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.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
The Complaint -- Part 7
Comments coming thick and fast, so here's more room.
Doc recommends newcomers read at least his first two blog posts to get an overview of his theory and answers to some basic questions, Gumshoe Too. It saves wear and tear on Doc and the rest of us from endless repetition. Thanks. CC
He could not afford the risk of having a neighbor spot his car on the road on the night of the murder. Also the sound of the car and/or the garage door might have awakened Patsy or Burke.
So when do you figure John would dispose of the body? I can't imagine he would ever have enough time away from Patsy after their kid was just "kidnapped" to go get the body and get her out of the house without it being found.
Again, all of this is covered in great detail in Doc's first few posts. A very interesting read - it persuaded me, a staunch IDI at the time! Happy reading :)
I read this blog on a regular basis but rarely comment. What I am about to write is pure speculation. However, I wanted to share some information that I recently learned from an unfortunate accident. My 18 month old daughter was running around our tile house and fell and hit her head. She didn't even have a bump. She did vomit 5-6 times after within minutes and she was crying for several minutes.
After about 5 minutes, she acted completely fine. My husband is very old-fashioned and his family is originally from Alabama. He actually told me that it was unnecessary to take her to the ER because she seemed fine and had no bump, despite the vomiting. I disagreed and took her anyways. She wound up being fine, but I learned some very interesting information from the pediatric ER doctor.
He did tell me in very rare cases, there can be a slow bleed in the brain where a child acts completely normal and then randomly collapses after anywhere from 1-4 hours. After that collapse, they stop breathing or have shallow breathing and no signs of life, outside of a pulse. There would be no bump and no other major warning signs, as the bleed to the brain was slow and then grew exponentially. I asked all of these questions because I wanted him to explain to my husband why it was so important to bring her in.
I am not saying this is what happened in this case. But I do think it is possible. Food for thought.
Welcome, HJM. Your contribution is helpful, so thanks. I'm assuming your daughter is now OK, with no bleeding. But a fall like that can be very scary. I'm surprised that there was not even a bump. But it's important to remember that JonBenet's skull was cracked from end to end. It's hard to imagine such an injury simply from a fall onto a hard object. Or her being struck with a hard object, such as bat or golf club. Which is why most of the investigators tend to focus on the MagLite with it's hard rubber tip.
CBS tested a 10 year old hitting a skull with a similar maglite. The hole in the skull was almost exact. Possibly a golf club, most likely a driver would make a similar indentation. The problem with a golf club is that im all likelihood, a harder object like that would break the flesh on the skull and produce outward bleeding and be a much more noticeable wound. A rubber maglite fits the bill as something that could possibly not break the flesh but still cause that type of cranial damage
Hi HJM and welcome! Possible.....but a criminal stages an accident to cover for a crime. Who, in their right mind, would stage an accident to look like a crime, thus guaranteeing a criminal investigation for an act that didn't ever require one?! Staging a crime is going to draw a lot of attention people trying to protect a nine year old boy, or a spouse, just don't want. That's why I keep pressing the BDIs to give me a logical explanation as to why one would choose to turn an innocent accident into the crime of the century but - predictably - they keep overlooking that question and offer me pineapple evidence instead. ;)
BDI's also argue, a posteriori, John and Patsy, motivated by protecting a son's fragile mental health and family reputation, concocted then successfully deployed a "reverse psychology" cover-up, citing the family's "freedom" today--twenty years after the crime--as proof in the pudding.
It is a false argument because while all are still "free", Burke is suing CBS millions and millions of dollars for pain and suffering, and the names John and Patsy Ramsey live on in infamy.
Kris Kristofferson wrote that: 'freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'. I prefer, as did the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Bob Dylan's take on it. He wrote:
"Freedom...just around the corner from you, but with the truth so far off...what good does it do?"
Yes, Burke is suing, but he doesn't have the money yet. Unless... "I got no friends 'cause they read the papers, they can't be seen with me" -Alice Cooper
The hard rubber tip of the MagLite seems to solidify it as the murder weapon - at least until one realizes that it does not fit the shape of the skull wound. For some reason, despite that glaring fact, the flashlight continues to be the popular choice.
Hercule, what do you think she was hit with? Or were you the one that said toilet edge?
That "team jbi" claims it was the handle end of a youth's baseball bat found outside the Ramsey house,which, of course they deny owning that too.
Oddly, I had a chuckle when "team jbi" mentions bedwetting as one early sign of a serial killer. John gave a statement that all his children were bedwetters and found it very normal.
How does it not fit Hercule ? It sure looked like it fit pretty well to me. The wiping down of all prints pretty much solidifies that it was most likely the weapon used.
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.
Doc, I know every tidbit of your theory as I have been on here about 2 years. Thank you for running this blog. My comment about PR knowing and covering for JR molesting and killing JBR was more intended for poster Mike who stated that was what happened in an above comment. I picked up a book by Cyril Wecht yesterday Doc, I am curious if you have read this book and if it worth my time ?
While you're answering questions from the previous post, Keiser, care to address this one? Because it's an answer I'm also interested in hearing, seeing as you put so much weight into what was heard after Patsy thought she'd hung up the phone. Thanks.
DocGJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM You still haven't answered my question, Keiser. Which is it: "Help me Jesus" or "What did you do?"
Keiser, Wecht's book has been around for many years and is often referred to, both my me and others. I'm surprised you've never heard of it till now. And yes, I highly recommend it. His comments on the condition of the vagina are authoritative and convincing.
DocGJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM You still haven't answered my question, Keiser. Which is it: "Help me Jesus" or "What did you do?"
I did answer that Ms. D. PR says BOTH. The help me Jesus can be heard at the end of just about any of the 911 call recordings. The deal with her words and tone of voice with the "what did you do" tell me she knows of what happened at this point. She is either A) speaking to BR or B) Speaking to JR or C) speaking to an unknown individual. With BR being the one who responds first I am going to go with BR. I know JR and PR's voices very well. BR's I had probably never heard before so I can not 100% confirm that it is BR but without any doubt that it is PR and JR and a younger male.
Some folks may not be aware of this, but Burke DID get to hear the 911 tape during the GJ and while stating it wasn't him, he said it DID sound like him. So HE heard something that many of you are unable to hear.
I never pretend to be an expert on anything, Keiser. ;)
I'm confident in my position regarding who Jonbenet's killer is, but anything else - statement analysis, child psychology, criminal profiling, handwriting analysis - I leave that to the experts.....if there is such a thing!
Nothing there about Patsy also saying "What did you do?" You say you heard the Aerospace enhancement some years ago and the voices were clear as a bell. So, did YOU hear her say "What did you do" at that time? Because apparently no one else did.
As seems pretty clear from the CBS segment on that recording, the tech guy was the first to interpret Patsy's utterances that way. At first they all agree it sounds like "Help me Jesus," or something of that sort. And it's only after the tech guy says he hears "What did you do" that they then change their minds and agree with him. As far as I can tell that's the first time anyone ever heard that phrase in that recording. And that's how they themselves treat it: as a new and exciting discovery.
So be honest, Keiser: did YOU hear it that way when you heard that enhancement originally? If it was "clear as a bell" then I'd imagine that too was clear. And if you heard it, why is it that no one else did until the CBS "experts" enhanced it last year?
Folks, as a relative newcomer to Doc's site (Sept. of this year), I adore you all! I think, perhaps, y'all have stopped seeing the "forest for the trees." Here's how I see the whole shabang (feel free to dispute!) The theories: - Intruder - No way. Locked doors, no true sign of entry, no abducted JonBenet. Done and done. Means it's either family or someone close to family. No way intruder. - Burke - He's nine. I know there's a ton of research showing that a nine-year old can be homicidal, but let's get real. Yes, I know about the golf club incident. I know about the feces history. But, really? Killing his sister? Let's briefly say it was an accidental blow to the head...YOU CALL 911! Not Burke. - Patsy - If Patsy did it, she would NOT have called 911 at 5:40-something am on the 26th. She would have been busy staging and showering. Patsy's penmanship might "look" like the ransom note writing, but her behavior does not reflect her being the author. I also believe that her cancer and "Chemo Brain" account for more of her "emotional and memory dexterity" than people account for... - John - He's all who remains. Previous possibility of sexual abuse - check. Access to Sharpie and pad - check. Knows how to tie knots/garrote from time in Navy - check. Smart and good in pressure situations - check. Could concoct both a legit as well as staged situation - check. Had time the morning of the 26th to orchestrate some nonsense - check.
I know that this is the "dumbed down" version of things, but sometimes it's good to take a step back! Thoughts?
We do tend to bog down in the minutiae, Candace, and analyze every word spoken and fiber found to death. . .and then do it all again. Thanks for taking a step back and keeping it simple.
(Does anyone call you Candygram? The temptation is overwhelming.) CC
Very much agreed Candace. I was once "Ramseys did it" or PDI until Doc untangled the note so well. I always believed John did the staging, but I couldn't get over the handwriting analysis, etc to get a clear grasp on the case.
Is a man which already makes him more likely as a murder suspect than a woman or child - check "found" the body - check tried to flee to Atlanta - check Knew his bonus amount - check
Further, it seems to me Patsy suspected John initially. Also, it seems to me John tried to frame Fleet White - who else would know John's bonus? Possibly have boating connections if SBTC is "signed by the captain"? Why bring him to the wine cellar with you? Why tell people it's an inside job? etc.
What I cannot get out of my head is the 'beheaded' in the note, the garrote, and the suitcase. All of those are very strange individually, and it might be simplest to assume they all had the same purpose - to behead her and get her in the suitcase. The beheading is also the only thing slightly "foreign faction" about the note, and I imagine if everything had gone right John would have wanted it to seem like a foreign faction did the crime. It seems plausible to me that foreign faction beheading is plan a, fleet white plan b, patsy/burke plan c. I respect Doc's opinion more than my own on these matters, but I can't get myself to the garrote being just because he noticed she wasn't dead. It seems so much more violent than that. It seems like part of the staging, rather than merely part of the killing.
The suitcase seems to me part of the crime scene, though it's very rarely given a role to play. Even to say John used a chair and then switched the chair for a suitcase or whatever - it is rarely mentioned as part of a theory of what happened. I feel like I could say the same for beheading.
Also, the Menendez Brothers for one example committed the murders and called the cops. They did not hand the cops a note in their own handwriting, however. Nor did they then need additional staging after calling. Thus, I agree it makes no sense for Patsy to make that call if she was the murderer.
What you say about the garotte makes sense. I've sometimes thought it had an erotic function, i.e., it might have been part of an erotic fantasy, related to S & M. On the other hand, it could have been last-minute staging.
Hard to believe it was last-minute. Then again, it's hard to believe the garotte and tying of her hands and all wasn't part of the staging - which brings me to how she was supposed to be found and the plan behind the note which you've done so well to tease out.
I've often wondered if the garrote was used as staging (to Doc's point) because it IS "so extreme." John thinking that it would certainly deflect any suspicions from the family.
As I've stated before, I believe the strangulation was no more than a means to an end after John saw the blow to the head didn't do the job. But I think the garrote itself was added later - after he realized the body was going to be discovered in the house that day - in order to make it more consistent with a murder by a "foreign faction", or at least what John "imagined" a murder by a foreign faction might look like. Pure speculation, of course, but I feel it tends to make more sense than John choosing to fashion a somewhat complicated device in order to finish off an already dying and unconscious child who will put up no resistance, when manual strangulation with a scarf or neck tie would have done the job just as adequately. Of course, the time that elapsed between the head blow and the garroting might indicate that making a garrote is exactly what John was doing.....if that's the case, sexual gratification from erotic asphyxiation is unlikely to be the motive, as one needs a conscious victim for the "game" to work, yes? That damn garrote has been a sore point for everyone, no matter which camp you're in!
Yes D at least for me it is a very sore point. I think when one just says it was to hide the strangulation, one forgets the rest of her body was tied up. It seems to me in general the use of the binds and lariat were how she was supposed to be found. Doc seems to even think she was in the trunk of the car ready to be transported. On my lights, she was supposed to be found tied up and quite nearly beheaded...then I come to the note and the suitcase and say maybe she was quite nearly beheaded. Of course, it's possible that too was part of John's ruse. After strangling her, he felt he did need to nearly behead her and switch a chair for a suitcase, but that seems to make too many assumptions compared to him really wanting to behead her. Which, by the way, would get rid of the blow to her head, wouldn't it?
Also, if you are going to crack her skull with a flashlight, you could smash her windpipe with it too.
Off topic but related to DNA, it's been 50 years since the slaughter of Dr Jeffrey McDonald's family (Fatal Vision). His lawyers are back in court due to "new evidence " three hairs that don't match the family. So, don't cha know, This Proves those hippie intruders were in the house! rolling eyes
Interesting, as I don't recall that mentioned at all in this article. They do mention a dog hair was found. But aa much as we discuss innocent transfer of things in the Ramsey case, I'm not all that 'het up' about 3 hair strands and a dog hair in the McDonald home.
Ms D, I read your post on the other blog entry about team jbi. I just came across the site this week and the 'letter' they posted on facebook this week was bizarre. The site I found is all posts from 2015 it seems. Didn't know they/he has lots of entries around the web but just doesn't seem credible at all.
Haven't come across the Hispanic perp mention yet, I seem to recall that being Jamesons stance. This team is about perp is white, an artist, teacher, hiking guide (which they spell 'guild') rock climber, brought his own Sharpie and left it, painted green paint on her face, tied her to the chair, used the desk that the police took into evidence, killed her while the 911 call was being made, lives near a highway with a 5 in it and is from the Northwest. Uses bike, bus, and on foot and left his duffle bag there. Oh, and uses paper bags to put human waste in while hiking. Also used the log grabber to leave the marks on her face. Dropped his carabiner in the wine closet leaving an imprint in the 'salts'.
Lots of copy and paste with no links to what they quote.
You were brave to have interacted with whoever team jbi is.
For those that care to see what this is about, 75 pages of atrocious spelling can be found here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6010.435
I also follow that page on facebook and its more for giggles as nothing they say makes sense and seems like they are trying to make the evidence fit their theory instead. That note does seem like a very close copy on writing style to the actual ransom note though. -Eri
A question I have for the experts here. When did Patsy say she bought that large, day of week, underwear?
My personal opinion is, there is something very fishy about those underwear. I don't believe PR bought it for a niece. You don't buy underwear for an 11 year old. No one does that.
Are we totally sure Patsy bought those, what evidence is there on that, or did John actually buy them?
Here is something you probably haven't heard before. Patsy pre-planned this. Ya'll say you've heard everything before, but you might not have heard that.
And I say that, because buying that underwear shows pre-planning to me. It was all part of their whole reverse psychology bit. Like, 'they knew that people knew, that only the parents knew she wore day of the week underwear, so why would the parents put more day of the week underwear on her? They wouldn't, because they wouldn't be that dumb. So we know it wasn't the parents.' Reverse psychology.
It was either PR or JR. But whoever bought that underwear, pre-planned that murder. Just something to think about anyway.
That's an interesting thought, SC. Reverse psychology is always a possibility and we can't totally rule it out.
However, the oversize panties actually point in the opposite direction, since there would have been no reason for an intruder to redress his victim in a fresh pair of panties. If some semen got on the original pair he could simply have pocketed it and taken it out of the house. No need to redress her. It's only if John got some semen on those panties that there would be a need to replace them.
I had a post to Ms D about that team jbi that apparently didn't go thru. pout
Some of you may already know this but I just now read Lin Wood's wiki entry. Omg, it said when he was 16 he came home to find his mother beaten to death by his father. His dad served less than 3 years.
Well my idea about the large underwear, is, it is all part of the convoluted attempts of the perp, whether it is PR or JR or both, to do some weird staging. Like layers of reverse psychology.
So the thinking being, 'we'll put her in day of the week underwear, because mostly only we the parents know about that. But then, we'll buy them too big, so that way, it will point away from us, because of course we know the right size for our daughter. So that way, it will look like it is someone close to us (like the housekeeper maybe, or like the wife of FW who helped JBR at restrooms maybe) who knew about the day of the week underwear, but not close enough to know the size she wore, and just grabbd the wrong ones. And they are trying to set us up.'
I know it sounds weird, but the whole scene was weird. The whole theme of the scene is, 'this was done by someone who knows us, and is falsely trying to 'set us the parents up''.
Because everyone knows, putting that large size underwear on a little girl is weird. So why did the perp do it? They didn't have to do it. It was done for some reason.
My guess is a lot simpler: John, being unaware of what size panties JB wore (as he had never dressed her prior to that) grabbed the first pair of "Wednesday" panties he came across (remembering she was wearing Wednesday panties when he pulled them off in order to mutilate her vagina). Upon redressing her in them, he probably realized they were too big but as the redressing probably happened in the hour or so he was missing (I believe this because his initial plan was to dispose of the body, so no redressing would have been necessary), he had to make do with what he had - he wasn't about to make a second trip upstairs and risk being caught in the act. The over sized panties, in my opinion, are a very obvious sign that someone who didn't usually dress her put her in them that morning (further ruling out Patsy), no more, no less.
That is one possibility Ms. D. And it could have happened.
However, I think it is odd those underwear were bought in the first place. So I think there could be something more to that. But we can't say for sure. Something to at least think about.
I saw some pictures online of that underwear, didn't look like anything too special. What 11 year old needs day of the week underwear? That is not something you buy for a gift. These are not dirt poor people. Maybe for like starving refugees, some underwear might be a fine gift. But not for these wealthy people. PR might as well have bought the niece some sweat socks and some hand towels.
And of course she never sent them either. You usually buy gifts to send. I don't believe it. Something funny about that. And I would be interested to know what exact date those were bought.
"That is not something you buy for a gift. These are not dirt poor people. Maybe for like starving refugees, some underwear might be a fine gift. But not for these wealthy people"
Firstly, we do not know if the panties were the only gift she was sending her niece - perhaps she was including them with a Rolex watch, lol - secondly, there may have been a specific reason she bought her niece the panties, perhaps she or the child's mother had requested them since they were only available at Bloomingdale's and Patsy had recently been on a shopping trip there. Either way, I wouldn't put too much stock into why Patsy may have chosen them as a gift as none of us will ever know why.
The reason she never sent out the panties is because JB liked them, so Patsy decided to keep them for her, plain and simple.
SC and D. You both make valid points. And I have to agree, panties seem like an odd sort of gift for a young girl. For me, however, the problem is not with the panties per se, but the reason why JBR was redressed in those oversize panties. No reason for an intruder to do it, which makes it unlikely as something Patsy would deliberately buy to promote the intruder theory. No reason for Patsy to do it, at least not that I can see. But I do see a reason for John to do it, as discussed in at least one of my earlier blog posts and a great many comments.
I read elsewhere that JB could not even read well. Why would she want those oversized Day of Week underwear, when she couldn't even read what it meant? She also had plenty of her own day of week underwear. Also they were not supposed to be opened, they were still in the package, and somewhere else it said it was in a hard plastic package, probably like those clear tube kinds. You probably can't even tell what the underwear look like that well in there.
I saw those underwear online, they were white with like some small flowers on it. No big deal. Looks like every other girls underwear out there. Please, why would an 11 year old beg her aunt for some white flowered underwear? Oh please aunty buy me some white cotton underwear, please. Come on. I am sure the 11 year old can buy her own underwear, through allowance and such. None of that passes the smell test.
No eleven year old is going to spend her allowance on underwear, lol. It was more likely her mother wanted the underwear for her daughter. Or maybe Patsy got a "two for one offer"?! Who knows the motivation behind the decision to buy her niece underwear? I think you're placing value on something that isn't important as there is nothing to suggest Patsy is lying when she says she initially bought the underwear for her niece, but decided to keep it for Jonbenet instead. The only significant aspect regarding the panties is that, anyone who was accustomed to dressing JB would have known those panties did not fit her. That is why the only logical inference to draw - whether you're a BDI, RDI, PDI or JDI - is that it wasn't Patsy - who knew what size undies her daughter wore - that redressed JB that morning. Even if your "reverse psychology" theory was correct, the larger underwear still makes no more sense.
" I think you're placing value on something that isn't important as there is nothing to suggest Patsy is lying when she says she initially bought the underwear for her niece, but decided to keep it for Jonbenet instead. "
Well the only odd thing, is, those were the underwear that ended up on the dead child. So maybe a little something a little bit significant and of value about them.
"The only significant aspect regarding the panties is that, anyone who was accustomed to dressing JB would have known those panties did not fit her. That is why the only logical inference to draw - whether you're a BDI, RDI, PDI or JDI - is that it wasn't Patsy - who knew what size undies her daughter wore - that redressed JB that morning. Even if your "reverse psychology" theory was correct, the larger underwear still makes no more sense. "
You stole the words right out of my mouth. Reverse psychology. Of course, everyone assumes, well if PR dressed the dying child, well of COURSE she knew what size JBR wore, so PR couldn't have done it, blah blah. The whole theme of the crime... reverse psychology. Did PR study pysch in college?
PR must be a fan of the rock scissors paper game, lol. Because whenever I play that game,I use a lot of reverse psychology. I think, now what would they 'think' I would do?, so I have to do the opposite.
But they're trying to point towards an intruder.....and an intruder doesn't take the time to rifle through his victim's wardrobe while people are sleeping in the house in order to find fresh underwear for a child he's just killed. He simply removes the underwear she was wearing that may hold incriminating evidence, takes it with him, leaves the child semi-naked and gets the hell out of there as fast as he can.
Hmmm. That's a good point. Maybe they are not doing this too well? Caught up in some fantasy version of an intruder did it? Like, "just removing the orig underwear would just be too boring. Let's put extra large underwear on her instead, that will really confuse people!"
Second of all, did we ever figure out that the underwear package was in the basement? And if it was, you as a JDI, how do you think JR knew where to find it on his own, with all the jumbled filled shopping bags? Don't you think he was a little busy to go rifling thru shopping bags?
If he redressed JB in the hour and a half he went AWOL - which I believe he did - then, as I've said before, he only had what was in the basement available to him, because LE were upstairs. So John frantically tearing open presents looking for new clothes actually makes more sense than if both Patsy and John were in on it together, in which case they would have taken care of redressing JB before calling the police and would have used JB's own underwear. Perhaps John knew Patsy often bought underwear for relatives, or she might have directly told him she had purchased and wrapped them. *But*, if John was the one to tear open the packaging that morning, why did Patsy lie about it? The over-sized panties, the real reason for the garrote and (yes J, the damn pineapple, lol) are the three things that keep me awake at night!
If we are going to go JDI, maybe JR was with PR when she bought and or stored the undies, so he knew about them.
"But*, if John was the one to tear open the packaging that morning, why did Patsy lie about it?"
Did PR lie about that? I thought she said she never opened them. It is unclear to me if she said she left them in bedroom or basement. Is that what she lied about?
SC - see DocG's 2012 entry on the bloomies and then scroll down to otg 2016 posts that seem very informative of the police questioning, Patsy's statements, etc. Also acandyrose is a great reference for Patsy recollection of shopping trips, etc.
DocG- are some comments going to spam? I thought I posted one about DNA and hair in the Dr Jeffrey McDonald case that his new attorneys are saying that is 'proof' of intruders.
Thanks for the tip, lil. I just checked and in fact three legit comments were in the spam bin. I have no idea why that's happening. I just now restored them.
Thank you DocG, And a happy belated Australia Day to Ms D and the others from Oz http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4428512/see-how-wollongong-celebrated-australia-day-2017-photos-video/
The 911 tape - the public have heard it since 1998 and it was aired on Geraldo. (I didn't see the show, or don't recall) but lots of info here with transcripts http://www.acandyrose.com/s-geraldo911tape.htm
Keiser - just reading the comments in this old discussion on just one page about the 911 call shows to others that 1)the Ramseys from from day one lied to LE about something that should have been no big deal 2)changed that lie only after their son was at the grand jury 3) that Burke's own attorney apparently knew the importance of the tape 3)that it seems Lacy gave an edited version out omitting the family chit chat... These old posts are eye-opening. Yep, that tape was hella important back then, regardless of future books and tv shows and blogs. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7713-911-Call-Lies/page10
"RiverSelah Posts: 95 Member since: 10/4/02 - From: Somewhere under the hole in the Ozone. RE: Geraldo 911 Tapes
I'll be the first one to tell you that I swore up and down that I heard those tapes on Geraldo. I was determined to prove it, so I called my cousin who works for the company that produces Geraldo. Guess what she says? The tapes never aired, what I heard was a dummy tape. A dummy tape, according to her, is a renactment.
So, I was wrong. The tapes did not air on Geraldo."))"
In other words, according to someone apparently in a position to know, what was aired on the Geraldo show was NOT the original 911 tape, but a re-enactment. We sometimes hear from people who swear up and down that they actually heard the Aerospace enhancement on Geraldo, but apparently that was not the case. I've long suspected that what was played could have been an attempt to reproduce the phrases that some claim to have heard rather than the actual recording itself. And this post seems to confirm that. It would be consistent with other reports that the aerospace version has been heard ONLY by law enforcement officials.
And incidentally, according to ALL the reports quoted in the ACandyRose site, there is no mention of Patsy saying anything other than "save me Jesus."
Corretion: I think it's suppposed to be "help me Jesus." In any case there is no report of her saying "What did you do," or anything remotely like that.
Keep reading thru all the posts on that one page at ffj, apparently LE did believe the tape was leaked, or a copy of the tape was leaked.
From the info gathered by the posters, pressure was put on the show for it never to be re-aired. The main point of it all, and no reason for many to say they saw Geraldo and Marcia Clark and lie about it, is that the parents for a good bit of time continued to lie and say the boy was asleep, could not have heard... and was used during the GJ, and that Burke did say he heard voices as well on the end of the unedited tape.
When a family brings in law enforcement to say a crime has been committed and then lie from the very start, as Dr Lee would say 'something not right'. Regardless of what LE or the public believes they hear or don't hear, is that the attorneys for the boy and the parents definitely had a stance about it.
well darn, meant acandyrose with those that proclaim that yes the end part was aired - here is also a quote a news article on the ACR site -
1998-08-21: 911 tape disputes Ramseys' story
911 tape disputes Ramseys' story Burke's voice is audible, contrary to parents' statement that he was in bed asleep when mom called
By KEVIN McCULLEN Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer August 21, 1998
snip
"Boulder police, who have never publicly released the 911 recording, took the tape to a California laboratory for a sound enhancement in April 1997.
John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, then 10, can be heard on the tape, according to the officials.
The sources described this sequence:
Patsy Ramsey cries and screams, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus," after setting the telephone down, apparently believing she had disconnected the call.
Another voice -- identified as Burke Ramsey's -- is heard in the background. John Ramsey says to him, "We weren't speaking to you."
Burke Ramsey replies, "But what did you find?"
Boulder police and the Boulder District Attorney's office would not comment Thursday.
But an attorney for John Ramsey blasted what he called the "vicious leak" of the 911 tape's contents. Hal Haddon said whoever revealed the information is guilty of "criminal misconduct" and should be indicted.
"This vicious leak is one more example of the pattern of official misconduct which has characterized this investigation for the past 19 months," he said in a written statement."
"Attorneys not connected to the case had different perspectives on what the tape means.
"It's significant because if this contradicts the statements of John and Patsy and Burke Ramsey, you can reasonably conclude that there was a reason for them to mislead law enforcement officers," said Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor now in private practice.
"It explains the 'umbrella of suspicion' that we've been hearing about, but it doesn't advance our knowledge as to what person did what," he said.
Defense attorney Scott Robinson questioned whether such a tape recording would be admissible in court. He said there is not a lot of case law on such a situation.
Even assuming the tape is valid, Robinson said he quickly could think of six or seven scenarios that would explain the snippet of dialog, with interpretations ranging "from the sinister to the sad and sympathetic.""
Would like to point out two arguments for those that like to read something other than their own comments and refutations of their comments these were interesting. These two individuals hung in there until they felt what they had to say was complete, then exited. The other has come back, health willing, for a few add ons, but looking over what they once said was for me everything and then some taking issue with a theory they just couldn't agree with - but still keeping it civil. One was Vern. Vern allows for PDI, BDI, and variations therein including Jatsy. J, I think you would find it interesting. The other is Hercule who also stood his ground. His background and experience should not be discounted, even if you don't agree with him. So here they are:
September 23, 2013-October 4, 2013 VERN versus DOC
and
June 1, 2016 - June 11, 2016 HERCULE versus CC (with a particular engaging June 8 6:22 p.m. post)
took a small search to try to find posts by Vern in the 2013 entries and couldn't, but did see that the Dani Kekoa spammed with her posts. omg, she jumped on the Dylan Redwine case as well- so I'm not going to revisit her mess, I don't know how she hasn't been sued as well as arrested by now, imo
Lil, if you go over to the right hand margin of this page or any page, it's organized by date. Or, I believe the Vern page started with the thread "In It Together". I thought he made a better argument than any I've read - but any scenario other than JDI or IDI. Skipping to later posts by Hercule it's clear he is PDI but specifically so. Or what I call a Patsy Purist. I think you dig research so if you can find it, it's informative.
Thanks Inq, I keep forgetting I have to hit 'view web page' to even see the dates, but you mentioning the blog entry title helped me find it.
I read much of the back and forth with Vern. But thought at some point in Vern's and DocG's lives they had been told they are bullheaded, stubborn, hardheaded, obstinate...lol.
Particular shout out to Doc too. I would not have the patience you have exhibited to continually answer questions and argue your point of view for four years. That is amazing to me in and of itself. Especially when a case perhaps not cold, is at the very least, stale.
LOL! I too am amazed. I guess I have a certain bulldog-like tenacity when it comes to this case. Call it stubbornness, call it obsession. I DO have a life, folks and I have done a lot over the last 20 years, in addition to obsessing on this case. In fact I've published several peer reviewed papers, published some books (unrelated to the case), written poetry, prose, music, etc., etc.
But lately I find myself spending too much time on the Ramsey case and feel the need to pull back. So if you don't see my posts as often as before, don't worry. I'll still be lurking in the background.
And, that is exactly what I was going to do - until I felt compelled to add just one more thing. More as a final post. I had been meaning to ask you if you did have some published books, poetry, prose, music I'd love to read them. And with that, I go for now. Ciao
Have we acknowledged John's lie about the broken window he told Dr. Phil last year? During his April 30th, 1997 John told police:
"And actually I'd gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn't see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when I didn't have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and I just kind of latched it.... It was cracked and open a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me. Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in because that basement could get real hot in winter."
That was the first time John told the police the window had been open and that he had closed it before they arrived. It was no big deal that he failed to mention it because, as he said it wasn't terribly unusual for the kids to open it in the winter to let cool air in.
Now fast forward 20 years to his interview with Dr. Phil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz1fvPOdjO4
At around the 50 second mark, John says:
"I wasn't surprised the glass was broken, but I WAS SURPRISED THE WINDOW WAS OPEN."
Which is it John? "Usually" open because it gets hot, or "unusually open", because that must be where the "intruder" entered!
Again, I'm not sure if this was discovered and talked about before, but in case it hadn't....well, there it is. Arrest the bastard!
First of all: why crack a window open to let in cool air when it's already broken and letting ice cold air in continually?
Secondly: John initially said he couldn't recall whether he'd reported this discovery to the police at the time. But years later, in an interview with Katie Couric, he claimed he DID report it to Det. Arndt -- who according to him did nothing.
Thirdly: Yes, he said he was surprised later, because Lou Smit had taken up that window as the entry-exit point and so John's being surprised to find it open supported Smit's theory.
JR doesn't say anything to anyone in his house that morning about closing a basement window--just goes upstairs and waits for a call from kidnapper(s), opens mail, calls his pilot, etc. Yet 20 yrs later he uses the word 'surprised' when referring to the open window. He can remember being surprised by something that he failed to tell anyone about until 4 months after the murder? And he wasn't even surprised 4 months after the murder. But 20 yrs later he is surprised? Surprise is JR finding the body.
I heard JR tell an interviewer (most recent interview I believe) that making the 1 billion sales figure public was a mistake. Basically that bragging about money didn't help his daughter and could have put her in danger. Yet, his current business venture (Redtail Air) lists this billion dollar accomplishment in the intro paragraph:
'During the real growth phase of the computer industry, John Ramsey started a business in his basement that in the next 20 years would exceed annual revenues of $1.5 billion.'
Why is a 20+ year old sales figure from a company that he is no longer affiliated with even mentioned WHEN HE REGRETS MAKING IT PUBLIC back in the day? Let's not forget the successful businessman that headed a successful business that even the infamous foreign faction acknowledged and respected in the ransom note. He just can't help himself it appears. Money, money,money.
It was also important enough for Patsy to include in her Christmas letter.
(Looks like I'm losing my posts again, sigh, and this time I'm on the home pc rather than my phone. So gonna scoot, but since Mike G likes to reference songs - this post above about money - which Lin Wood also loves to talk about the money he's made on the death of JonBenet) - Billion Dollar Babies - Alice Cooper or Pink Floyd - keep your hands off my stack
JBR was a "daddy's girl", according to PR' s reply to a friend's question regarding who would teach JonBenet to ride her new bike: "Oh, John will do that. JonBenet's a daddy's girl." Also, JonBenet told a man who was raking leaves in the Ramsey's yard that her daddy was not home and she wished he would return soon. And it has been said that while Patsy was away having cancer treatment JonBenet rode in the front seat of the car with her dad. Assuming these statements are truthful, do they lend weight to the JDI, PDI, or BDI theory? Was JonBenet treated differently (abused) by Patsy or Burke when John was away? Or was it simply that she loved her dad and saw him infrequently, thus making his presence more precious to her? Would her affection for her father make her more vulnerable as a victim of incest? Just wondering about this aspect of the JBR case.
"Would her affection for her father make her more vulnerable as a victim of incest?"
It could. Some online testimonials I read about child sex abuse, the daughter talked about herself, as a child, thinking that she and her daddy had a special secret relationship, closer than anybody. To her thinking, and as a child she did not know any better, the sex abuse was a sign of special affection from her father. So that could fit in with that.
And that could effect PR. It could cause her to resent JBR. In many cases, the mothers keep silent. Because of course the father denies it. So the mother does not say anything. But inside she is in turmoil. And sometimes, instead of taking it out on the husband, she takes it out on the daughter.
With JBR, there was the added factor that she participated in beauty pageants. Certainly young girls that age, as beautiful as JonBenet was, engaging in activities normally reserved for teenagers and adults, develop an early curiosity about, if not a nascent understanding of, human sexuality. No doubt JonBenet's was precocious. Whether her affection for her father was a latent vulnerability or a real coping mechanism only John Ramsey is left alive to answer and he's not talking.
It's crazy how I have to support common knowledge items around here. Like you people have been living in a cave or something. I googled 'mother jealousy child sex abuse', and right away found many items. Here is one:
"If attention is drawn away from the mother, the child suffers retaliation, put-downs, and punishments. The mother can be jealous of her daughter for many reasons: her looks, her youth, material possessions, accomplishments, education and even the young girl’s relationship with the father."
Jonbenet does not look like a child who was resented by her mother. Patsy spent way too much time, effort and money on her pageants and photography, for one. There are no signs of neglect or that Patsy felt any jealousy towards her daughter - to all intents and purposes, she doted on JB, and no one close to the family ever saw her even disciplining either of the children. Definitely not the actions of a mother with a grudge.
Yes JBR adored both her mother and her father. Yet somehow JBR ended up dead with a paintbrush stuck up. So, funny, how that happened in this very happy household.
That JB ended up dead has nothing to do with her affection for her mother or her mother's affection for her daughter as far as I'm concerned. At any rate, I never claimed it was "a happy household", as obviously, hind sight tells us something very sinister was going on.....but I was responding solely to your comment regarding Patsy's possible resentment of Jonbenet, as I believe the evidence shows the contrary to be true.
But some of you refuse to heed the common wisdom, that outsiders cannot tell. You have no way of knowing what went on behind closed doors. It does not matter if the mother or father "dotes" or acts loving around others, it means nothing. The only person who would know for sure, is JBR. And JBR is dead now. So maybe we can take that as a small sign, that we don't know what all went on behind closed doors there.
In fact, if PR was in denial, no one would know. Even PR herself would not admit it to herself.
But since you seem to be a firm JDI, consider this. If the father abuses the child, chances are, the mother often times also plays a role. If she didn't, the daughter would feel comfortable telling the mother, and the mother would put a quick end to it. Read my links below. It is very common for the mother to do nothing. Happens everyday, all the time.
So if you believe JR was abusing JBR, then you have to admit, there is also a high chance PR had some role in it too, as is typical with these scenarios.
My guess (due to an alleged change in JB's usually happy demeanor not too long before her death) is that John hadn't been abusing Jonbenet for very long at all - months, maybe even weeks - so Patsy had no reason to be suspicious in that brief time, though her three calls to the pediatrician after hours may indicate otherwise. Though I doubt she suspected John. She may have had her suspicions later, but would have pushed them aside once John was "ruled out". I wonder if in the following years she did begin to doubt John.....Linda Arndt's comment about her conversation with Patsy not long before her death suggests she might well have.
I did not know that about JBR and her recent change in demeanor. It could be true she was not abused for too long. Perhaps PR and her doctor visits, was PR trying to come to terms with that idea over recent times. Maybe subconsciously hoping for some inspirational help from the doctor. Although of course what could the doctor do really, without more information.
I suspect JBR was a talker. And she talked too much, for someone's liking. That could be why the abuse did not last too long.
As far as I can recall, it was someone close to JB who said that she seemed "depressed" in the months/weeks leading up to her murder. Quieter, as though something was troubling her. I can't remember who it was that said this, maybe someone here can fill me in.....I do remember though, that her comment (it was a female, that much I recall - was it LHP, or JB's dressmaker, perhaps?) signaled a red flag for me - on it's own, the comment doesn't mean much, but coupling it with the evidence of sexual abuse, it might be very telling.
I think it may have been a teacher of Jonbenet's, or perhaps more than one adult female that noticed and gave statements to LE and the press (like the housekeeper). More clingy. Just what little that has been reported, sure seems like regression.
Here is another one I just saw that is interesting. The more I think about this, the more I think it is likely that PR was much more involved in this than we think. I think PR had some strong mental illness, related to narcissism, jealousy. They both encouraged each other in some way, even before the end, even if not in the actual act, but at least that led to an atmosphere where this was possible. It was a joint action of some sort.
" The question is, why, in the face of a parent sexually, physically or verbally abusing a child, does the other parent remain silent?
This is a phenomenon I have been aware of in countless numbers of cases reported to me by patients who are now adult and clearly recall not only the abuse but the fact that the other parent offered no safety.
The question others have asked me and that I ask myself is, how or why would a parent remain silent in the face of children being abused. Here a few hypotheses.
1. Denial is a powerful and primitive defense mechanism. Someone who is dependent, frightened and themselves the victim of abuse, can remain silent and not even see or hear the abuse in order to maintain the desperately needed relationship with the abuser. In a way, it is a variation of the old saying, “Hear no evil, see no evil.” Well, people do hear it and see it and fail to act.
2. Both abuser and spouse can be mentally ill people who collude out of mutually shared sadism. In others words, there are a few people who can get a sense of pleasure out of treating children abusively."
"3. Over the years, I have known a few cases in which the wife has such a deep need to avoid sexual relations that they prefer their husband engage in Oedipal relations with a daughter. This is usually unconscious with full denial in operation.
... The despair results not simply by the refusal of an apology, but the complete denial that anything happened. This is further exacerbated by the fact that neighbors and friends of the parents think them very “nice people” who would never do such a despicable thing as abuse a child. "
"Meanwhile the mother sees the relationship between the father and daughter and becomes resentful to the daughter because, ultimately, she wants to feel loved by her husband, the love he is giving to his daughter. The mother’s relationship becomes strained with the daughter because of the jealousy the mother feels towards the daughter. The mother feels the daughter is taking the love and attention from the father and the mother feels she is being denied this love and attention."
From above link. This one really hits here, with all the recent medical visits PR made.
"Often mothers will turn to the medical field as well. The mother feels stressed because of the relationship she is in, and feels unloved and not cared for. She realizes if she goes to the doctor, she will get some attention and someone will listen to her and this feels good. The mother then starts seeing the doctor regularly. She may even be admitted to the hospital from time to time. When she is in the hospital it is very likely that the father will offend against his daughter. Again this feeds the abandonment the daughter feels towards her mother because her mother is not there to protect her."
All the medical attention the mother gets may be seen by the daughter as the mother being weak or fragile. This also reduces the chances the daughter will tell the mother because she sees the mother as being too weak to handle it if the daughter discloses the abuse. "
Your points are well taken, SC, and you've done some valuable homework, so thanks.
Problem is, if you look for evidence regarding sibling rivalry and brother-sister incest you'll find a whole lot of literature on that via Google as well.
Same with father-daughter incest, which is now known to be far more common than previously thought.
And yes, a mother's resentment when her husband turns to their daughter for sexual fulfillment, is also the subject of many studies.
Problem is, these are possibilities that have already been kicked around here and on many other Ramsey case forums practically since day one. What's needed is not more literature on any of these possibilities, but solid evidence as to what actually happened and who actually did what.
I was responding to the commenter above who requested that I post information on the subject. I hope I could help educate him further on some general issues surrounding abuse.
Yes Schafer, I suspected you would pound us (me?) with support statements. I considered warning you to make sure to tie them back, as Doc said, " to what actually happened and who actually did what", in the case at hand.
Well I am sorry Mike G. I was not actually there at the scene of the crime. If I was, I would definitely let you know who actually did what. Since we will probably never know, I am sorry, I can't help you there. All we can do is speculate on likely motives and likely supporting evidence.
"I'll be the first one to tell you that I swore up and down that I heard those tapes on Geraldo. I was determined to prove it, so I called my cousin who works for the company that produces Geraldo. Guess what she says? The tapes never aired, what I heard was a dummy tape. A dummy tape, according to her, is a renactment.
So, I was wrong. The tapes did not air on Geraldo."))"
In other words, according to someone apparently in a position to know, what was aired on the Geraldo show was NOT the original 911 tape, but a re-enactment. We sometimes hear from people who swear up and down that they actually heard the Aerospace enhancement on Geraldo, but apparently that was not the case. I've long suspected that what was played could have been an attempt to reproduce the phrases that some claim to have heard rather than the actual recording itself. And this post seems to confirm that. It would be consistent with other reports that the aerospace version has been heard ONLY by law enforcement officials.
And incidentally, according to ALL the reports quoted in the ACandyRose site, there is no mention of Patsy saying anything other than "save me Jesus.""
I know of the Geraldo show but I have never seen that episode. I heard a leaked version on YouTube about 8-10 years ago and that is exactly what PR says, along with a couple Help Me Jesus'. You can sit and debate that it doesnt exist all day long, I have no skin in this game other than the truth and seeeing someone, if possible, prosecuted. I would like to see JR put on the stand just as you would but Im not going to skew what I know for fact. As far as I am concerned however, you tend to argue every fact or piece of evidence that points away from JDI, whether it is from LE on the case, experts, ex teachers or anyone else, no matter how obvious it is.
Your interpretation of the 911 recording does NOT point away from JDI, as I've explained more than once. Imo the Ramseys were not being truthful about what happened prior to the 911 call. But forgive me if I doubt you when you say you heard Patsy say "What did you do?" Even the CBS sleuths didn't hear that at first, but only after the tech guy suggested it. If it was "clear as a bell" how could such an error be made?
After listening to a couple of podcasts last night, I am 100% convinced that the grand jury was looking at BR as the main suspect and guilty party in this case. The grand jury would not just indite 2 people because they think one of the 2 is guilty. I think alot of what we are calling corrupt is certain law officials (Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy) thinking they know who the guilty party is, and that they can not prosecute him.
The indictments referred to first degree murder. Since Burke was too young to have been accused of first degree murder, the reference could not have been to him. Moreover it was made clear by the prosecution that Burke was never considered a suspect.
This is a pretty remarkable discussion on the Accessory to Murder counts on topix. There are a handful of the usual disrupters so just iggie posts by kauna, dedred,theonewhosolvedthecase
8 pages so far and quite helpful for those that don't have a legal background but would like to understand what was released that Hunter never wanted anyone to know.
A fair warning to all looking forward to the upcoming Netflix special on the JonBenet Ramsey case; from the Business Insider.
"I should get this out of the way: "Casting JonBenet," which just premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, will not give you any insight into the 20-year mystery of who killed 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey.
In fact, there is not a single image of JonBenet or her family in the movie. And that's the most fascinating part of this documentary/fiction hybrid."
Those interested in the entire review, here's the link.
Sorry Doc but people can be charged as accessories to first degree murder,no matter what age the murderer is. The law only pertains that an underage person, in this case BR, can not be charged. From what I understand about Colorado Law on a podcast, it would actually be against Colorado GJ rules for them to indite 2 people because they feel one of the two is guilty, but do not know which one, so in turn just indite both. It is unheard of in our legal system . CC and Dog might be able to elaborate more but its pretty obvious to me the GJ was looking at BR. If the GJ felt PR or JR were the guilty party and one was covering for the other as you and a few others on here are claiming, then they would have indited PR and JR both with first degree murder. Commom logic.
As far as the 911 call, there was no mistake made, its ludicrous that the 30 secs of them sorting and evaluating out what they hear, you are trying to call such a big "mistake".
Sounds to me like classic lawyer doublespeak, KS: "does appear", "theory", "assumed" and "maybe" are hardly unequivocal.
Contrast that with what Garnett told au.news when asked if he knew who killed JBR: Garnett said "I do. If we can ever file a case in open court, I'll tell the world." Since he can never file against a then-nine year old, I'd say he was NOT talking about Burke. CC
Those would be quite contradictory statements CC. Maybe he was telling you the case will never be prosecuted or hos opinion differs from that of the GJ. Either way his comment of who the GJ was looking at is what it is.
I had never even considered BR to be a possibility at that point, nor did the rest of the free world, so what that tells us, is that the GJ must know some thing that we do not.
I didn't see the show Keiser, but from what you posted Garnett is saying what he thought the *GJ thought* as to the true bills.
And other Colo attorneys have spoken of this, most recently on tv a few months ago, one did say on tv that the true bills do seem that the GJ was (paraphrasing) including a third person that can't be charged. I've posted about it before here about that CO attorney.
Irrc, even Lou Smit was asked way back if a young person "could do this" and he said yes. I'd have to dig for that to see if it still remains somewhere on the web tho.
We're all in agreement that Burke and Patsy can't be charged, right KS and Lil? And yet:
-The Boulder County judge who heard Charlie Brennan's petition only released four out of fourteen pages of the GJ's findings, keeping ten under seal, strongly suggesting that he was aware this is an open case and an active investigation.
- The BPD in a recent interview called the evidence "contradictory", and still has two detectives assigned to the case today.
-Stan Garnett has recently ordered more DNA testing, and has made it clear that if he has the evidence, he'll indict.
Why all this if the suspect is Burke or Patsy, who cannot be charged? CC
CC, because no one has been charged. I am not Stan Garnett so I surely can not say for certain, he obviously knows alot more than we do. I can make guesses like there is not definitive proof or there has been a cover up to protect the Ramseys and BR because of the attention it has gotten from the public or Stan Garnett just wants to satisfy the public. This still does not change who the GJ thought the guilty party was and the question of why they came tl that conclusion. When one of the Grand Jurors was on tv a few weeks ago and said he was pretty confident that he knew who killed JBR, it becomes all the more apparent that he, as well, was speaking of BR.
KS - Stan Garnett has said publicly that he read the GJ findings and reviewed the case evidence the day before he was sworn in as Boulder County DA. This is a no-nonsense guy who's made a rep in Boulder for going back and successfully prosecuting cold cases that Hunter and Lacy passed on. I do not for a minute believe he's ordering frivolous DNA tests to "satisfy the public".
It's possible he disagreed with the GJ's findings, but given that he saw what they saw and more, he simply disagreed with their approach to the contradictory evidence - indicting boths Rs for lesser charges - and he's looking for touch DNA from the vaginal swabs in hopes of indicting John. CC
Thank you CC. If something more ever comes out with the DNA that absolutely rules out a stranger intruder, I just know the attorneys will excuse away all family DNA because they all lived together. Still would be good to have a jury decide.
If he finds epithelial DNA from JR in the vaginal swabs from autopsy, which is what I believe he's looking for, you can take it to the bank he'll charge John right quick. CC
I think most would say Schiller and Thomas's books. But there are hundreds I suppose by now, several just from internet sleuths to friends of the family. And more being written recently. Check your library first, or you could spend a lot!
Gumshoe, I forgot about Kolar's book. Various others that examined evidence in the case included chapters in their books but I think these three authors would be the ones to choose first.
I'd suggest Schiller's "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" first Gumshoe, because his is a recitation of facts without a point of view, while Thomas believed PDI and Kolar BDI. CC
Dear DOC:re ransom note..Your resume includes the word AUTHOR.. I was wondering if you could shed some light on the following...Page 26..Would seem to indicate that the individual composing the ransom note has not a clue how he/she is going to even start the note..and,yet.. in the time it takes to flip a page has managed to write a cohesive,grammatically lengthy(+punctuation) tirade with very few mistakes..ON the following THREE CONSECUTIVE pages.From 0-100mph in one second flat,so to speak.Would you agree this is a red flag? Would it be more likely:someone left the Ramsey household on the dec.23 with a pen and five pages from the notepad..and that they have used page 26 to check that the pen was in good working order..viz. not showing signs the ink was running out or actually was out of ink. I would appreciate an authors thought in regards to this matter. thanks.bruce.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is p. 26th the practice note?
If someone prepared the note ahead of time using paper from that pad, the only reason would be to frame the Ramseys. But that wouldn't work unless the writer forged John or Patsy's hand, and there is no evidence of that.
"Meanwhile the mother sees the relationship between the father and daughter and becomes resentful of the daughter because, ultimately, she wants to feel loved by her husband, the love he is giving his daughter."
Thanks, SC, for the information you gave on this topic. I have personally observed a situation where a mother developed jealousy and resentment toward her young daughter and over time became increasingly abusive. At first the mother simply berated her daughter for her physical appearance, calling her fat, saying she was stupid and ugly. This behavior escalated to slappings, beatings with a thick belt, and all-day time-out standing in a corner. There were times the child was shut in a closet for hours as punishment for what the mother imagined was misbehavoir. Initially the abuse was perpetrated when the father was away from home, but as the mother became more bitter, she abused the child in his presence. In fact, she seemed to derive pleasure from him having to witness the abuse. This situation continued for years, until the child left home to attend boarding school. She never returned home. Yes, she said her father had been sexually abusing her. These people were respected members of their community, and though not wealthy, they had wealthy, influential friends. However, no one outside the immediate family circle knew about the child abuse going on in that family.
I don't know what went on behind closed doors in the Ramsey household, but a beautiful little girl was brutally murdered in their home. I grieve her death and pray for justice.
Yes I have read many stories like that online. In main news media, they hardly ever tell you the details, they always gloss over it. I kind of wanted to know mote how these situations happened, etc. So I searched for some true life accounts online, in the forums and such, and I saw many similar stories.
I am wondering if this is happening more today, with like the online porn as an influence, or was it worse in the old days, when people never talked about it. Not sure. But it does not seem to be uncommon.
Here are transcripts from an old Dan Abrams program with Kane, Wood, Schiller, Wendy Murphy discussing the case the 911 tape, talk of copies being 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation as well digital or analog copies
There is this picture of Spitz: http://i50.tinypic.com/fmq6f7.jpg
Makes a lot of sense to me to say "I've got a surprise for you," take her to the pineapple, then take her as close to the window you can get and tell her to draw a heart on her hand (for some reason), and then knock her out.
So I read somewhere someone said, if the perp wanted to kill her, why just one blow to the head? Why not keep hitting her until she died.
That is where my idea comes in.
The plan, by both the parents, was to knock JBR out. Stage a fake kidnapping, stick a paintbrush in her privates, call police in morning, and then pretend that someone else did the sex abuse.
They did it that night maybe because of doctor visits and clues he saw, or JBR told someone, like the Whites daughter. So the parents knew, that after Xmas, something was coming down.
However, the head blow was too strong, JBR was practically dead. So they could not bring her to the hospital, JR strangled her later.
It makes more sense to me for John to be using Patsy's paintbrush handle to draw suspicion away from him than the parents both choosing to use something which leads right back to them.
For those that are still tied up in a knot over this case, this isn't new info, but I just read it in it's entirety and might be interesting to others. I will type the whole link, but if you have any problems with it you can get there other ways - it's title is Mark Beckner's Q&A Feb. 21, 22, 2015 posted on Forums for Justice.
It is also cached from Beckner's AMA (Ask Me Anything) question and answer session on Reddit which he deleted, but is cached from google. Here is the link:
I think just when you get half way down and think aha, I get it now, you see that Beckner has left the door open. I see Doc's theory in there however in the form of a question and answer. Few things stood out - as Keiser said there is some info the Grand Jury knows we don't - they are holding on to. And evidence that Patsy's own father may have been an abuser. Also that Beckner thinks there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, but just when you think you can figure out who may have done the abusing, it's really not something Beckner is going to let us in on. He says the case remains a mystery to him as well, but has high marks of praise for Kolar's investigative work. Also Thomas, but thought Thomas was too emotionally involved. Okay, that's it, I've critiqued it enough, read for yourself.
I'm sorry! I dislike long links like that immensely. I got to it by just typing Chief Beckner on JonBenet Ramsey case - I knew I had read a reddit interview some time ago, then gone back to find it deleted. And he did delete his comments, but it was google cached whatever that means and posted on Forums for Justice. You might try Forums for Justice or Mark Beckner's Q&A Feb. 21, 22, 2015. He drops some hints I think that one might find interesting. But just when I was ready to cry uncle, I see that it could be interpreted another way. Of course. That's why we go round and round, right? So - I hope you find it. If not I'll try something else to get it to you. Take care
Beckner's comments are still there, undeleted, but the "Load more comments" links on longer conversations don't work. There's still plenty of interest here (bearing in mind we can't be 100% certain this is Beckner).
Doc, you being a sound guy ought to know that there is a big difference between first, second and fifth generations of recordings. Ok guys, I have been doing some extensive research on this case and came across a sound engineer who has spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the 911 call. While doing this he actually ran into something very shocking, and it is NOT at the end of the 911 call. Surprisingly LE somehow overlooked this. Get your headhones on and ready for this one because you are going to be flabbergasted that we have all missed this ......
Sorry Doc but your and others argument that PR did not know, completely flew in the face of anything even close to logical and bordered on absurd. That being said I am going to reveal something that has been right in our faces ALL ALONG, I am really surprised that you missed it Doc. I will reveal more later but first, everyone get theor headphones on and tell me what words are being said...https://clyp.it/0enepeyv
This is a link to a cached version of the reddit AMA with former BPD Chief Mark Beckner.
Beckner's comments are undeleted, but the "Load more comments" links on longer conversations don't work. There is still lots to read from him (if it is him, of course).
Keiser- Is that from the 911 call ? Wow, That is very interesting. I hear what sounds like an upset PR saying what I think is "her remains". Is that for real ?
My thoughts on the 911 call are PR's internal script was not prepared for the question "does it say who took her?" so she goes, "What?" In all, Patsy ends up responding to that question in 4 different ways as she tries to decide what she should reveal. After stalling with "what?" she says no, which is a clear answer. Then she takes it back - she doesn't know. Stalling again, she reminds the operator it is a ransom note. Then she changes her answer again by providing the correct answer, albeit with the "Victory!" & SBTC switched. Which to me indicates she's reciting from memory, not reading off a page. "Victory" is an afterthought here, but it would have been the first thing she read if she was looking right at it.
Throughout the call she's really trying to impress upon the operator that she has received a ransom note - she can't shut up about it. It's more like she's calling in to report the ransom note than her missing child. But she did not anticipate being asked about its contents because she didn't think any of the crap she made up was actually important. In her mind, the only relevance of the note is that it is a ransom note because she wants to emphasize that it is from a kidnapper - she's distancing the family from the note. But to the operator, the primary relevance of the note is any useful information it might contain, not whether it is asking for ransom or not. Patsy shares very little relevant info with the operator (a related indication of deception mentioned in the study) and hangs up before she can be pressed like this again.
I don't find Patsy's response remarkable at all. Someone hysterical with fear their daughter had been kidnapped, speaking to a 911 operator for the first time, might find any question uncalled for, other than a question confirming their location so that the police could be immediately dispatched.
You are guilty of confirmation bias, pure and simple.
Without a confession or some new bomb evidence I don't see this case solved. Because of the sloppy, unprofessional investigation we don't even have a COD, could have been the blow, the strangulation, both at the same time, experts seem confused. No TOD, same confusion among the experts. Was there sexual abuse or not, same confusion among the so called experts. No murder weapon. Way too many possible motifs. Sigh. I can't blame Garnett.
And don't forget we only have Patsy and John's word for it that she, Patsy, came downstairs and stepped over or on the note at the bottom of the spiral staircase - read a few words, ran to JB's room, ran to Burke's room, started yelling, John came running - that mental image is burned in our heads because that is the image the two of them put there. Much like CBS put a different image into our heads with their recreation of how they thought events played out that night. I also don't know if you remember in the CBS recreation Burke runs and gets his mother, he's in pajamas and she's still dressed. Is CBS implying that Patsy was still awake and dressed when Burke was downstairs during his "sneaking" time with JB? What about John saying she had gone to bed (although he's a little fuzzy on that, he mainly says he went to bed.) We also have an image of Burke still in bed that morning - his parents say "sleeping" - Burke says he was pretending to be asleep but lying there terrified, his mom "acting all psycho" running into his room. One can have a mental image of that as well. But come to find out, with the aerospace tape three distinct (or not so distinct but at least sounds were recorded) voices are heard so we then get a mental picture of Burke eavesdropping, not in his bed asleep or pretending to be asleep.
We don't know what really transpired that morning. We have no idea whether John and Patsy had been up all night, laying the foundation for an intruder and whether she "happened" on that note or not. Or even whether John spread the note out on the steps to read it - accounting for the way it was seen by French - the story around it, is true or not true. Perhaps the note was spread out like that for Officer French to see it that way. If John wrote the note there is no reason to spread it out and read it again. Patsy either. So none of those early morning scenarios, although burned into our minds, may be correct. While we are speculating we should take all of that into consideration, and the power a story has of painting a picture in our own minds that we may never be able to let go of.
"But it's important to remember that JonBenet's skull was cracked from end to end. It's hard to imagine such an injury simply from a fall onto a hard object. Or her being struck with a hard object, such as bat or golf club. Which is why most of the investigators tend to focus on the MagLite with it's hard rubber tip."
Hi Doc,
I too agree that she was hit with the flashlight. But after seeing the damage that was done to my 18 month old after a simple fall, I don't believe she was hit that hard. I mainly share my information because it fits the timeline. I've read that she was strangled 45 minutes to 2 hours after the head blow. The ER doctor stating that a child can act completely fine and then suddenly collapse with a show bleed to the brain after 1-4 hours fits within that timeline.
I am JDI when it comes to the note and the strangling, the staging, etc. But I think that information makes it almost impossible to determine who delivered the head blow and whether it was accidentaly or intentional. I do think John's motive was to cover up the sex abuse. Otherwise, there is no reason to poke her with a paint brush. Even if the evidence is inconclusive, no other reasonable motive has ever been found. But the reason why I think another person may have hit her on the head is why the two methods? And why the time lapse? Unless she acted completely fine after being struck accidentally. And when she wasn't, John figured his secret was out. He probably thought the sex abuse would be discovered regardless of an ER visit or if he killed her. So he killed her and did everything he could to point away from himself and his family.
Yes people probably watch too many cowboy movies where knocking people out is easy and no big deal. But in reality, a small head blow can cause major damage. Especially on a child.
"But the reason why I think another person may have hit her on the head is why the two methods."
Perhaps in case his kidnapping plan was foiled, or to lead police to believe, if the body was ever found before it decomposed, that an intruder pedophile had to have been responsible. After all someone with John's education,socioeconomic status, and lack of criminal history could NEVER do such a horrible thing! Right?
One the Beckner AMA at the ffj link it does show a picture of Beckner holding a sign saying 'hi reddit' or something like that.
So thanks for bringing this up again Inq as it's been several months since I read it.
A few things of note - he was asked if there seemed to be any evidence of Burke being abused. NONE that they found during the investigation. As well as they could not connect the prior abuse of Jonbenet to John and didn't seem to be founded, nor any abuse of Patsy as a child found during the investigation.
You know how we've heard that it was Melinda's palm print found, well, when asked about fingerprints on the cellar door he said -TWO palm prints were Patsy's, and ONE palm print was from John Andrew Ramsey.
He did say what was reported about before, that as an adult, Burke refused to speak to investigators about his sister's death, and told them to speak to his attorney.
All three family members lied. To protect each other. We can question the statements they made and why they made them, but everyone knows when humans lie a little bit of the truth is thrown in there to make the lie not look like a lie. John says he may have broken that window when he climbed in when he was locked out. Looks like he's being helpful to LE. Why would he want to help the intruder? Because he is going to lie somewhere else and he wants those lies to be believed. Burke says he snuck downstairs later, he volunteers that information 20 years later. He's trying to help someone - doesn't sound like he's helping himself, does it. If the family members can cast enough doubt on each other then no one will be charged. They cut off all prior relationships with friendships in Boulder. Possibly because those people knew their facade the most, knew what image they wanted to keep intact. An image they could no longer keep in place. This family had secrets and the secrets were going to come out with the murder, but not if they could obstruct, confuse, and confound LE as long as possible. And they did.
Wow Inq, post of the two decades right there! I know there are those that still stick with Patsy was gaslighted and Burke could never stay silent without blurting something out. But more lies than truth seem to be the way the Ramsey and their hired mouthpieces operate.
I think a knowledge of that garotte would fill so many holes. How does it compare to this? http://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/sclphilimg/x-1858/* https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e9/e7/29/e9e729a399d169cd38c7b766ff5419ee.jpg
For those who think it was to cover manual strangulation, this thread is interesting: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?117975-Cords-Knots-and-Strangulation-Devices
CC, The juror says in other words he is confident he knows who killed JBR, he was a grand juror,his confidence, knowledge and decision are coming from GJ testimony=. If the grand jury had thought either JR or PR had committed this crime they WOULD HAVE been charged with first degree murder. Secondly, following Colorado law which states that BR can not be named on the inditements because he is a minor tells us why there are accesories named yet NO ONE is named for the murder. It seems like pretty simple deductive reasoning on my part but many legal analysts agree.
So I have read the primary posts by Doc and I still do not see how you can rule out an intruder; especially if there was more than one, which I think there was if it was an intruder.
Where did the DNA come from? And I'm not talking about the touch DNA which can easily be transferred multiple times before getting on JBR's body. Also, where did the HiTech boot print come from?
There was NO INTRUDER. The Hi Tek boot print was Burke Ramseys, PR lied about BR owning HiTek boots then proceeded to get rid of that evidence shortly there after. The DNA is degraded and a red herring. It is useless and means nothing. Detectives on the case went and bought a pack of the same underwear, had them tested and every pair in the pack came back with DNA on them. You need to read up, Gumshoe. You are way behind.
Correct anonymous. I always thought that PR was going to ask for an ambulance at the beginning of the 911 call. While that is possible it is obvious she was not ready or aware that the operator had picked up immediately, probably due to her having a nervous breakdown. The wail that she lets out, I always thought was just that but after being cleaned up and slowed down, it appears that PR says "Her Remains". The argument in the house that morning very likely was, as I claimed before, about what to do with JBR's body and PR changing her mind or not able to go through with what was planned. Their are quite a few clean ups of the beginning of the 911 call. Here is one ... https://clyp.it/zvf1cobq
I've seen that bit interpreted as "we need a . . . " or "we need 'em." "Her remains" seems pretty off the wall, even for you, Keiser. Hey, if you play it backward you can clearly hear her say, "I killed my daughter."
Hardly an assertion, she is out of breathe, frantic and clearly immersed in whatever is going on in the house at that time. Her searching for words to use and her sudden and obvious change of voice and atritude after the 911 operator answers are quite clear. How is this not supported by facts or logic ?
It's supported by your old standby, Keiser: confirmation bias. You are obviously hearing what you want to hear. Not only in this recording but in all the transcripts and interviews as well.
What do you all think John's plan was by not getting rid of the body? Why couldn't he have gone out in the middle of the night?
ReplyDeleteDoc recommends newcomers read at least his first two blog posts to get an overview of his theory and answers to some basic questions, Gumshoe Too. It saves wear and tear on Doc and the rest of us from endless repetition. Thanks.
DeleteCC
Sorry.
DeleteHe could not afford the risk of having a neighbor spot his car on the road on the night of the murder. Also the sound of the car and/or the garage door might have awakened Patsy or Burke.
DeleteNo sorry necessary, Gummy Too. You'll get caught up in no time.
DeleteCC
So when do you figure John would dispose of the body? I can't imagine he would ever have enough time away from Patsy after their kid was just "kidnapped" to go get the body and get her out of the house without it being found.
DeleteAgain, all of this is covered in great detail in Doc's first few posts. A very interesting read - it persuaded me, a staunch IDI at the time! Happy reading :)
DeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteI read this blog on a regular basis but rarely comment. What I am about to write is pure speculation. However, I wanted to share some information that I recently learned from an unfortunate accident. My 18 month old daughter was running around our tile house and fell and hit her head. She didn't even have a bump. She did vomit 5-6 times after within minutes and she was crying for several minutes.
After about 5 minutes, she acted completely fine. My husband is very old-fashioned and his family is originally from Alabama. He actually told me that it was unnecessary to take her to the ER because she seemed fine and had no bump, despite the vomiting. I disagreed and took her anyways. She wound up being fine, but I learned some very interesting information from the pediatric ER doctor.
He did tell me in very rare cases, there can be a slow bleed in the brain where a child acts completely normal and then randomly collapses after anywhere from 1-4 hours. After that collapse, they stop breathing or have shallow breathing and no signs of life, outside of a pulse. There would be no bump and no other major warning signs, as the bleed to the brain was slow and then grew exponentially. I asked all of these questions because I wanted him to explain to my husband why it was so important to bring her in.
I am not saying this is what happened in this case. But I do think it is possible. Food for thought.
HJM
Welcome, HJM. Your contribution is helpful, so thanks. I'm assuming your daughter is now OK, with no bleeding. But a fall like that can be very scary. I'm surprised that there was not even a bump. But it's important to remember that JonBenet's skull was cracked from end to end. It's hard to imagine such an injury simply from a fall onto a hard object. Or her being struck with a hard object, such as bat or golf club. Which is why most of the investigators tend to focus on the MagLite with it's hard rubber tip.
DeleteSeems like a golf club could easily crack a 6 year old's head the way it did. Why do you rule that out?
DeleteCBS tested a 10 year old hitting a skull with a similar maglite. The hole in the skull was almost exact. Possibly a golf club, most likely a driver would make a similar indentation. The problem with a golf club is that im all likelihood, a harder object like that would break the flesh on the skull and produce outward bleeding and be a much more noticeable wound. A rubber maglite fits the bill as something that could possibly not break the flesh but still cause that type of cranial damage
DeleteHi HJM and welcome!
DeletePossible.....but a criminal stages an accident to cover for a crime. Who, in their right mind, would stage an accident to look like a crime, thus guaranteeing a criminal investigation for an act that didn't ever require one?! Staging a crime is going to draw a lot of attention people trying to protect a nine year old boy, or a spouse, just don't want. That's why I keep pressing the BDIs to give me a logical explanation as to why one would choose to turn an innocent accident into the crime of the century but - predictably - they keep overlooking that question and offer me pineapple evidence instead. ;)
BDI's also argue, a posteriori, John and Patsy, motivated by protecting a son's fragile mental health and family reputation, concocted then successfully deployed a "reverse psychology" cover-up, citing the family's "freedom" today--twenty years after the crime--as proof in the pudding.
DeleteIt is a false argument because while all are still "free", Burke is suing CBS millions and millions of dollars for pain and suffering, and the names John and Patsy Ramsey live on in infamy.
Kris Kristofferson wrote that: 'freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'. I prefer, as did the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Bob Dylan's take on it. He wrote:
"Freedom...just around the corner from you, but with the truth so far off...what good does it do?"
Mike G.
Yes, Burke is suing, but he doesn't have the money yet. Unless...
Delete"I got no friends 'cause they read the papers, they can't be seen with me" -Alice Cooper
The hard rubber tip of the MagLite seems to solidify it as the murder weapon - at least until one realizes that it does not fit the shape of the skull wound. For some reason, despite that glaring fact, the flashlight continues to be the popular choice.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Hercule, what do you think she was hit with? Or were you the one that said toilet edge?
DeleteThat "team jbi" claims it was the handle end of a youth's baseball bat found outside the Ramsey house,which, of course they deny owning that too.
Oddly, I had a chuckle when "team jbi" mentions bedwetting as one early sign of a serial killer. John gave a statement that all his children were bedwetters and found it very normal.
How does it not fit Hercule ? It sure looked like it fit pretty well to me. The wiping down of all prints pretty much solidifies that it was most likely the weapon used.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that John wrote the note? That's what it sounds like.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
Doc, I know every tidbit of your theory as I have been on here about 2 years. Thank you for running this blog. My comment about PR knowing and covering for JR molesting and killing JBR was more intended for poster Mike who stated that was what happened in an above comment. I picked up a book by Cyril Wecht yesterday Doc, I am curious if you have read this book and if it worth my time ?
What Mike? I never stated PR covered for JR in the context you suggest. Please refer to us the exact post where I did.
DeleteMike G
While you're answering questions from the previous post, Keiser, care to address this one? Because it's an answer I'm also interested in hearing, seeing as you put so much weight into what was heard after Patsy thought she'd hung up the phone. Thanks.
DeleteDocGJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM
You still haven't answered my question, Keiser. Which is it: "Help me Jesus" or "What did you do?"
Keiser, Wecht's book has been around for many years and is often referred to, both my me and others. I'm surprised you've never heard of it till now. And yes, I highly recommend it. His comments on the condition of the vagina are authoritative and convincing.
Delete
DeleteDocGJanuary 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM
You still haven't answered my question, Keiser. Which is it: "Help me Jesus" or "What did you do?"
I did answer that Ms. D. PR says BOTH. The help me Jesus can be heard at the end of just about any of the 911 call recordings. The deal with her words and tone of voice with the "what did you do" tell me she knows of what happened at this point. She is either A) speaking to BR or B) Speaking to JR or C) speaking to an unknown individual. With BR being the one who responds first I am going to go with BR. I know JR and PR's voices very well. BR's I had probably never heard before so I can not 100% confirm that it is BR but without any doubt that it is PR and JR and a younger male.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSome folks may not be aware of this, but Burke DID get to hear the 911 tape during the GJ and while stating it wasn't him, he said it DID sound like him. So HE heard something that many of you are unable to hear.
DeleteI never pretend to be an expert on anything, Keiser. ;)
DeleteI'm confident in my position regarding who Jonbenet's killer is, but anything else - statement analysis, child psychology, criminal profiling, handwriting analysis - I leave that to the experts.....if there is such a thing!
Keiser:
DeleteHere's what Steve Thomas had to say regarding the Aerospace findings:
"Patsy apparently had trouble hanging up the telephone, and before it rested in the cradle she was heard to moan, “Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus.” Her husband was heard to bark, “We’re not talking to you.” And in the background was a young-sounding voice: “What did you find?” It was JonBenét’s brother, Burke."
Nothing there about Patsy also saying "What did you do?" You say you heard the Aerospace enhancement some years ago and the voices were clear as a bell. So, did YOU hear her say "What did you do" at that time? Because apparently no one else did.
As seems pretty clear from the CBS segment on that recording, the tech guy was the first to interpret Patsy's utterances that way. At first they all agree it sounds like "Help me Jesus," or something of that sort. And it's only after the tech guy says he hears "What did you do" that they then change their minds and agree with him. As far as I can tell that's the first time anyone ever heard that phrase in that recording. And that's how they themselves treat it: as a new and exciting discovery.
So be honest, Keiser: did YOU hear it that way when you heard that enhancement originally? If it was "clear as a bell" then I'd imagine that too was clear. And if you heard it, why is it that no one else did until the CBS "experts" enhanced it last year?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSorry, Ms D, but I'm trying hard to discourage personal comments of any kind, and also complaints about deletions, both of which are a distraction.
DeleteFair enough.....duly noted! :)
DeleteEagerly awaiting your response to Doc's question, Keiser.....
" " Sorry, here are the quotes that I forgot to add above ...lol
ReplyDeleteLol! Thanks Keiser.
DeleteFolks, as a relative newcomer to Doc's site (Sept. of this year), I adore you all! I think, perhaps, y'all have stopped seeing the "forest for the trees." Here's how I see the whole shabang (feel free to dispute!) The theories:
ReplyDelete- Intruder - No way. Locked doors, no true sign of entry, no abducted JonBenet. Done and done. Means it's either family or someone close to family. No way intruder.
- Burke - He's nine. I know there's a ton of research showing that a nine-year old can be homicidal, but let's get real. Yes, I know about the golf club incident. I know about the feces history. But, really? Killing his sister? Let's briefly say it was an accidental blow to the head...YOU CALL 911! Not Burke.
- Patsy - If Patsy did it, she would NOT have called 911 at 5:40-something am on the 26th. She would have been busy staging and showering. Patsy's penmanship might "look" like the ransom note writing, but her behavior does not reflect her being the author. I also believe that her cancer and "Chemo Brain" account for more of her "emotional and memory dexterity" than people account for...
- John - He's all who remains. Previous possibility of sexual abuse - check. Access to Sharpie and pad - check. Knows how to tie knots/garrote from time in Navy - check. Smart and good in pressure situations - check. Could concoct both a legit as well as staged situation - check. Had time the morning of the 26th to orchestrate some nonsense - check.
I know that this is the "dumbed down" version of things, but sometimes it's good to take a step back! Thoughts?
Candace, I only have two words for you:
DeleteTHANK YOU!
" If Patsy did it, she would NOT have called 911 at 5:40-something am on the 26th. She would have been busy staging and showering. "
DeleteDon't forget the "reverse psychology". You cannot use normal type ideas with these two. These two loved to put on a show and confuse people.
We do tend to bog down in the minutiae, Candace, and analyze every word spoken and fiber found to death. . .and then do it all again. Thanks for taking a step back and keeping it simple.
Delete(Does anyone call you Candygram? The temptation is overwhelming.)
CC
CC- I went by Candy growing up. I use Candace for work, but some people fall into the Candy trap. I like 'em both. Ha!
DeleteVery much agreed Candace. I was once "Ramseys did it" or PDI until Doc untangled the note so well. I always believed John did the staging, but I couldn't get over the handwriting analysis, etc to get a clear grasp on the case.
DeleteIs a man which already makes him more likely as a murder suspect than a woman or child - check
"found" the body - check
tried to flee to Atlanta - check
Knew his bonus amount - check
Further, it seems to me Patsy suspected John initially. Also, it seems to me John tried to frame Fleet White - who else would know John's bonus? Possibly have boating connections if SBTC is "signed by the captain"? Why bring him to the wine cellar with you? Why tell people it's an inside job? etc.
What I cannot get out of my head is the 'beheaded' in the note, the garrote, and the suitcase. All of those are very strange individually, and it might be simplest to assume they all had the same purpose - to behead her and get her in the suitcase. The beheading is also the only thing slightly "foreign faction" about the note, and I imagine if everything had gone right John would have wanted it to seem like a foreign faction did the crime. It seems plausible to me that foreign faction beheading is plan a, fleet white plan b, patsy/burke plan c. I respect Doc's opinion more than my own on these matters, but I can't get myself to the garrote being just because he noticed she wasn't dead. It seems so much more violent than that. It seems like part of the staging, rather than merely part of the killing.
The suitcase seems to me part of the crime scene, though it's very rarely given a role to play. Even to say John used a chair and then switched the chair for a suitcase or whatever - it is rarely mentioned as part of a theory of what happened. I feel like I could say the same for beheading.
Also, the Menendez Brothers for one example committed the murders and called the cops. They did not hand the cops a note in their own handwriting, however. Nor did they then need additional staging after calling. Thus, I agree it makes no sense for Patsy to make that call if she was the murderer.
What you say about the garotte makes sense. I've sometimes thought it had an erotic function, i.e., it might have been part of an erotic fantasy, related to S & M. On the other hand, it could have been last-minute staging.
DeleteHard to believe it was last-minute. Then again, it's hard to believe the garotte and tying of her hands and all wasn't part of the staging - which brings me to how she was supposed to be found and the plan behind the note which you've done so well to tease out.
DeleteI've often wondered if the garrote was used as staging (to Doc's point) because it IS "so extreme." John thinking that it would certainly deflect any suspicions from the family.
DeleteAs I've stated before, I believe the strangulation was no more than a means to an end after John saw the blow to the head didn't do the job. But I think the garrote itself was added later - after he realized the body was going to be discovered in the house that day - in order to make it more consistent with a murder by a "foreign faction", or at least what John "imagined" a murder by a foreign faction might look like. Pure speculation, of course, but I feel it tends to make more sense than John choosing to fashion a somewhat complicated device in order to finish off an already dying and unconscious child who will put up no resistance, when manual strangulation with a scarf or neck tie would have done the job just as adequately. Of course, the time that elapsed between the head blow and the garroting might indicate that making a garrote is exactly what John was doing.....if that's the case, sexual gratification from erotic asphyxiation is unlikely to be the motive, as one needs a conscious victim for the "game" to work, yes? That damn garrote has been a sore point for everyone, no matter which camp you're in!
DeleteYes D at least for me it is a very sore point. I think when one just says it was to hide the strangulation, one forgets the rest of her body was tied up. It seems to me in general the use of the binds and lariat were how she was supposed to be found. Doc seems to even think she was in the trunk of the car ready to be transported. On my lights, she was supposed to be found tied up and quite nearly beheaded...then I come to the note and the suitcase and say maybe she was quite nearly beheaded. Of course, it's possible that too was part of John's ruse. After strangling her, he felt he did need to nearly behead her and switch a chair for a suitcase, but that seems to make too many assumptions compared to him really wanting to behead her. Which, by the way, would get rid of the blow to her head, wouldn't it?
DeleteAlso, if you are going to crack her skull with a flashlight, you could smash her windpipe with it too.
Off topic but related to DNA, it's been 50 years since the slaughter of Dr Jeffrey McDonald's family (Fatal Vision). His lawyers are back in court due to "new evidence " three hairs that don't match the family. So, don't cha know, This Proves those hippie intruders were in the house! rolling eyes
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4161822/Fatal-Vision-surgeon-pursuing-opportunity-clear-name.html
I believe there is also skin under the fingernails of McDonald's wife and daughter's that they want tested as well.
DeleteEG
Interesting, as I don't recall that mentioned at all in this article. They do mention a dog hair was found. But aa much as we discuss innocent transfer of things in the Ramsey case, I'm not all that 'het up' about 3 hair strands and a dog hair in the McDonald home.
DeleteI wouldn't be either based on three hairs strands and a dog hair...however, if there is skin under fingernails, it should be tested.
DeleteEG
Ms D, I read your post on the other blog entry about team jbi. I just came across the site this week and the 'letter' they posted on facebook this week was bizarre. The site I found is all posts from 2015 it seems. Didn't know they/he has lots of entries around the web but just doesn't seem credible at all.
ReplyDeleteHaven't come across the Hispanic perp mention yet, I seem to recall that being Jamesons stance. This team is about perp is white, an artist, teacher, hiking guide (which they spell 'guild') rock climber, brought his own Sharpie and left it, painted green paint on her face, tied her to the chair, used the desk that the police took into evidence, killed her while the 911 call was being made, lives near a highway with a 5 in it and is from the Northwest. Uses bike, bus, and on foot and left his duffle bag there. Oh, and uses paper bags to put human waste in while hiking. Also used the log grabber to leave the marks on her face. Dropped his carabiner in the wine closet leaving an imprint in the 'salts'.
Lots of copy and paste with no links to what they quote.
You were brave to have interacted with whoever team jbi is.
For those that care to see what this is about, 75 pages of atrocious spelling can be found here
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6010.435
I also follow that page on facebook and its more for giggles as nothing they say makes sense and seems like they are trying to make the evidence fit their theory instead. That note does seem like a very close copy on writing style to the actual ransom note though.
Delete-Eri
A question I have for the experts here. When did Patsy say she bought that large, day of week, underwear?
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion is, there is something very fishy about those underwear. I don't believe PR bought it for a niece. You don't buy underwear for an 11 year old. No one does that.
Are we totally sure Patsy bought those, what evidence is there on that, or did John actually buy them?
Here is something you probably haven't heard before. Patsy pre-planned this. Ya'll say you've heard everything before, but you might not have heard that.
And I say that, because buying that underwear shows pre-planning to me. It was all part of their whole reverse psychology bit. Like, 'they knew that people knew, that only the parents knew she wore day of the week underwear, so why would the parents put more day of the week underwear on her? They wouldn't, because they wouldn't be that dumb. So we know it wasn't the parents.' Reverse psychology.
It was either PR or JR. But whoever bought that underwear, pre-planned that murder. Just something to think about anyway.
That's an interesting thought, SC. Reverse psychology is always a possibility and we can't totally rule it out.
DeleteHowever, the oversize panties actually point in the opposite direction, since there would have been no reason for an intruder to redress his victim in a fresh pair of panties. If some semen got on the original pair he could simply have pocketed it and taken it out of the house. No need to redress her. It's only if John got some semen on those panties that there would be a need to replace them.
I had a post to Ms D about that team jbi that apparently didn't go thru. pout
ReplyDeleteSome of you may already know this but I just now read Lin Wood's wiki entry. Omg, it said when he was 16 he came home to find his mother beaten to death by his father. His dad served less than 3 years.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBut why would either of the Ramseys buy underwear that fits a much older child, pre-planned murder or not?
ReplyDeleteWell my idea about the large underwear, is, it is all part of the convoluted attempts of the perp, whether it is PR or JR or both, to do some weird staging. Like layers of reverse psychology.
DeleteSo the thinking being, 'we'll put her in day of the week underwear, because mostly only we the parents know about that. But then, we'll buy them too big, so that way, it will point away from us, because of course we know the right size for our daughter. So that way, it will look like it is someone close to us (like the housekeeper maybe, or like the wife of FW who helped JBR at restrooms maybe) who knew about the day of the week underwear, but not close enough to know the size she wore, and just grabbd the wrong ones. And they are trying to set us up.'
I know it sounds weird, but the whole scene was weird. The whole theme of the scene is, 'this was done by someone who knows us, and is falsely trying to 'set us the parents up''.
Because everyone knows, putting that large size underwear on a little girl is weird. So why did the perp do it? They didn't have to do it. It was done for some reason.
My guess is a lot simpler: John, being unaware of what size panties JB wore (as he had never dressed her prior to that) grabbed the first pair of "Wednesday" panties he came across (remembering she was wearing Wednesday panties when he pulled them off in order to mutilate her vagina). Upon redressing her in them, he probably realized they were too big but as the redressing probably happened in the hour or so he was missing (I believe this because his initial plan was to dispose of the body, so no redressing would have been necessary), he had to make do with what he had - he wasn't about to make a second trip upstairs and risk being caught in the act.
DeleteThe over sized panties, in my opinion, are a very obvious sign that someone who didn't usually dress her put her in them that morning (further ruling out Patsy), no more, no less.
That is one possibility Ms. D. And it could have happened.
DeleteHowever, I think it is odd those underwear were bought in the first place. So I think there could be something more to that. But we can't say for sure. Something to at least think about.
She might have needed larger panties when she had a diaper on (night).
ReplyDelete"She might have needed larger panties when she had a diaper on (night)."
DeleteYes but then PR would have said that. That is not the reason she gave.
I saw some pictures online of that underwear, didn't look like anything too special. What 11 year old needs day of the week underwear? That is not something you buy for a gift. These are not dirt poor people. Maybe for like starving refugees, some underwear might be a fine gift. But not for these wealthy people. PR might as well have bought the niece some sweat socks and some hand towels.
DeleteAnd of course she never sent them either. You usually buy gifts to send. I don't believe it. Something funny about that. And I would be interested to know what exact date those were bought.
"That is not something you buy for a gift. These are not dirt poor people. Maybe for like starving refugees, some underwear might be a fine gift. But not for these wealthy people"
DeleteFirstly, we do not know if the panties were the only gift she was sending her niece - perhaps she was including them with a Rolex watch, lol - secondly, there may have been a specific reason she bought her niece the panties, perhaps she or the child's mother had requested them since they were only available at Bloomingdale's and Patsy had recently been on a shopping trip there. Either way, I wouldn't put too much stock into why Patsy may have chosen them as a gift as none of us will ever know why.
The reason she never sent out the panties is because JB liked them, so Patsy decided to keep them for her, plain and simple.
SC and D. You both make valid points. And I have to agree, panties seem like an odd sort of gift for a young girl. For me, however, the problem is not with the panties per se, but the reason why JBR was redressed in those oversize panties. No reason for an intruder to do it, which makes it unlikely as something Patsy would deliberately buy to promote the intruder theory. No reason for Patsy to do it, at least not that I can see. But I do see a reason for John to do it, as discussed in at least one of my earlier blog posts and a great many comments.
DeleteI read elsewhere that JB could not even read well. Why would she want those oversized Day of Week underwear, when she couldn't even read what it meant? She also had plenty of her own day of week underwear. Also they were not supposed to be opened, they were still in the package, and somewhere else it said it was in a hard plastic package, probably like those clear tube kinds. You probably can't even tell what the underwear look like that well in there.
DeleteI saw those underwear online, they were white with like some small flowers on it. No big deal. Looks like every other girls underwear out there. Please, why would an 11 year old beg her aunt for some white flowered underwear? Oh please aunty buy me some white cotton underwear, please. Come on. I am sure the 11 year old can buy her own underwear, through allowance and such. None of that passes the smell test.
No eleven year old is going to spend her allowance on underwear, lol.
DeleteIt was more likely her mother wanted the underwear for her daughter. Or maybe Patsy got a "two for one offer"?! Who knows the motivation behind the decision to buy her niece underwear? I think you're placing value on something that isn't important as there is nothing to suggest Patsy is lying when she says she initially bought the underwear for her niece, but decided to keep it for Jonbenet instead. The only significant aspect regarding the panties is that, anyone who was accustomed to dressing JB would have known those panties did not fit her. That is why the only logical inference to draw - whether you're a BDI, RDI, PDI or JDI - is that it wasn't Patsy - who knew what size undies her daughter wore - that redressed JB that morning. Even if your "reverse psychology" theory was correct, the larger underwear still makes no more sense.
" I think you're placing value on something that isn't important as there is nothing to suggest Patsy is lying when she says she initially bought the underwear for her niece, but decided to keep it for Jonbenet instead. "
DeleteWell the only odd thing, is, those were the underwear that ended up on the dead child. So maybe a little something a little bit significant and of value about them.
"The only significant aspect regarding the panties is that, anyone who was accustomed to dressing JB would have known those panties did not fit her. That is why the only logical inference to draw - whether you're a BDI, RDI, PDI or JDI - is that it wasn't Patsy - who knew what size undies her daughter wore - that redressed JB that morning. Even if your "reverse psychology" theory was correct, the larger underwear still makes no more sense. "
You stole the words right out of my mouth. Reverse psychology. Of course, everyone assumes, well if PR dressed the dying child, well of COURSE she knew what size JBR wore, so PR couldn't have done it, blah blah. The whole theme of the crime... reverse psychology. Did PR study pysch in college?
PR must be a fan of the rock scissors paper game, lol. Because whenever I play that game,I use a lot of reverse psychology. I think, now what would they 'think' I would do?, so I have to do the opposite.
But they're trying to point towards an intruder.....and an intruder doesn't take the time to rifle through his victim's wardrobe while people are sleeping in the house in order to find fresh underwear for a child he's just killed. He simply removes the underwear she was wearing that may hold incriminating evidence, takes it with him, leaves the child semi-naked and gets the hell out of there as fast as he can.
DeleteHmmm. That's a good point. Maybe they are not doing this too well? Caught up in some fantasy version of an intruder did it? Like, "just removing the orig underwear would just be too boring. Let's put extra large underwear on her instead, that will really confuse people!"
DeleteSecond of all, did we ever figure out that the underwear package was in the basement? And if it was, you as a JDI, how do you think JR knew where to find it on his own, with all the jumbled filled shopping bags? Don't you think he was a little busy to go rifling thru shopping bags?
If he redressed JB in the hour and a half he went AWOL - which I believe he did - then, as I've said before, he only had what was in the basement available to him, because LE were upstairs. So John frantically tearing open presents looking for new clothes actually makes more sense than if both Patsy and John were in on it together, in which case they would have taken care of redressing JB before calling the police and would have used JB's own underwear. Perhaps John knew Patsy often bought underwear for relatives, or she might have directly told him she had purchased and wrapped them. *But*, if John was the one to tear open the packaging that morning, why did Patsy lie about it? The over-sized panties, the real reason for the garrote and (yes J, the damn pineapple, lol) are the three things that keep me awake at night!
DeleteIf we are going to go JDI, maybe JR was with PR when she bought and or stored the undies, so he knew about them.
Delete"But*, if John was the one to tear open the packaging that morning, why did Patsy lie about it?"
Did PR lie about that? I thought she said she never opened them. It is unclear to me if she said she left them in bedroom or basement. Is that what she lied about?
SC - see DocG's 2012 entry on the bloomies and then scroll down to otg 2016 posts that seem very informative of the police questioning, Patsy's statements, etc. Also acandyrose is a great reference for Patsy recollection of shopping trips, etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/folkore-2-oversized-panties-saga.html?m=1
DeleteDocG- are some comments going to spam? I thought I posted one about DNA and hair in the Dr Jeffrey McDonald case that his new attorneys are saying that is 'proof' of intruders.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip, lil. I just checked and in fact three legit comments were in the spam bin. I have no idea why that's happening. I just now restored them.
DeleteThank you DocG,
ReplyDeleteAnd a happy belated Australia Day to Ms D and the others from Oz
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4428512/see-how-wollongong-celebrated-australia-day-2017-photos-video/
The 911 tape - the public have heard it since 1998 and it was aired on Geraldo. (I didn't see the show, or don't recall) but lots of info here with transcripts
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acandyrose.com/s-geraldo911tape.htm
^ allegedly, all about the tape
DeleteKeiser - just reading the comments in this old discussion on just one page about the 911 call shows to others that 1)the Ramseys from
Deletefrom day one lied to LE about something that should have been no big deal
2)changed that lie only after their son was at the grand jury 3) that Burke's own attorney apparently knew the importance of the tape 3)that it seems Lacy gave an edited version out omitting the family chit chat...
These old posts are eye-opening. Yep, that tape was hella important back then, regardless of future books and tv shows and blogs.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7713-911-Call-Lies/page10
Thanks for the link. Look what I found:
Delete"RiverSelah
Posts: 95
Member since: 10/4/02 -
From: Somewhere under the hole in the Ozone.
RE: Geraldo 911 Tapes
I'll be the first one to tell you that I swore up and down that I heard those tapes on Geraldo. I was determined to prove it, so I called my cousin who works for the company that produces Geraldo. Guess what she says? The tapes never aired, what I heard was a dummy tape. A dummy tape, according to her, is a renactment.
So, I was wrong. The tapes did not air on Geraldo."))"
In other words, according to someone apparently in a position to know, what was aired on the Geraldo show was NOT the original 911 tape, but a re-enactment. We sometimes hear from people who swear up and down that they actually heard the Aerospace enhancement on Geraldo, but apparently that was not the case. I've long suspected that what was played could have been an attempt to reproduce the phrases that some claim to have heard rather than the actual recording itself. And this post seems to confirm that. It would be consistent with other reports that the aerospace version has been heard ONLY by law enforcement officials.
And incidentally, according to ALL the reports quoted in the ACandyRose site, there is no mention of Patsy saying anything other than "save me Jesus."
Corretion: I think it's suppposed to be "help me Jesus." In any case there is no report of her saying "What did you do," or anything remotely like that.
DeleteKeep reading thru all the posts on that one page at ffj, apparently LE did believe the tape was leaked, or a copy of the tape was leaked.
DeleteFrom the info gathered by the posters, pressure was put on the show for it never to be re-aired. The main point of it all, and no reason for many to say they saw Geraldo and Marcia Clark and lie about it, is that the parents for a good bit of time continued to lie and say the boy was asleep, could not have heard... and was used during the GJ, and that Burke did say he heard voices as well on the end of the unedited tape.
When a family brings in law enforcement to say a crime has been committed and then lie from the very start, as Dr Lee would say 'something not right'.
Regardless of what LE or the public believes they hear or don't hear, is that the attorneys for the boy and the parents definitely had a stance about it.
well darn, meant acandyrose with those that proclaim that yes the end part was aired - here is also a quote a news article on the ACR site -
Delete1998-08-21: 911 tape disputes Ramseys' story
911 tape disputes Ramseys' story
Burke's voice is audible, contrary to parents' statement that he was in bed asleep when mom called
By KEVIN McCULLEN
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
August 21, 1998
snip
"Boulder police, who have never publicly released the 911 recording, took the tape to a California laboratory for a sound enhancement in April 1997.
John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, then 10, can be heard on the tape, according to the officials.
The sources described this sequence:
Patsy Ramsey cries and screams, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus," after setting the telephone down, apparently believing she had disconnected the call.
Another voice -- identified as Burke Ramsey's -- is heard in the background. John Ramsey says to him, "We weren't speaking to you."
Burke Ramsey replies, "But what did you find?"
Boulder police and the Boulder District Attorney's office would not comment Thursday.
But an attorney for John Ramsey blasted what he called the "vicious leak" of the 911 tape's contents. Hal Haddon said whoever revealed the information is guilty of "criminal misconduct" and should be indicted.
"This vicious leak is one more example of the pattern of official misconduct which has characterized this investigation for the past 19 months," he said in a written statement."
"Attorneys not connected to the case had different perspectives on what the tape means.
"It's significant because if this contradicts the statements of John and Patsy and Burke Ramsey, you can reasonably conclude that there was a reason for them to mislead law enforcement officers," said Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor now in private practice.
"It explains the 'umbrella of suspicion' that we've been hearing about, but it doesn't advance our knowledge as to what person did what," he said.
Defense attorney Scott Robinson questioned whether such a tape recording would be admissible in court. He said there is not a lot of case law on such a situation.
Even assuming the tape is valid, Robinson said he quickly could think of six or seven scenarios that would explain the snippet of dialog, with interpretations ranging "from the sinister to the sad and sympathetic.""
Would like to point out two arguments for those that like to read something other than their own comments and refutations of their comments these were interesting. These two individuals hung in there until they felt what they had to say was complete, then exited. The other has come back, health willing, for a few add ons, but looking over what they once said was for me everything and then some taking issue with a theory they just couldn't agree with - but still keeping it civil. One was Vern. Vern allows for PDI, BDI, and variations therein including Jatsy. J, I think you would find it interesting. The other is Hercule who also stood his ground. His background and experience should not be discounted, even if you don't agree with him. So here they are:
ReplyDeleteSeptember 23, 2013-October 4, 2013 VERN versus DOC
and
June 1, 2016 - June 11, 2016 HERCULE versus CC
(with a particular engaging June 8 6:22 p.m. post)
took a small search to try to find posts by Vern in the 2013 entries and couldn't, but did see that the Dani Kekoa spammed with her posts. omg, she jumped on the Dylan Redwine case as well- so I'm not going to revisit her mess, I don't know how she hasn't been sued as well as arrested by now, imo
DeleteLil, if you go over to the right hand margin of this page or any page, it's organized by date. Or, I believe the Vern page started with the thread "In It Together". I thought he made a better argument than any I've read - but any scenario other than JDI or IDI. Skipping to later posts by Hercule it's clear he is PDI but specifically so. Or what I call a Patsy Purist. I think you dig research so if you can find it, it's informative.
DeleteThanks Inq, I keep forgetting I have to hit 'view web page' to even see the dates, but you mentioning the blog entry title helped me find it.
DeleteI read much of the back and forth with Vern.
But thought at some point in Vern's and DocG's lives they had been told they are bullheaded, stubborn, hardheaded, obstinate...lol.
Particular shout out to Doc too. I would not have the patience you have exhibited to continually answer questions and argue your point of view for four years. That is amazing to me in and of itself. Especially when a case perhaps not cold, is at the very least, stale.
ReplyDeleteLOL! I too am amazed. I guess I have a certain bulldog-like tenacity when it comes to this case. Call it stubbornness, call it obsession. I DO have a life, folks and I have done a lot over the last 20 years, in addition to obsessing on this case. In fact I've published several peer reviewed papers, published some books (unrelated to the case), written poetry, prose, music, etc., etc.
DeleteBut lately I find myself spending too much time on the Ramsey case and feel the need to pull back. So if you don't see my posts as often as before, don't worry. I'll still be lurking in the background.
And, that is exactly what I was going to do - until I felt compelled to add just one more thing. More as a final post. I had been meaning to ask you if you did have some published books, poetry, prose, music I'd love to read them. And with that, I go for now. Ciao
ReplyDeleteHave we acknowledged John's lie about the broken window he told Dr. Phil last year? During his April 30th, 1997 John told police:
ReplyDelete"And actually I'd gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn't see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when I didn't have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and I just kind of latched it....
It was cracked and open a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me. Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in because that basement could get real hot in winter."
That was the first time John told the police the window had been open and that he had closed it before they arrived. It was no big deal that he failed to mention it because, as he said it wasn't terribly unusual for the kids to open it in the winter to let cool
air in.
Now fast forward 20 years to his interview with Dr. Phil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz1fvPOdjO4
At around the 50 second mark, John says:
"I wasn't surprised the glass was broken, but I WAS SURPRISED THE WINDOW WAS OPEN."
Which is it John? "Usually" open because it gets hot, or
"unusually open", because that must be where the "intruder" entered!
Again, I'm not sure if this was discovered and talked about before, but in case it hadn't....well, there it is. Arrest the bastard!
Mike G
First of all: why crack a window open to let in cool air when it's already broken and letting ice cold air in continually?
DeleteSecondly: John initially said he couldn't recall whether he'd reported this discovery to the police at the time. But years later, in an interview with Katie Couric, he claimed he DID report it to Det. Arndt -- who according to him did nothing.
Thirdly: Yes, he said he was surprised later, because Lou Smit had taken up that window as the entry-exit point and so John's being surprised to find it open supported Smit's theory.
Oh and by the way, there is NOTHING in Arndt's report regarding any open window, in the basement or anywhere else.
DeleteJR doesn't say anything to anyone in his house that morning about closing a basement window--just goes upstairs and waits for a call from kidnapper(s), opens mail, calls his pilot, etc.
DeleteYet 20 yrs later he uses the word 'surprised' when referring to the open window. He can remember being surprised by something that he failed to tell anyone about until 4 months after the murder? And he wasn't even surprised 4 months after the murder. But 20 yrs later he is surprised? Surprise is JR finding the body.
I heard JR tell an interviewer (most recent interview I believe) that making the 1 billion sales figure public was a mistake. Basically that bragging about money didn't help his daughter and could have put her in danger.
Yet, his current business venture (Redtail Air) lists this billion dollar accomplishment in the intro paragraph:
'During the real growth phase of the computer industry, John Ramsey started a business in his basement that in the next 20 years would exceed annual revenues of $1.5 billion.'
Why is a 20+ year old sales figure from a company that he is no longer affiliated with even mentioned WHEN HE REGRETS MAKING IT PUBLIC back in the day? Let's not forget the successful businessman that headed a successful business that even the infamous foreign faction acknowledged and respected in the ransom note. He just can't help himself it appears. Money, money,money.
KP
Amen KP - great points!
DeleteIt was also important enough for Patsy to include in her Christmas letter.
(Looks like I'm losing my posts again, sigh, and this time I'm on the home pc rather than my phone. So gonna scoot, but since Mike G likes to reference songs - this post above
about money - which Lin Wood also loves to talk about the money he's made on the death of JonBenet) - Billion Dollar Babies - Alice Cooper or Pink Floyd - keep your hands off my stack
JBR was a "daddy's girl", according to PR' s reply to a friend's question regarding who would teach JonBenet to ride her new bike: "Oh, John will do that. JonBenet's a daddy's girl." Also, JonBenet told a man who was raking leaves in the Ramsey's yard that her daddy was not home and she wished he would return soon. And it has been said that while Patsy was away having cancer treatment JonBenet rode in the front seat of the car with her dad. Assuming these statements are truthful, do they lend weight to the JDI, PDI, or BDI theory? Was JonBenet treated differently (abused) by Patsy or Burke when John was away? Or was it simply that she loved her dad and saw him infrequently, thus making his presence more precious to her? Would her affection for her father make her more vulnerable as a victim of incest? Just wondering about this aspect of the JBR case.
ReplyDeleteLG
"Would her affection for her father make her more vulnerable as a victim of incest?"
DeleteIt could. Some online testimonials I read about child sex abuse, the daughter talked about herself, as a child, thinking that she and her daddy had a special secret relationship, closer than anybody. To her thinking, and as a child she did not know any better, the sex abuse was a sign of special affection from her father. So that could fit in with that.
And that could effect PR. It could cause her to resent JBR. In many cases, the mothers keep silent. Because of course the father denies it. So the mother does not say anything. But inside she is in turmoil. And sometimes, instead of taking it out on the husband, she takes it out on the daughter.
With JBR, there was the added factor that she participated in beauty pageants. Certainly young girls that age, as beautiful as JonBenet was, engaging in activities normally reserved for teenagers and adults, develop an early curiosity about, if not a nascent understanding of, human sexuality. No doubt JonBenet's was precocious. Whether her affection for her father was a latent vulnerability or a real coping mechanism only John Ramsey is left alive to answer and he's not talking.
DeleteMike G
"And sometimes, instead of taking it out on the husband, she takes it out on the daughter."
DeleteYou've asserted this before Schafer. It's time you support it with examples, otherwise it's just another one of your irresponsible musings.
Mike G
It's crazy how I have to support common knowledge items around here. Like you people have been living in a cave or something. I googled 'mother jealousy child sex abuse', and right away found many items. Here is one:
Deletehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-legacy-distorted-love/201310/mothers-who-are-jealous-their-daughters
"If attention is drawn away from the mother, the child suffers retaliation, put-downs, and punishments. The mother can be jealous of her daughter for many reasons: her looks, her youth, material possessions, accomplishments, education and even the young girl’s relationship with the father."
Jonbenet does not look like a child who was resented by her mother. Patsy spent way too much time, effort and money on her pageants and photography, for one. There are no signs of neglect or that Patsy felt any jealousy towards her daughter - to all intents and purposes, she doted on JB, and no one close to the family ever saw her even disciplining either of the children.
DeleteDefinitely not the actions of a mother with a grudge.
Yes JBR adored both her mother and her father. Yet somehow JBR ended up dead with a paintbrush stuck up. So, funny, how that happened in this very happy household.
DeleteThat JB ended up dead has nothing to do with her affection for her mother or her mother's affection for her daughter as far as I'm concerned. At any rate, I never claimed it was "a happy household", as obviously, hind sight tells us something very sinister was going on.....but I was responding solely to your comment regarding Patsy's possible resentment of Jonbenet, as I believe the evidence shows the contrary to be true.
DeleteBut some of you refuse to heed the common wisdom, that outsiders cannot tell. You have no way of knowing what went on behind closed doors. It does not matter if the mother or father "dotes" or acts loving around others, it means nothing. The only person who would know for sure, is JBR. And JBR is dead now. So maybe we can take that as a small sign, that we don't know what all went on behind closed doors there.
DeleteIn fact, if PR was in denial, no one would know. Even PR herself would not admit it to herself.
But since you seem to be a firm JDI, consider this. If the father abuses the child, chances are, the mother often times also plays a role. If she didn't, the daughter would feel comfortable telling the mother, and the mother would put a quick end to it. Read my links below. It is very common for the mother to do nothing. Happens everyday, all the time.
So if you believe JR was abusing JBR, then you have to admit, there is also a high chance PR had some role in it too, as is typical with these scenarios.
My guess (due to an alleged change in JB's usually happy demeanor not too long before her death) is that John hadn't been abusing Jonbenet for very long at all - months, maybe even weeks - so Patsy had no reason to be suspicious in that brief time, though her three calls to the pediatrician after hours may indicate otherwise. Though I doubt she suspected John. She may have had her suspicions later, but would have pushed them aside once John was "ruled out". I wonder if in the following years she did begin to doubt John.....Linda Arndt's comment about her conversation with Patsy not long before her death suggests she might well have.
DeleteI did not know that about JBR and her recent change in demeanor. It could be true she was not abused for too long. Perhaps PR and her doctor visits, was PR trying to come to terms with that idea over recent times. Maybe subconsciously hoping for some inspirational help from the doctor. Although of course what could the doctor do really, without more information.
DeleteI suspect JBR was a talker. And she talked too much, for someone's liking. That could be why the abuse did not last too long.
As far as I can recall, it was someone close to JB who said that she seemed "depressed" in the months/weeks leading up to her murder. Quieter, as though something was troubling her. I can't remember who it was that said this, maybe someone here can fill me in.....I do remember though, that her comment (it was a female, that much I recall - was it LHP, or JB's dressmaker, perhaps?) signaled a red flag for me - on it's own, the comment doesn't mean much, but coupling it with the evidence of sexual abuse, it might be very telling.
DeleteI think it may have been a teacher of Jonbenet's, or perhaps more than one adult female that noticed and gave statements to LE and the press (like the housekeeper). More clingy.
DeleteJust what little that has been reported, sure seems like regression.
Yes, her teacher is said to have noticed per the Bonita Papers
Deletehttp://www.re-newsit.com/p/the-bonita-papers-are-unedited-notes-of.html?m=1
Thanks for that diamondlil :)
DeleteIt's certainly something to consider.
Here is another one I just saw that is interesting. The more I think about this, the more I think it is likely that PR was much more involved in this than we think. I think PR had some strong mental illness, related to narcissism, jealousy. They both encouraged each other in some way, even before the end, even if not in the actual act, but at least that led to an atmosphere where this was possible. It was a joint action of some sort.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/child-abuse-and-the-role-of-parental-denial/
" The question is, why, in the face of a parent sexually, physically or verbally abusing a child, does the other parent remain silent?
This is a phenomenon I have been aware of in countless numbers of cases reported to me by patients who are now adult and clearly recall not only the abuse but the fact that the other parent offered no safety.
The question others have asked me and that I ask myself is, how or why would a parent remain silent in the face of children being abused. Here a few hypotheses.
1. Denial is a powerful and primitive defense mechanism. Someone who is dependent, frightened and themselves the victim of abuse, can remain silent and not even see or hear the abuse in order to maintain the desperately needed relationship with the abuser. In a way, it is a variation of the old saying, “Hear no evil, see no evil.” Well, people do hear it and see it and fail to act.
2. Both abuser and spouse can be mentally ill people who collude out of mutually shared sadism. In others words, there are a few people who can get a sense of pleasure out of treating children abusively."
More from link above:
Delete"3. Over the years, I have known a few cases in which the wife has such a deep need to avoid sexual relations that they prefer their husband engage in Oedipal relations with a daughter. This is usually unconscious with full denial in operation.
... The despair results not simply by the refusal of an apology, but the complete denial that anything happened. This is further exacerbated by the fact that neighbors and friends of the parents think them very “nice people” who would never do such a despicable thing as abuse a child. "
http://www.theravive.com/research/Families-of-Sexual-Abuse:-The-Roles-Each-Member-Plays
Delete"Meanwhile the mother sees the relationship between the father and daughter and becomes resentful to the daughter because, ultimately, she wants to feel loved by her husband, the love he is giving to his daughter. The mother’s relationship becomes strained with the daughter because of the jealousy the mother feels towards the daughter. The mother feels the daughter is taking the love and attention from the father and the mother feels she is being denied this love and attention."
From above link. This one really hits here, with all the recent medical visits PR made.
Delete"Often mothers will turn to the medical field as well. The mother feels stressed because of the relationship she is in, and feels unloved and not cared for. She realizes if she goes to the doctor, she will get some attention and someone will listen to her and this feels good. The mother then starts seeing the doctor regularly. She may even be admitted to the hospital from time to time. When she is in the hospital it is very likely that the father will offend against his daughter. Again this feeds the abandonment the daughter feels towards her mother because her mother is not there to protect her."
All the medical attention the mother gets may be seen by the daughter as the mother being weak or fragile. This also reduces the chances the daughter will tell the mother because she sees the mother as being too weak to handle it if the daughter discloses the abuse. "
Your points are well taken, SC, and you've done some valuable homework, so thanks.
DeleteProblem is, if you look for evidence regarding sibling rivalry and brother-sister incest you'll find a whole lot of literature on that via Google as well.
Same with father-daughter incest, which is now known to be far more common than previously thought.
And yes, a mother's resentment when her husband turns to their daughter for sexual fulfillment, is also the subject of many studies.
Problem is, these are possibilities that have already been kicked around here and on many other Ramsey case forums practically since day one. What's needed is not more literature on any of these possibilities, but solid evidence as to what actually happened and who actually did what.
I was responding to the commenter above who requested that I post information on the subject. I hope I could help educate him further on some general issues surrounding abuse.
DeleteYes, and you did a good job. All possibilities must certainly be considered and the ones you raise could be relevant.
DeleteYes Schafer, I suspected you would pound us (me?) with support statements. I considered warning you to make sure to tie them back, as Doc said, " to what actually happened and who actually did what", in the case at hand.
DeleteMike G
Well I am sorry Mike G. I was not actually there at the scene of the crime. If I was, I would definitely let you know who actually did what. Since we will probably never know, I am sorry, I can't help you there. All we can do is speculate on likely motives and likely supporting evidence.
Delete
ReplyDelete"I'll be the first one to tell you that I swore up and down that I heard those tapes on Geraldo. I was determined to prove it, so I called my cousin who works for the company that produces Geraldo. Guess what she says? The tapes never aired, what I heard was a dummy tape. A dummy tape, according to her, is a renactment.
So, I was wrong. The tapes did not air on Geraldo."))"
In other words, according to someone apparently in a position to know, what was aired on the Geraldo show was NOT the original 911 tape, but a re-enactment. We sometimes hear from people who swear up and down that they actually heard the Aerospace enhancement on Geraldo, but apparently that was not the case. I've long suspected that what was played could have been an attempt to reproduce the phrases that some claim to have heard rather than the actual recording itself. And this post seems to confirm that. It would be consistent with other reports that the aerospace version has been heard ONLY by law enforcement officials.
And incidentally, according to ALL the reports quoted in the ACandyRose site, there is no mention of Patsy saying anything other than "save me Jesus.""
I know of the Geraldo show but I have never seen that episode. I heard a leaked version on YouTube about 8-10 years ago and that is exactly what PR says, along with a couple Help Me Jesus'. You can sit and debate that it doesnt exist all day long, I have no skin in this game other than the truth and seeeing someone, if possible, prosecuted. I would like to see JR put on the stand just as you would but Im not going to skew what I know for fact. As far as I am concerned however, you tend to argue every fact or piece of evidence that points away from JDI, whether it is from LE on the case, experts, ex teachers or anyone else, no matter how obvious it is.
Your interpretation of the 911 recording does NOT point away from JDI, as I've explained more than once. Imo the Ramseys were not being truthful about what happened prior to the 911 call. But forgive me if I doubt you when you say you heard Patsy say "What did you do?" Even the CBS sleuths didn't hear that at first, but only after the tech guy suggested it. If it was "clear as a bell" how could such an error be made?
DeleteAfter listening to a couple of podcasts last night, I am 100% convinced that the grand jury was looking at BR as the main suspect and guilty party in this case. The grand jury would not just indite 2 people because they think one of the 2 is guilty. I think alot of what we are calling corrupt is certain law officials (Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy) thinking they know who the guilty party is, and that they can not prosecute him.
ReplyDeleteThe indictments referred to first degree murder. Since Burke was too young to have been accused of first degree murder, the reference could not have been to him. Moreover it was made clear by the prosecution that Burke was never considered a suspect.
DeleteBy Colorado law, a minor of his age cannot be considered as far as what seems to have been posted.
DeleteThis is a pretty remarkable discussion on the Accessory to Murder counts on topix.
ReplyDeleteThere are a handful of the usual disrupters so just iggie posts by kauna, dedred,theonewhosolvedthecase
http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7IS8VDTOCN5GEF0P
8 pages so far and quite helpful for those that don't have a legal background but would like to understand what was released that Hunter never wanted anyone to know.
Ha! Now at 9 pages & a few posters bring up DocG in the recent posts. Infamous on topix it seems, lol.
DeleteA fair warning to all looking forward to the upcoming Netflix special on the JonBenet Ramsey case; from the Business Insider.
ReplyDelete"I should get this out of the way: "Casting JonBenet," which just premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, will not give you any insight into the 20-year mystery of who killed 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey.
In fact, there is not a single image of JonBenet or her family in the movie. And that's the most fascinating part of this documentary/fiction hybrid."
Those interested in the entire review, here's the link.
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-casting-jonbenet-review-sundance-2017-1
Mike G
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry Doc but people can be charged as accessories to first degree murder,no matter what age the murderer is. The law only pertains that an underage person, in this case BR, can not be charged. From what I understand about Colorado Law on a podcast, it would actually be against Colorado GJ rules for them to indite 2 people because they feel one of the two is guilty, but do not know which one, so in turn just indite both. It is unheard of in our legal system . CC and Dog might be able to elaborate more but its pretty obvious to me the GJ was looking at BR. If the GJ felt PR or JR were the guilty party and one was covering for the other as you and a few others on here are claiming, then they would have indited PR and JR both with first degree murder. Commom logic.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the 911 call, there was no mistake made, its ludicrous that the 30 secs of them sorting and evaluating out what they hear, you are trying to call such a big "mistake".
ReplyDeleteJohn and Patsy Ramsey were indicted also for "Count VII: ACCESSORY to First Degree MURDER:
As DA Stan Garnett said when asked about this KEY charge by Jean Casarez on the latest CNN program on this case, he said :
"It does appear that the theory they were looking at assumed that maybe SOMEONE OTHER than the two Ramsey parents were involved in what happened."
Sounds to me like classic lawyer doublespeak, KS: "does appear", "theory", "assumed" and "maybe" are hardly unequivocal.
DeleteContrast that with what Garnett told au.news when asked if he knew who killed JBR: Garnett said "I do. If we can ever file a case in open court, I'll tell the world." Since he can never file against a then-nine year old, I'd say he was NOT talking about Burke.
CC
Those would be quite contradictory statements CC. Maybe he was telling you the case will never be prosecuted or hos opinion differs from that of the GJ. Either way his comment of who the GJ was looking at is what it is.
DeleteI had never even considered BR to be a possibility at that point, nor did the rest of the free world, so what that tells us, is that the GJ must know some thing that we do not.
DeleteI didn't see the show Keiser, but from what you posted Garnett is saying what he thought the *GJ thought* as to the true bills.
DeleteAnd other Colo attorneys have spoken of this, most recently on tv a few months ago, one did say on tv that the true bills do seem that the GJ was (paraphrasing) including a third person that can't be charged.
I've posted about it before here about that CO attorney.
Irrc, even Lou Smit was asked way back if a young person "could do this" and he said yes. I'd have to dig for that to see if it still remains somewhere on the web tho.
We're all in agreement that Burke and Patsy can't be charged, right KS and Lil? And yet:
Delete-The Boulder County judge who heard Charlie Brennan's petition only released four out of fourteen pages of the GJ's findings, keeping ten under seal, strongly suggesting that he was aware this is an open case and an active investigation.
- The BPD in a recent interview called the evidence "contradictory", and still has two detectives assigned to the case today.
-Stan Garnett has recently ordered more DNA testing, and has made it clear that if he has the evidence, he'll indict.
Why all this if the suspect is Burke or Patsy, who cannot be charged?
CC
CC, because no one has been charged. I am not Stan Garnett so I surely can not say for certain, he obviously knows alot more than we do. I can make guesses like there is not definitive proof or there has been a cover up to protect the Ramseys and BR because of the attention it has gotten from the public or Stan Garnett just wants to satisfy the public. This still does not change who the GJ thought the guilty party was and the question of why they came tl that conclusion. When one of the Grand Jurors was on tv a few weeks ago and said he was pretty confident that he knew who killed JBR, it becomes all the more apparent that he, as well, was speaking of BR.
DeleteCC - the 10 sealed findings, do you believe they are stronger charges than the 4 the public know about?
DeleteTime and time again the BPD has said they have much more evidence than the public is aware of. I do believe that.
We know some things were blacked out on documents. Some believe one of the items taken into evidence from the cellar room was a Barbie doll.
What happens if new testings show JDI but he dies before being charged or tried? Do they close the case?
You're right that it sounds like Garnett is looking for evidence to charge someone with murder.
Garnett must feel the person responsible is still alive then.
As all the other charges, the statute of limitations have expired.
However, that is limited to the Ramseys correct?
If a new suspect is found, then child abuse, endangerment, etc. can be brought?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLil - Not ten findings, ten pages. I doubt there were more indictments.
DeleteThe statutes of limitations have expired with regard to ALL possible suspects except for a murder charge.
If JR dies before he can be indicted and he is in fact their perp, then yes, they'll close the case.
I agree there's more evidence that's been closely held.
CC
KS - Stan Garnett has said publicly that he read the GJ findings and reviewed the case evidence the day before he was sworn in as Boulder County DA. This is a no-nonsense guy who's made a rep in Boulder for going back and successfully prosecuting cold cases that Hunter and Lacy passed on. I do not for a minute believe he's ordering frivolous DNA tests to "satisfy the public".
DeleteIt's possible he disagreed with the GJ's findings, but given that he saw what they saw and more, he simply disagreed with their approach to the contradictory evidence - indicting boths Rs for lesser charges - and he's looking for touch DNA from the vaginal swabs in hopes of indicting John.
CC
What did the Grand Juror say that clearly implied he believed Burke to be JB's killer, Keiser?
DeleteThank you CC. If something more ever comes out with the DNA that absolutely rules out a stranger intruder, I just know the attorneys will excuse away all family DNA because they all lived together. Still would be good to have a jury decide.
DeleteIf he finds epithelial DNA from JR in the vaginal swabs from autopsy, which is what I believe he's looking for, you can take it to the bank he'll charge John right quick.
DeleteCC
Of all the major books on this case, could you all please suggest the best one in terms of getting into all the facts and circumstances?
ReplyDeleteI think most would say Schiller and Thomas's books. But there are hundreds I suppose by now, several just from internet sleuths to friends of the family. And more being written recently. Check your library first, or you could spend a lot!
Deleteo/t happy Chinese New Year everyone
Gumshoe, I forgot about Kolar's book. Various others that examined evidence in the case included chapters in their books but I think these three authors would be the ones to choose first.
DeleteThank you Diamond.
DeleteI'd suggest Schiller's "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" first Gumshoe, because his is a recitation of facts without a point of view, while Thomas believed PDI and Kolar BDI.
DeleteCC
Dear DOC:re ransom note..Your resume includes the word AUTHOR.. I was wondering if you could shed some light on the following...Page 26..Would seem to indicate that the individual composing the ransom note has not a clue how he/she is going to even start the note..and,yet.. in the time it takes to flip a page has managed to write a cohesive,grammatically lengthy(+punctuation) tirade with very few mistakes..ON the following THREE CONSECUTIVE pages.From 0-100mph in one second flat,so to speak.Would you agree this is a red flag? Would it be more likely:someone left the Ramsey household on the dec.23 with a pen and five pages from the notepad..and that they have used page 26 to check that the pen was in good working order..viz. not showing signs the ink was running out or actually was out of ink. I would appreciate an authors thought in regards to this matter. thanks.bruce.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're getting at. Is p. 26th the practice note?
DeleteIf someone prepared the note ahead of time using paper from that pad, the only reason would be to frame the Ramseys. But that wouldn't work unless the writer forged John or Patsy's hand, and there is no evidence of that.
Doc, you might be interested in Peter Kuerten, who fooled several people with his handwriting, and he didn't have a computer screen.
ReplyDeleteSee this link for instance;
https://books.google.com/books?id=l9Ku1QSvFg0C&pg=PA143
Interesting. And yes, I see no reason to rule anyone out simply because some "experts" can't match his writing to a clearly deceptive document.
Delete"Meanwhile the mother sees the relationship between the father and daughter and becomes resentful of the daughter because, ultimately, she wants to feel loved by her husband, the love he is giving his daughter."
ReplyDeleteThanks, SC, for the information you gave on this topic. I have personally observed a situation where a mother developed jealousy and resentment toward her young daughter and over time became increasingly abusive. At first the mother simply berated her daughter for her physical appearance, calling her fat, saying she was stupid and ugly. This behavior escalated to slappings, beatings with a thick belt, and all-day time-out standing in a corner. There were times the child was shut in a closet for hours as punishment for what the mother imagined was misbehavoir. Initially the abuse was perpetrated when the father was away from home, but as the mother became more bitter, she abused the child in his presence. In fact, she seemed to derive pleasure from him having to witness the abuse. This situation continued for years, until the child left home to attend boarding school. She never returned home. Yes, she said her father had been sexually abusing her. These people were respected members of their community, and though not wealthy, they had wealthy, influential friends. However, no one outside the immediate family circle knew about the child abuse going on in that family.
I don't know what went on behind closed doors in the Ramsey household, but a beautiful little girl was brutally murdered in their home. I grieve her death and pray for justice.
Yes I have read many stories like that online. In main news media, they hardly ever tell you the details, they always gloss over it. I kind of wanted to know mote how these situations happened, etc. So I searched for some true life accounts online, in the forums and such, and I saw many similar stories.
DeleteI am wondering if this is happening more today, with like the online porn as an influence, or was it worse in the old days, when people never talked about it. Not sure. But it does not seem to be uncommon.
Here are transcripts from an old Dan Abrams program with Kane, Wood, Schiller, Wendy Murphy discussing the case the 911 tape, talk of copies being 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation as well digital or analog copies
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7713-911-Call-Lies/page14
Do any of the experts know if the head blow was front or back of head? Front of head means more like snapping. Back means planned.
ReplyDeleteThere is this picture of Spitz: http://i50.tinypic.com/fmq6f7.jpg
DeleteMakes a lot of sense to me to say "I've got a surprise for you," take her to the pineapple, then take her as close to the window you can get and tell her to draw a heart on her hand (for some reason), and then knock her out.
"means" = absolutely in all cases
Delete"suggests" = from studies done, in many instances
Yes. Saw pic. A blow on the back of the head is less likely to mean snapping. This was deliberate.
DeleteSo I read somewhere someone said, if the perp wanted to kill her, why just one blow to the head? Why not keep hitting her until she died.
DeleteThat is where my idea comes in.
The plan, by both the parents, was to knock JBR out. Stage a fake kidnapping, stick a paintbrush in her privates, call police in morning, and then pretend that someone else did the sex abuse.
They did it that night maybe because of doctor visits and clues he saw, or JBR told someone, like the Whites daughter. So the parents knew, that after Xmas, something was coming down.
However, the head blow was too strong, JBR was practically dead. So they could not bring her to the hospital, JR strangled her later.
The original intent was not to kill her though.
It makes more sense to me for John to be using Patsy's paintbrush handle to draw suspicion away from him than the parents both choosing to use something which leads right back to them.
DeleteBtw, my theory could apply to JDI's too. Maybe JR's original plan was just to knock JBR out and stage. It could have just been his idea.
DeleteFor those that are still tied up in a knot over this case, this isn't new info, but I just read it in it's entirety and might be interesting to others. I will type the whole link, but if you have any problems with it you can get there other ways - it's title is Mark Beckner's Q&A Feb. 21, 22, 2015 posted on Forums for Justice.
ReplyDeleteIt is also cached from Beckner's AMA (Ask Me Anything) question and answer session on Reddit which he deleted, but is cached from google. Here is the link:
www.Forumsforjustice.org/Forums/showthread.php?10346-MarkBechner%92-Q-amp-A-February-21-22-2015
Goodluck with that!
I think just when you get half way down and think aha, I get it now, you see that Beckner has left the door open. I see Doc's theory in there however in the form of a question and answer. Few things stood out - as Keiser said there is some info the Grand Jury knows we don't - they are holding on to. And evidence that Patsy's own father may have been an abuser. Also that Beckner thinks there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, but just when you think you can figure out who may have done the abusing, it's really not something Beckner is going to let us in on. He says the case remains a mystery to him as well, but has high marks of praise for Kolar's investigative work. Also Thomas, but thought Thomas was too emotionally involved. Okay, that's it, I've critiqued it enough, read for yourself.
Damn.....I keep getting a 404 Error message when I try to open that link, Inq.
DeleteI'm sorry! I dislike long links like that immensely. I got to it by just typing Chief Beckner on JonBenet Ramsey case - I knew I had read a reddit interview some time ago, then gone back to find it deleted. And he did delete his comments, but it was google cached whatever that means and posted on Forums for Justice. You might try Forums for Justice or Mark Beckner's Q&A Feb. 21, 22, 2015. He drops some hints I think that one might find interesting. But just when I was ready to cry uncle, I see that it could be interpreted another way. Of course. That's why we go round and round, right? So - I hope you find it. If not I'll try something else to get it to you. Take care
ReplyDeleteI can get to the page via this link:
Deletehttp://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html
Beckner's comments are still there, undeleted, but the "Load more comments" links on longer conversations don't work. There's still plenty of interest here (bearing in mind we can't be 100% certain this is Beckner).
b&b
thanks b&b, yes they said the piece was a cache from google as the original was deleted. But it seems true to Beckner as I read it then.
DeleteDoc, you being a sound guy ought to know that there is a big difference between first, second and fifth generations of recordings. Ok guys, I have been doing some extensive research on this case and came across a sound engineer who has spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the 911 call. While doing this he actually ran into something very shocking, and it is NOT at the end of the 911 call. Surprisingly LE somehow overlooked this. Get your headhones on and ready for this one because you are going to be flabbergasted that we have all missed this ......
ReplyDeleteTrying again...
ReplyDeleteLink to Beckner Q&A:
http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html
(and acknowledging there's no way to confirm that is Beckner)
b&b
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry Doc but your and others argument that PR did not know, completely flew in the face of anything even close to logical and bordered on absurd. That being said I am going to reveal something that has been right in our faces ALL ALONG, I am really surprised that you missed it Doc. I will reveal more later but first, everyone get theor headphones on and tell me what words are being said...https://clyp.it/0enepeyv
ReplyDeletehttp://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html
ReplyDeleteAh, it worked!
DeleteThis is a link to a cached version of the reddit AMA with former BPD Chief Mark Beckner.
Beckner's comments are undeleted, but the "Load more comments" links on longer conversations don't work. There is still lots to read from him (if it is him, of course).
- b&b
Keiser- Is that from the 911 call ? Wow, That is very interesting. I hear what sounds like an upset PR saying what I think is "her remains". Is that for real ?
DeleteWebsleuths has more clip links here
Deletehttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?43055-Questions-you-d-like-answers-to/page80
My thoughts on the 911 call are
ReplyDeletePR's internal script was not prepared for the question "does it say who took her?" so she goes, "What?" In all, Patsy ends up responding to that question in 4 different ways as she tries to decide what she should reveal. After stalling with "what?" she says no, which is a clear answer. Then she takes it back - she doesn't know. Stalling again, she reminds the operator it is a ransom note. Then she changes her answer again by providing the correct answer, albeit with the "Victory!" & SBTC switched. Which to me indicates she's reciting from memory, not reading off a page. "Victory" is an afterthought here, but it would have been the first thing she read if she was looking right at it.
Throughout the call she's really trying to impress upon the operator that she has received a ransom note - she can't shut up about it. It's more like she's calling in to report the ransom note than her missing child. But she did not anticipate being asked about its contents because she didn't think any of the crap she made up was actually important. In her mind, the only relevance of the note is that it is a ransom note because she wants to emphasize that it is from a kidnapper - she's distancing the family from the note. But to the operator, the primary relevance of the note is any useful information it might contain, not whether it is asking for ransom or not. Patsy shares very little relevant info with the operator (a related indication of deception mentioned in the study) and hangs up before she can be pressed like this again.
I don't find Patsy's response remarkable at all. Someone hysterical with fear their daughter had been kidnapped, speaking to a 911 operator for the first time, might find any question uncalled for, other than a question confirming their location so that the police could be immediately dispatched.
DeleteYou are guilty of confirmation bias, pure and simple.
Mike G
Without a confession or some new bomb evidence I don't see this case solved. Because of the sloppy, unprofessional investigation we don't even have a COD, could have been the blow, the strangulation, both at the same time, experts seem confused. No TOD, same confusion among the experts. Was there sexual abuse or not, same confusion among the so called experts. No murder weapon. Way too many possible motifs. Sigh. I can't blame Garnett.
ReplyDeleteBlame Garnett for what? Pursuing a case you claim can't be solved?
DeleteMike G.
And don't forget we only have Patsy and John's word for it that she, Patsy, came downstairs and stepped over or on the note at the bottom of the spiral staircase - read a few words, ran to JB's room, ran to Burke's room, started yelling, John came running - that mental image is burned in our heads because that is the image the two of them put there. Much like CBS put a different image into our heads with their recreation of how they thought events played out that night. I also don't know if you remember in the CBS recreation Burke runs and gets his mother, he's in pajamas and she's still dressed. Is CBS implying that Patsy was still awake and dressed when Burke was downstairs during his "sneaking" time with JB? What about John saying she had gone to bed (although he's a little fuzzy on that, he mainly says he went to bed.) We also have an image of Burke still in bed that morning - his parents say "sleeping" - Burke says he was pretending to be asleep but lying there terrified, his mom "acting all psycho" running into his room. One can have a mental image of that as well. But come to find out, with the aerospace tape three distinct (or not so distinct but at least sounds were recorded) voices are heard so we then get a mental picture of Burke eavesdropping, not in his bed asleep or pretending to be asleep.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know what really transpired that morning. We have no idea whether John and Patsy had been up all night, laying the foundation for an intruder and whether she "happened" on that note or not. Or even whether John spread the note out on the steps to read it - accounting for the way it was seen by French - the story around it, is true or not true. Perhaps the note was spread out like that for Officer French to see it that way. If John wrote the note there is no reason to spread it out and read it again. Patsy either. So none of those early morning scenarios, although burned into our minds, may be correct. While we are speculating we should take all of that into consideration, and the power a story has of painting a picture in our own minds that we may never be able to let go of.
"- that mental image is burned in our heads because that is the image the two of them put there."
DeleteAn assertion unsupported by facts or their logical inferences.
Mike G
"But it's important to remember that JonBenet's skull was cracked from end to end. It's hard to imagine such an injury simply from a fall onto a hard object. Or her being struck with a hard object, such as bat or golf club. Which is why most of the investigators tend to focus on the MagLite with it's hard rubber tip."
ReplyDeleteHi Doc,
I too agree that she was hit with the flashlight. But after seeing the damage that was done to my 18 month old after a simple fall, I don't believe she was hit that hard. I mainly share my information because it fits the timeline. I've read that she was strangled 45 minutes to 2 hours after the head blow. The ER doctor stating that a child can act completely fine and then suddenly collapse with a show bleed to the brain after 1-4 hours fits within that timeline.
I am JDI when it comes to the note and the strangling, the staging, etc. But I think that information makes it almost impossible to determine who delivered the head blow and whether it was accidentaly or intentional. I do think John's motive was to cover up the sex abuse. Otherwise, there is no reason to poke her with a paint brush. Even if the evidence is inconclusive, no other reasonable motive has ever been found. But the reason why I think another person may have hit her on the head is why the two methods? And why the time lapse? Unless she acted completely fine after being struck accidentally. And when she wasn't, John figured his secret was out. He probably thought the sex abuse would be discovered regardless of an ER visit or if he killed her. So he killed her and did everything he could to point away from himself and his family.
HJM
Yes people probably watch too many cowboy movies where knocking people out is easy and no big deal. But in reality, a small head blow can cause major damage. Especially on a child.
Delete"But the reason why I think another person may have hit her on the head is why the two methods."
DeletePerhaps in case his kidnapping plan was foiled, or to lead police to believe, if the body was ever found before it decomposed, that an intruder pedophile had to have been responsible. After all someone with John's education,socioeconomic status, and lack of criminal history could NEVER do such a horrible thing! Right?
Mike G
One the Beckner AMA at the ffj link it does show a picture of Beckner holding a sign saying 'hi reddit' or something like that.
ReplyDeleteSo thanks for bringing this up again Inq as it's been several months since I read it.
A few things of note - he was asked if there seemed to be any evidence of Burke being abused.
NONE that they found during the investigation. As well as they could not connect the prior abuse of Jonbenet to John and didn't seem to be founded, nor any abuse of Patsy as a child found during the investigation.
You know how we've heard that it was Melinda's palm print found, well, when asked about fingerprints on the cellar door he said -TWO palm prints were Patsy's, and ONE palm print was from John Andrew Ramsey.
He did say what was reported about before, that as an adult, Burke refused to speak to investigators about his sister's death, and told them to speak to his attorney.
I find that so very sad for little Jonbenet.
All three family members lied. To protect each other. We can question the statements they made and why they made them, but everyone knows when humans lie a little bit of the truth is thrown in there to make the lie not look like a lie. John says he may have broken that window when he climbed in when he was locked out. Looks like he's being helpful to LE. Why would he want to help the intruder? Because he is going to lie somewhere else and he wants those lies to be believed. Burke says he snuck downstairs later, he volunteers that information 20 years later. He's trying to help someone - doesn't sound like he's helping himself, does it. If the family members can cast enough doubt on each other then no one will be charged. They cut off all prior relationships with friendships in Boulder. Possibly because those people knew their facade the most, knew what image they wanted to keep intact. An image they could no longer keep in place. This family had secrets and the secrets were going to come out with the murder, but not if they could obstruct, confuse, and confound LE as long as possible. And they did.
ReplyDeleteWow Inq, post of the two decades right there!
DeleteI know there are those that still stick with Patsy was gaslighted and Burke could never stay silent without blurting something out.
But more lies than truth seem to be the way the Ramsey and their hired mouthpieces operate.
No,they didn't. They remained close to the Stines, who in fact followed them to Atlanta when they moved back there in 1997.
DeleteCC
I think a knowledge of that garotte would fill so many holes. How does it compare to this?
ReplyDeletehttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/sclphilimg/x-1858/*
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e9/e7/29/e9e729a399d169cd38c7b766ff5419ee.jpg
For those who think it was to cover manual strangulation, this thread is interesting:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?117975-Cords-Knots-and-Strangulation-Devices
I second Ms D's question above, KS. What exactly did the Grand juror say that implied he suspected Burke?
ReplyDeleteCC
CC, The juror says in other words he is confident he knows who killed JBR, he was a grand juror,his confidence, knowledge and decision are coming from GJ testimony=. If the grand jury had thought either JR or PR had committed this crime they WOULD HAVE been charged with first degree murder. Secondly, following Colorado law which states that BR can not be named on the inditements because he is a minor tells us why there are accesories named yet NO ONE is named for the murder. It seems like pretty simple deductive reasoning on my part but many legal analysts agree.
Deletehttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipageshow/2016/12/24/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-mystery
So I have read the primary posts by Doc and I still do not see how you can rule out an intruder; especially if there was more than one, which I think there was if it was an intruder.
ReplyDeleteWhere did the DNA come from? And I'm not talking about the touch DNA which can easily be transferred multiple times before getting on JBR's body. Also, where did the HiTech boot print come from?
There was NO INTRUDER. The Hi Tek boot print was Burke Ramseys, PR lied about BR owning HiTek boots then proceeded to get rid of that evidence shortly there after. The DNA is degraded and a red herring. It is useless and means nothing. Detectives on the case went and bought a pack of the same underwear, had them tested and every pair in the pack came back with DNA on them. You need to read up, Gumshoe. You are way behind.
ReplyDeleteThe Hi Tek boot print was Burke Ramseys, PR lied about BR owning HiTek boots then proceeded to get rid of that evidence shortly there after.
DeleteAssertion not based on facts or logical inferences.
Mike G
Correct anonymous. I always thought that PR was going to ask for an ambulance at the beginning of the 911 call. While that is possible it is obvious she was not ready or aware that the operator had picked up immediately, probably due to her having a nervous breakdown. The wail that she lets out, I always thought was just that but after being cleaned up and slowed down, it appears that PR says "Her Remains". The argument in the house that morning very likely was, as I claimed before, about what to do with JBR's body and PR changing her mind or not able to go through with what was planned. Their are quite a few clean ups of the beginning of the 911 call. Here is one ... https://clyp.it/zvf1cobq
ReplyDelete...it is obvious she was not ready or aware that the operator had picked up immediately, probably due to her having a nervous breakdown.
DeleteAssertion unsupported by facts or their logical inferences.
Mike G.
I've seen that bit interpreted as "we need a . . . " or "we need 'em." "Her remains" seems pretty off the wall, even for you, Keiser. Hey, if you play it backward you can clearly hear her say, "I killed my daughter."
DeleteHardly an assertion, she is out of breathe, frantic and clearly immersed in whatever is going on in the house at that time. Her searching for words to use and her sudden and obvious change of voice and atritude after the 911 operator answers are quite clear. How is this not supported by facts or logic ?
ReplyDeleteIt's supported by your old standby, Keiser: confirmation bias. You are obviously hearing what you want to hear. Not only in this recording but in all the transcripts and interviews as well.
DeleteOf course Doc. What is she saying then ? Let me guess, JR did it ?
ReplyDeleteY'know what a judge would call your "cleaned up" recording right before he found it inadmissible? Doctored.
ReplyDeleteNot just this call in these circumstances, but any recording that's been subjected to adjustment of any kind.
CC