable doubt, both sides of the same coin?

    Standard 3-1.1 (B)
    The Scope and Function of these Standards

    "These Standards are intended to provide guidance for the professional conduct and performance of prosecutors. They are written and intended to be entirely consistent with the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and are not intended to modify a prosecutor's obligations under applicable rules, statutes, or the constitution. They are aspirational or describe “best practices,” and are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional discipline, to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons, to create a standard of care for civil liability, or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge..."

    Standard 3-1.1 (C)
    "Because the Standards for Criminal Justice are aspirational, the words “should” or “should not” are used in these Standards, rather than mandatory phrases such as “shall” or “shall not,” to describe the conduct of lawyers that is expected or recommended under these Standards. The Standards are not intended to suggest any lesser standard of conduct than may be required by applicable mandatory rules, statutes, or other binding authorities."

    I am no more familiar with Colorado "standards" than you are. However, notwithstanding they are "greater", I question whether Doc's well-planned course of action might better be better characterized as "responsible" in so far as his position maintains, beyond a reasonable, that at a minimum it would result in one of three possible outcomes:

    1) John Ramsey is found guilty of murder.
    2) John Ramsey is found guilty of "covering" up a crime committed by Burke and/or Patsy.
    3) John Ramsey is found guilty of "perjury" and/or worse if there was "intruder".

    Even if John can't be punished criminally, he is no longer penniless as he was in the early years after the crime. He owns what is believed to be a lucrative private airline business, and no doubt has fattened pockets from proceeds of lawsuits he and his attorneys won, assisted perhaps by twenty years of lies. Somewhere in the criminal or civil lexicon, there must be a way to take back from John what he earned or extorted from others when he should have been spending time in jail.

    A DA reluctant to try a case that's come this far because it's not a "guaranteed slum dunk" could equally be judged as "incompetent" and "irresponsible". In fact, I would venture to say that, even if his Boulder contemporaries don't judge as such, future authors and historians will. This was the Crime of the Century. The one before that was Jack the Ripper, and two Jack the Ripper's in a row is two too many.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow, Mike. Nice piece of work - excellent research, good source, thoughtful questions. Let me start with the easy ones that have clear-cut answers.

    John cannot be charged with conspiracy to commit, accessory to murder or perjury as the statutes of limitations have expired for those crimes - it's murder or nothing.

    A prosecutor always has an obligation to weigh the probable outcome against the risk of charging a possibly innocent person, wasting the Court's time and resources and the cost to taxpayers, but his mandate is always, first and foremost, to seek justice. I was suggesting that Stan Garnett might be disinclined to risk a trial if he has less than beyond a reasonable doubt given the performances of his two predecessors, the political climate in Boulder, and the staggering cost to taxpayers of this particular trial, but there is nothing preventing him - or any prosecutor - from indicting with less than beyond a reasonable doubt if he feels strongly that's how justice is best served, and I take your point, and Doc's, that this is a case that cries out for resolution - and for justice.

    To the extent that it's a prosecutor's hope and belief that he has the evidence and can make a case that persuades a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes, they could be considered two sides of the same coin.

    And finally, I know of no means by which John could be financially penalized for what we believe to be his crimes - to my knowledge that remedy is not available in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and there is no one who could bring a civil suit against him for his alleged acts, as the Goldmans did OJ.

    Again, good job, Mike.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  45. "I am no more familiar with Colorado "standards" than you are"

    I was struck by the lack of standards in Colorado the first time I visited.

    We always hear that had the Ramseys not been rich, they would have been arrested. I would add to that, that had this murder been in another part of the country, the Ramseys would have been arrested.

    The first time I was there, I honestly felt like I was on another planet, things were so lax, down to small city ordinances. It really is kind of like the wild wild west. This is a younger state, and the government presence is just not as developed.

    I'm no expert, just a personal impression and observation, but I really do think they have different standards there.

    There are 3 military bases close around Colorado Springs, too, so many non-permanent residents in the state and many young military men in certain areas.

    The cities, such as Denver and Colorado Springs, are nice, but in between the major cities are just nothing much at all. Very sparsely populated. Miles upon miles of no one there but cowboys, ranches, and elk herds.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike was referring to the Colorado Standards of Evidence.
      CC

      Delete