Burke should be ruled out - as someone who struck the blow or tied the crude garrote or used the paint brush handle in a sexual attack. But not as someone who did not hear anything at all. He most certainly could have heard something. His bedroom was right next to JB's. What transpired that night may have involved him incidentally - she could have come down to his room initially. If that didn't wake him up hearing an altercation between his mother and sister or his father and mother discussing something is information he is not going to give up.
There seems to be a consensus among law enforcement, the aerospace audio enhancement personnel as well as people in here that there were three voices heard at the end of the 911 call. But the significance of that is primarily that his parents lied about it - that Burke contributed to the end of the call. Many reasons for them to do this. They would not want Burke to have any involvement at all, either in what he heard discussed, or what he heard the night before. Therefore, he wasn't up early and heard no discussion of the parents.
One of the most telling features of this case is what was observed, by the first officers on the scene. (continued)
You have a "cordial" JR who remains so throughout the day with a few agitated moments toward the end who does not seem concerned the ransom call never materializes. He casually goes and gets his mail as well as disappears for an hour. There is also the observation that the parents were not speaking to each other, and who were separated from each other all day. Double homicide - one victim? It makes sense that he would take another look around to make sure nothing could be found that would suggest he and his wife were involved. What began in JB's bedroom, got finished in the basement. What all of this suggests, to me, is both of them knew and discussed and participated before the 911 call. It was agreed that a 911 call would have to be placed jointly. Who's idea it was first is not relevant. It's not likely that Patsy dealt with all of it on her own throughout the night. The crime has a look of two people's involvement. As Beckner suggests she may have been presumed dead, but was not. (one more continuation)
Part 1 was an emotional outburst, confrontation and accident. Part 2 a calculated coverup and staging, and of course Part 3, the ransom note which would have been a joint effort - one possibly dictating to the other who used the weaker hand to disguise the handwriting. Content containing a bit of both of them.
Beckner said there were signs of sexual abuse previous to that night but that the crime was not a sexual crime. It's a theory that it was a motive for murder, but just that, a theory. Doc, I read the thread "In It Together?" but I don't see it the same way you do. If Patsy accidentally shoved, pushed, or hit her daughter that caused her death (or presumed death) how in the world could that be explained to LE? Call for an ambulance? I think not. My premise is she got help, yes, but from John. And in it together, they came up with an idea that would take what happened in the house, out of the house.
"My premise is she got help, yes, but from John." That's not your premise, Inq, it's the premise of just about everyone who's followed the case -- until Burke became "popular," natch.
It's also the premise that has gone nowhere for over 20 years now. First, because there is no evidence to back it up, second because it's very hard to understand why two apparently sane people would suddenly go bonkers together, or why John would have been willing to take such an extreme risk to cover for the woman who just killed his daughter.
Inquisitive- Funny...as I started reading your newest posts, I was thinking, "Wow! Inquisitive finally got it!" I thought you were there...but then it trailed off into nonsenseland toward the end. It's that last part that has us JDI's perplexed. Your thoughts only serve to confirm ours.
Then the intruder did it, with no particular vested interest in the outcome. Why would John help cover for Patsy's murder because Patsy couldn't make that accident not look intentional and she would be charged with child abuse. She wouldn't be up all night in the basement with her cord, stick, paint brush handle, the white blanket then a long note all by herself. Bet John and patsy were talking this over before the 911 call was made Burke heard
If she'd bled from the head blow that could easily have been explained as part of the assault. Since it was no secret that she'd been assaulted the blood wouldn't have changed anything.
If Patsy hadn't called 911, and John's plan had worked, then blood in the basement (or anywhere else) could also have been blamed on an assault by the "intruder."
I have a corollary question as well. I recall reading years ago that the bones in children's heads, the "plates" of the skull (the word "fontanelle" sticks in my mind) are not fully knit and hardened until puberty, and that a child's head is particularly soft and vulnerable. If so, perhaps it did not require a forceful blow to render JBR unconscious and fracture her skull. Any medical types out there that can shed light? CC
But if Burke delivered the blow then surely either one of his parents would have gotten emergency medical help. But if Patsy caused the head injury and she thought she killed her daughter she would not get help as there is no way she could explain it since she caused it. How could she explain it to LE - I got angry and shoved her and she hit her head I didn't mean to. She tripped?
Just from looking at the autopsy pictures, I find it hard to believe ANY medical expert would testify the blow to the head MAY NOT have rendered JonBenet unconsciousness. Quite the contrary, I believe many experts would testify that, while JonBenet's final breath of air was caused by the strangulation, she was already was brain dead.
Ronald Wright, MD "director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine
""She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled," said Wright. 'That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.' He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation." [Emphasis added]
So far, the only interest in the head blow I can find seems to be whether it was before or after the strangulation. Why more aren't interested in whether the blow could have independently render her brain dead or destined to die escapes me.
"If Patsy accidentally shoved, pushed, or hit her daughter that caused her death (or presumed death) how in the world could that be explained to LE?"
It doesn't matter. You have to think what would you do. I would call 911 to try and save my daughter. Why would she be afraid of LE? She had no history of abuse. It was an accident if it played out as you are proposing. She would not have had to stage an elaborate kidnapping,sexual abuse,etc...IMO
Unless an ER trip involves the uro-genital area, there would really be no reason for anyone to have an examination in that area if coming in for an accident to the head. However, if unconscious, then I would think the patient would have to be cathed. So - if that would mean that medical staff could see some type of injury or abuse to the genital area when inserting a catheter.
So that may be the reason NOT to call 911, for them. Either the fear that the child's genitals would be seen and/or if she regained consciousness and then told the medical staff that she had been physically assaulted - no accident, and previously sexually assaulted/molested/punished due to bathroom issues.
Have you ever had a cath inserted? I have. Having one inserted in no way entails a way to determine if the hymen was damaged or broken. Unless you are implying that there would have been outward signs of abuse.
Oh yes, numerous times for various surgeries and for kidney stones, and I'm a female. Read my post again, I wrote genital AREA. Never said anything about using a pediatric speculum to observe the cervix or do a pelvic exam.
I'm glad you asked that Kath. I do not have the statistics to quote but many child abuse cases involve head trauma. If Patsy was enraged, whatever state she was in that accidentally caused her daughter head trauma and she was assumed to be dead (there was 45 min to 2 hours time before actual death due to strangulation; erring on the side of less time say 45 min.) I don't know how she would have explained the death to medical services and the law enforcement that would have followed. But I do see her telling her husband. Nearly everyone in here believes to a certain degree or 100 % certainty that John was involved. This was an accident, but it was precipitated by an event. To me, and former Chief Beckner, and Steve Thomas and Kolar (although he thinks Burke delivered the blow) all believe that the head trauma was not cold blooded calculated murder but an accident. I can't say that she had a history of abuse or not - nothing reported anyway. I'm not suggesting there was a history of reported abuse.
I get what you are saying but I think that nothing would have made Patsy mad enought to hurt her daughter (accident or not).
This is a woman who had escaped death once from cancer. A friend of mine battled cancer and eventually lost. I'm just saying it changed him. You could not make him upset.
I just don't think that anything would have upset Patsy to that point of using force on JBR.
So I think she was not involved at all.
I believe something happened with JR and JBR that upset him. Either she cried out or was going to run and tell Patsy.
He responded with the weapon that was near to him. The Maglite. He killed her and then went into full blown damage control.
Nothing new here. But I do enjoy all the theories.
If PR was enraged she would not hit JBR in the back of the head, with a blow from above. You hit someone from the front, on the side of the head, if you are enraged.
That's a perceptive observation, SC. If she were hit from behind, which I believe to be the case, it's hard to see that as the result of some sort of confrontation, which is usually head-on.
distinction of the word accidental used here as in unintentional result of some reckless act. We have two investigators and one former Chief that believe the head trauma was an accident. But whatever it was that resulted in the head trauma she may have been "presumed" dead. She likely wasn't moving, she likely didn't come to.
That's fine for folks to continue with their opinion of no evidence, as it seems no one here sat for 13 months seated at the grand jury that saw and heard enough evidence to sign true bills against John, as well as Patsy.
Thanks Mike -- but yes I have had a copy on my computer for some time, and used it as a reference as early as the third post on this blog. Check it out.
One thing I found interesting in the A&E link you posted, Mike, was the following comment by John: "The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, went to sleep, got up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went downstairs and discovered her body....."
John said the body was found four hours later, which would have made it approximately eleven a.m. This is at least the second time he has stated he found JB two hours before the official time of discovery, so that does bother me somewhat.
One forensics guy I read raised the question of, why not just keeping hitting JBR if the idea was to kill her. They were almost there with the one blow. So I think the one head blow could be for the following possibilities... The head blow was a spontaneous act to stop JBR from crying out and making noise, with the crime, whatever it was, already in progress. The head blow could be to knock her out, but not have her dead, so that the body could be removed from the house, without cadaver scent. Or the head blow could be for my idea, of the fake kidnapping plan, where they would knock JBR out and then leave JBR tied up in the basement, to cover for sex abuse charges.
But a series of head blows suggests a thug, not a small foreign faction, which was the purpose of the garrote.
Some JDIs, myself included, believe the head blow was an act of mercy, to spare JBR the pain of strangulation and her father having to garrote a struggling child. CC
That theory works if the head blow came first, which isn't conclusive based on the so called contradictory "experts'" opinions. Some of them claim that the garrote came first.
I would like to believe that it was an act of mercy and therefore when she was strangled, she didn't suffer. However, we don't know that conclusively, because we weren't there.
And that's been the problem with this case all along. For every expert that testifies one way, there is another that testifies the opposite way, which creates conflict and confusion.
Based on the evidence, it's difficult to conclude that she was conscious while being strangled. Contrary to claims made by Ramsey defenders, there were no nail stratches on her neck, but only petechial hemorrhages. And once again, contrary to certain claims, no skin cells were found under her nails -- not hers, not her attacker's. Tufts of her hair were intertwined with the knotting of the "garotte," meaning her hair was literally being pulled out of her head as the thing was being contructed. If she'd been conscious she'd have been screaming bloody murder, and struggling, which would have made it impossible to tie that very neatly constructed knot.
Also didn't someone write that the perp tried to strangle her upstairs first? So maybe the perp tried to strangle her upstairs, JBR started to scream, and he hit her on head to silence her.
The perp finished the job in the basement. It's possible the perp really wanted to specifically strangle her. He (most likely he) maybe wanted to try strangling someone. That is a common sex predator thing to do. That implies someone really sick.
Or, strangling might fit into the staging. The perp wanted it to 'look' like some sex predator did it. Hitting on the head is not specifically a sex predator act.
"If hitting her on the head was an act of mercy, why not just hit her a few more times till she was dead?"
Possibly because he thought the one blow would do the job. He didn't want to risk causing a bloody crime scene, and probably presumed he'd hit her hard enough to kill her. After hitting her, he may have written the ransom note, only to find upon completion of the note, she was still breathing. Rather than beat her to a bloody pulp and risk her still surviving for another couple of hours - along with a messy clean up - he strangled her, which wouldn't have been too difficult to do to an unconscious, six year old. Just speculation, of course.
Hmm. Yes I think that makes sense Ms. D. He hit her, she was out. He thought she was dead or almost dead. He wanted to complete the other stuff, before he actually killed her. He wanted to make sure things were in order first. Maybe he was a tad conflicted. He left the final act till the end, after he was assured it all went to plan.
My thought is that there was also a small element in there, where the perp, probably JR, specifically wanted to strangle JR. Strangulation is a common fantasy among sex predators. He took this opportunity, to engage in it.
Does make you wonder Doc. If you think the head blow was merciful, why such a vicious finish? Using a stick and cord for leverage, twisting so hard the hair was caught up in it and pulled out, the cord embedded in the skin of the neck.
Now you're getting it, SC! Inquisitive, the paintbrush handle may have been applied to the cord as part of the staging - I tend to think it was a "straight forward" strangulation using materials that weren't found with her body. So when the garrote was applied, JB was already dead - I just don't see the garrote as being the actual device that ended her life because it was completely unnecessary as a means to end the life of a small child who was not even capable of putting up a fight.
In my humble opinion, Burke being responsible is an easy solution. It would explain the parents feeling obligated to cover it up; perhaps they thought she was dead. Perhaps there was some kind of known abuse with Burke that they knew about. One of the biggest things though, that I can't get over with this theory, is how he wouldn't break under interrogation. I can't imagine it would take long at all for a professional interrogator to break a 9 year old.
Why wouldn't the parents just say Burke accidentally hit her? Just say he was swinging the flashlight around, and he accidentally hit JBR on head. He's nine. Nothing will happen to him. The records will be sealed.
You're speaking logically. In this scenario, I highly doubt the parents would be thinking logically. If they knew Burke had some sexual abuse issues, being in their position within the community, I can see why they wouldn't want that or him nearly killing her to get out. Maybe they thought she was dead too; I just don't know. Just speculating here.
Accident or not, you still have to account for the parents decision to garrote their daughter, Gumshoe, which is premeditated murder whichever way you spin it. If Burke struck JB on the head, then essentially, John and Patsy are left with two options: save their son's hide, but sacrifice their daughter in the process, or call for help for JB but risk Burke being taken away. As Inquisitive once said - it's a Sophie's choice scenario. Why did they choose to save Burke and finish of JonBenet? I can't see Patsy going along with that.....she'd call for help and say SHE hit JB on the head, thereby saving BOTH of her children. Problem solved - no garrote/ransom note/genital mutilation necessary. Not to mention that staging a brutal murder now makes their home the scene of a homicide, ensuring a murder investigation is imminent, making everyone in the house a suspect - including the person they're trying to protect, only now they *all* look like possible homicidal maniacs instead! How is this an "easy solution"?
At one point Gumshoe I even considered if Burke didn't do all of it, starting with some kind of crude sex play in the basement, the loosely tied wrist cords and the crudely made garrotte using his boy scout knot tying skills. He could have started it - there was another cord burn lower from the cord that was pushed into her neck higher up. Then perhaps she got loose and he used the flashlight to make her still, then went back to the strangulation. By the time he tells a parent it's too late, she's gone. So one or both, not wanting to call LE on their son, comes up with a phony kidnap for ransom note. It would pretty much have to happen that way as if Burke only did the head blow and the parent was called she may appear to them dead but not knowing so may have thought to call an ambulance and try and explain it as a fall. But I don't see the elaborate way in which her final death was staged as any kind of cover up for Burke. However if Patsy's anger over not just one single incident but perhaps several led her in a temporary lapse of good judgment caused that head wound (SC you said it came from behind) some object she was shoved against, then presumed dead you are the mother, do you take charge and call emergency first or do you run get your husband. Someone in here said their child was injured and their husband was the one to say she'll be okay, right? Same thing happened in our household with my 11 year old boy who fell off the top of a moving truck (he liked to climb stuff). He seemed fine until evening when he began to get lethargic and vomited. I had been out of town and when I asked what was wrong I flew over there and he was taken to emergency where it was pronounced he had a concussion.
I would like to hear from a few Patsy purists in here to refute how this makes sense or doesn't, but I see this is as a two person crime, one victim, and apparently the Grand Jury saw it that way as well. What would be the real heroic thing to do at this point is for John to confess, so that further questions regarding Burke could be put to bed but you know he's not going to do that.
I do concede now that she was sexually molested prior - after reading the Beckner Q&A. Yes, we had the four experts who said she was, we also had a few who said she was not, but Beckner sealed that for me. He said it could have been soon before or a few days before. But they have no idea, who would have. There was other vaginal trauma just inside, which could have been harsh vigorous wipe downs. She was wiped down that night. But Beckner also said that the crime was not sexually motivated. If you haven't read the Q&A please do so. I think it was bb who provided a better link, or you can google Beckner's Q&A on reddit 2015. Beckner said they interviewed some pretty odd characters including sexual predators in the area but no one matched up. He said there were a lot of people who did not have alibis as well, but again, no matches.
I think it was 6 medical experts not 4 Inq and irrc nobody disagreed. Kolar and Thomas put it in their books about the prior abuse way before Beckner did an AMA. Do you have names of a "few" you say disagreed, because I have looked.
Yes, Anonymous - on the JonBenet Encylopedia website cited back in September-October, where there is an outline of events including all dissenting opinions. If you say 6 then I have no argument with you, and that the dissenters did not look at slides, I give it that as well. I have no argument that she was sexually abused prior to that night, I just cannot say with any degree of certainty who did it, can you?
Head injuries - something that HKH was trying to explain. Wife of actor Liam Neesom died from a subdural hematoma after a skiing accident. The actress Natasha Richardson was conscious, lucid and even joked afterwards and refused medical treatment. Doctors said that death can occur hours or days later from bleeding on the brain. This is why it's very important to seek medical care after hitting your head. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7119825&page=1
Why experts want people to wear headgear when biking, skateboarding, and even during the threat of tornadoes.
Many do think that the brother could have struck Jonbenet in the head, and delayed alerting his parents that this happened.
I'm glad you brought up the Duggar family Gumshoe. Irrc 4 of his sisters were victims of the brother's sexual molestation, and the youngest was age 6 if I recall. Absolutely nothing involving pageant wear, makeup, and adult themed costumes like Patsy had her daughter doing.
That's why some experts think the garrote was used first--because the bleed into the brain wasn't significant and would indicate that she was deceased or dying when the blow was inflicted, especially that they seem to think there was quite some time between both the blow and the strangulation.
Doc - I do understand about no scratch marks on her neck and that she'd be screaming. BUT if there were two perpetrators as in that "small foreign faction", she could have easily been subdued.
I do think JR was involved somehow, whether covering up for someone OR himself being the murderer.
I read somewhere that JR made phone calls that morning from his home to the Governor. Not sure how true that is, but why weren't the police allowed access to those phone records?
What do you mean you understand about "no scratch marks"? Weren't there scratch marks on her neck which some medical experts thought was a sign that she was trying to free herself from the garrote?
Aww, c'mon, Gumshoe. I can understand you not wading through five years' worth of blog entries, but Doc just answered this today at 9:50. Scroll up. CC
EG -I had read rumors that Patsy also called the mayor that morning. Due to John having friends that were also attorneys they got representation that day. I also read that one of the attorneys for the family /John had connections to the phone company. John said he had lost his cell phone. Lots of that info is found on topix, ffj, and ws.
diamondlil--The whole thing smacks of cover up. So many oddities, so many things that just don't add up or make sense. From the RN to the way the investigation was handled to the behavior of the parents, to the doctor visits, the school nurse visits, sealed medical records, sealed phone records. Who has that kind of power?
EG - yes, it does seem to be very much a cover up by many, from the elected officials to the hired henchmen, to the bull dog bestie. However I do believe there were a few righteous people that were true to their work ethic and commitment to the victim, Jonbenet, but many had their hands tied due to the pressure by the those in power.
Money will get things swept under the rug, and deals, bribes, all of that. Toss in whatever they found to bond over, be it cancer, religious affiliation, prescription meds, golfing, sailing...solving the crime it seems mattered to a very few, a very small minority in Boulder. imo
So so many lies. Patsy seems to be the lesser of the two good at lying. John provides information to appear helpful. This is a common set up for a lie. Act helpful. Volunteer information, or give too much information in an attempt to mislead - he took a melatonin so it couldn't be him, he was out cold. Oh wait, he took two melatonin - he was really out. He read to both kids, no, he forgot, he didn't. He had read to them on other occasions - just the confusion and all caused him to get mixed up. He can even provide us with the book he was reading before bed to himself. One of those mysteries by the number. Did he even say what number he was on? That would be immensely helpful to the investigation don't you think? And Patsy. Not so good at the details so uses her coquetry skills like in the deposition with Darnay Hoffman where he's trying to nail her on her handwriting. John does not want Patsy questioned right away. Have to ask why - because she's too distraught or because she isn't quite well enough versed at how this is all supposed to have gone down. They are both allowed at least 24 hours to grieve before the questioning begins, and even longer due to their connections and ability to hire one of the best law firms in town. If someone had entered my house and brutally killed my child I would somehow muster the strength to help LE find out who did it before the trail ran cold. They did not.
Just had to add this as I know a few here deny that a person at the age of 9, almost 10, would have any sexual motivation, curiosity, experimentation, et al.
On today's Wendy Williams show she just had on the guest KeKe Palmer, a 23 year old actrss who was promoting her new book. She said she was molested at the age of 5 by a family member. Wait for it, the family member was 9. It was her cousin. Her cousin is female. Then she talks about her mother and her dad and various other subjects with Wendy.
Sex play among 9-12 year olds in not uncommon. I was reading about it a bit. At that age, it is often same-sex, sex play. Hormones are starting to increase a bit at that age, pre-puberty. Funny how that is not talked about much. It was against Freud's theory, who called it the latent period.
Agree. Probably in the minority here, as I'm Team CBS.
my point in listing the family's interests is that the son knew knot tying and knows how to swing golf clubs and bats, John knows knot tying at least thru sailing, unknown if Patsy had hands on experience with sailing but she knows how to swing a bat, unknown if she golfed. But the majority here rule out the mom and son. That no parent would cover for a child. That no parent would cover for a pedo murderer. But other cases outside of Boulder, it has happened.
I thought we understood each other, SC. I will not let your obsession with those images take over this blog. We've already discussed your situation at length via email, so you can't claim that you are being ignored. Your most recent posts are off topic and, as I explained some time ago, will be deleted for that reason.
Okay, I have wanted to pose this fun exercise for awhile now! I love reading the passionate arguments for JDI, PDI, and BDI... Now I have a challenge for those up to it. Pretend your theory is incorrect. What do you think is the next most likely theory and please argue it!
Good question, Megan. If in fact my theory were proven wrong, then I would be forced to accept some sort of very odd intruder theory. There is no way I'd even consider Patsy as the killer, or the writer of the note, and that's for several reasons, not just one. Same with Burke, not because he could not have done it, but because I can't imagine the Ramseys covering for him if he did.
The nice thing about the intruder theory is that one can always argue that some very strange person with motives we can't imagine could have done it after all. While that might possibly raise some doubts in anyone's mind, to me it doesn't pass muster as far as reasonable doubt is concerned. So it would always be possible to argue for an intruder. However, as far as I'm concerned, John's obvious lies about breaking in earlier totally obliterate any possible intruder theory, so my choice of thatas a possibility is purely theoretical. All the evidence points to John as far as I'm concerned.
Well I think B, J and P were involved! But obviously I think Burke delivered the head blow. If it was proven that it wasn't Burke I would also have to go John/Patsy as a team (50/50 who did it but both in on it and Patsy writing the letter). Theres no way John or Patsy did it alone and there is no way there was an intruder.
Yes, I have been meaning to ask this question myself for quite a while......
In order of likelihood, going only by evidence and leaving emotion out of the equation (which is how I came to to my current conclusion - had emotion factored into it, I would still be a firm IDI, as I was for all those years): 1. John Ramsey 2. Intruder known to family 3. John and Patsy as a team 4. Patsy 5. Intruder unknown to family 6. Burke
Important to note, I go from a staunch 9/10 for number 1, to a 2/10 on number two.....and it gets weaker down the list, so that by the time we get to Burke, I'm in the negative figures ;)
I'd name John Mark Karr as the killer before believing for a single second that Burke had anything to do with Jonbenet's murder. I believe a nine year old is capable of killing, I believe they are even capable of committing incest, but loving parents don't stage a brutal homicide by a foreign faction to cover for an accident. That really is "Twilight Zone" territory.....
And yet, both scenarios have been argued very convincingly. So, how do you figure one of them couldn't have acted alone? Is it based on your opinion, or can you show us why it is in "no way" possible?
Zed, I am in agreement with you on the involvement. At least we know for a fact whose names were named on the true bills, it was two people named not one.
"I'd name John Mark Karr as the killer before believing for a single second that Burke had anything to do with Jonbenet's murder."
I actually am struggling to find the words of how ridiculous this statement is Ms D. Yours and Doc's response to Megan's question tell me that you 100% would rather be right than find out who actually killed her. TO say that your 2nd option would be IDI is just unfathomable as when Leigh 2 and Inq were IDI, you argued and belittled both of them on multiple occasions.
Megan, to give you an actual answer to your question, here is mine. I am BDI all the way, BUT if it got proven that he didn't do it, then my 2nd choice would be JDI, then PDI and 4th choice would be both parents. IDI is absolutely not even an option ANY intruder theory must include Patsy and John being involved with them.
Thanks for the question and my apologies that certain people on here didn't answer honestly.
"I actually am struggling to find the words of how ridiculous this statement is Ms D. Yours and Doc's response to Megan's question tell me that you 100% would rather be right than find out who actually killed her."
I absolutely knew you'd say that, J....perhaps I'm psychic?! Again - I'm going to tell you something I've said many times - I WANT to be wrong.....o.k? I hate the idea of John Ramsey sexually abusing his daughter, then murdering her to cover it up. You have no idea how many nights I lie awake desperately trying to convince myself of another likely scenario. You also have no idea how much thought I've put into the possibility of Burke being the culprit, and I've really tried to make that "fit" too. I just can't - I can accept he is capable of killing his sister, I cannot accept the cover up. It's unprecedented and no one in their right mind makes an accident look like a homicide, the opposite is always true. This has absolutely nothing with needing to be "right", it has to do with the sheer lack of evidence pointing towards Burke, and the unlikelihood of the epic cover up, pure and simple.
"TO say that your 2nd option would be IDI is just unfathomable as when Leigh 2 and Inq were IDI, you argued and belittled both of them on multiple occasions."
Yep. And if you read all of my comment, you would know that I still find the idea ludicrous - I simply find it more likely than the other scenarios, so I listed it above them.
"Thanks for the question and my apologies that certain people on here didn't answer honestly."
It's really condescending to suggest that because my opinion differs so greatly from yours, I am obviously being dishonest. I really take issue with that. You can attack my arguments, but don't question my integrity. I am nothing, if not brutally honest, in case that hasn't been abundantly apparent over the months.
Ms D – first off my apologies. I debated on leaving that sentence off my post and obviously should have. That being said, I have read countless posts from you being condescending towards others on here who believe an IDI. (Inq can attest to this). I wasn’t just talking about you and was for sure pointing fingers at Doc as well. You ONLY point away from Burke because you don’t think the parents would cover for him. Strictly opinion btw with nothing to say that is based on any fact. I have argued many of the JDI crowd, but IF Burke was proven to be innocent, than JDI makes way more sense that IDI. Just sad that your hatred for the BDI theory would make you say something that you know is beyond ridiculous. The one thing that all of us should be able to agree on is that IDI is absolutely not true. That being not true doesn’t mean JBR wasn’t murdered, so that leaves Burke, Patsy and John. Those should be the only choices
Since you asked, SC, my reasons for believing in Patsy's innocence:
1. If she were involved in staging a kidnapping, and either wrote the note or was aware that John wrote it, she would not have called 911 when she did, knowing that the body of the victim would sooner or later be discovered. Once that happened then the whole point of writing that particular note would have been undermined.
2. I don't see a motive for murder on Patsy's part. She doted on JonBenet, whose success as a "pageant princess" was obviously of great importance to her.
3. The assault was clearly no accident, as it involved a brutal and powerful blow to the head from above, and probably also from behind. Since it was not an accident, coupled with the total absence of motive, I see no reason to assume Patsy could have delivered that blow.
4. One does not cover up an accident by staging a murder. In all the history of criminal justice I can't think of a single instance of such a bizarre attempt. If anyone can find one, please share. If JBR had been felled accidentally, for whatever reason, her parents would certainly have called for help. No reason to stage a bizarre coverup.
5. The assault clearly included sexual elements, as the victim's vagina was penetrated to the point that it bled. While it's been alleged that Patsy did that to stage a sexual assault by a pedophile, it's impossible to believe that a mother who had just knocked her daughter senseless "by accident" would then proceed to cover up in such a brutal manner. And if the plan was to stage a sexual assault, one would expect the body to be found in the nude, not fully dressed and wrapped in a blanket.
6. It's impossible for me to imagine someone as emotional as Patsy being capable of composing that carefully thought out and carefully printed 2 1/2 page ransom note just after "accidentally" clubbing her daughter into unconsciousness. The margins were scrupulously adhered to, as were the horizontal guidelines. Every i was dotted, every t crossed, the note is carefully composed, with a clear beginning, middle and end. No amount of journalism training would compensate for the extreme distress she would have felt at that moment. And if one would want to argue that she planned this in advance, then one would need to come up with some sort of motive for planning such an evil act against a child so obviously close to her heart.
7. Once again, as with the vaginal penetration, the application of the ligature device is impossible to imagine for someone who would be in such obvious distress after "accidentally" clubbing a beloved child. There are many ways to stage a crime that would not be half as brutal.
8. Assuming she did in fact club JonBenet, it's hard to imagine why her husband would want to cover for her. To "protect the family name"???? Sorry, but I just can't take such a motive seriously. Your wife has just killed your beloved daughter and your first instinct is to cover for her by going along with an absurd kidnap staging involving vaginal penetration and strangulation with a garotte? Sorry, John may be many things, but he is not a henpecked fool.
"I have read countless posts from you being condescending towards others on here who believe an IDI. (Inq can attest to this). I wasn’t just talking about you and was for sure pointing fingers at Doc as well."
I sure have been! Because everything points away from the crime having been committed by an intruder, and I stand y that. And, in all honesty, I've been a lot more condescending to BDIs than IDIs (lol)....and that is because, as improbable as the IDI scenario is, I still find it more believable than BDI.
"You ONLY point away from Burke because you don’t think the parents would cover for him."
You're mostly correct with that statement, though lack of evidence plays a big part. Can you cite another case where two parents, upon finding their daughter unconscious after having been accidentally hit in the head - with NO outward signs of the severity of the injury - decide to strangle her rather than call for help? Can you cite another case where two parents have staged a homicide to cover for an accident, knowing that a murder investigation is going to attract the attention they're actually trying to avoid if BDI cover up is to be believed? If John and Patsy really loved both of their children, why wouldn't one of them take the rap for Burke's accident and call for help, rather than sacrifice one for the other when it wasn't even necessary? All John or Patsy had to say was "I accidentally hit my daughter" upon taking her to the Emergency room. Sure there would have been an investigation, but not the kind of investigation they actively invited after strangling their daughter to death and staging a phony kidnapping! And why would they negate the entire premise of the ransom note by staging a sexually motivated murder instead, thus guaranteeing that Burke was going to become a suspect?! Or - if they thought the sexual staging would point to a pedophile intruder - why didn't they ditch the RN and just go with that instead?
All of these reasons are more than enough evidence to make the logical inference that JB's murder wasn't the result of a cover up for an accident.
"I absolutely knew you'd say that, J....perhaps I'm psychic?! Again - I'm going to tell you something I've said many times - I WANT to be wrong.....o.k?"
Ive got REALLY good news for you....you are wrong! BDI :-)
Well, if your BDI scenario involving a folie a deux of two homicidal parents who had no regard for their daughter's life were true, it wouldn't make me feel any better.....
Megan- I'm a JDI, but if forced...and I'll probably get some guff ;) 1. Burke with insane parental coverup 2. Patsy in cahoots with John on coverup 3. Intruder who was familiar with family 4. Random intruder 5. Bad Santa (kidding)
Back to the shoe prints in the wine cellar. According to acandyrose.com, two unidentified shoe prints were found in the wine cellar as well as one HiTech shoe print. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like these were ever confirmed as to who the owner was. A previous poster suggested that they were Burke's but surely detectives would have figured this out. Even if they were Burke's, that still leaves two additional unknown prints. Acandyrose also states that Fleet White owned a pair of HiTech boots. Somewhere in all these comments, I assume Fleet White has been discussed in detail, no? He seems like someone who could have been involved.
Given that this site is over 4 years old, virtually anything posted is in regards to a dead horse. Maybe everyone should just stop posting unless new evidence comes to light or additional news breaks. Thanks again for being insightful Anon.
So if two children each owned HiTech boots, couldn't it be ruled out if it was their print or not? Surely the size boot found in the wine cellar door would be obvious if it belonged to a child versus a grown man.
It was the instep imprint found, not a full toe to heel print.
Keep in mind over 100 people were interviewed and investigated, many gave handwriting samples, hair, blood and DNA swabs. Likely all got the eyeball on the sized of their feet.
A shoe print cannot be time stamped either unless it was left over something fresh, blood, vomit, urine, other liquids, etc.
Keep in mind the parents lied/denied the brand of footwear being owned.
But Burke and his friend admitted to owning the brand.
No clue what any of those Stines wore. I find them suspicious.
The HiTec print is clearly a red herring. All that's visible is the HiTec logo, the rest of the print has been obliterated, telling us it could not have been fresh on the morning after JBR's murder.
Gumshoe, have you done any reading at topix for the Jonbenet case? They are on point when it comes to news stories and new book releases as well as link back to info such as the police questioning. Granted they have trolls and troublemakers there but after awhile they are easy to spot and then scroll by.
For historical reference and discussion I find the ffj site helpful- freedom for justice. I don't post at either, just read.
Thanks Diamond. Yes, I have come across Topix when googling certain aspects of the case. The challenge I am finding, given that I just got into this case 2-3 weeks ago, is the voluminous amount of information on the internet.
There is that, lol. Try next time on a search something like "flashlight Jonbenet topix" or ffj, and if on ffj, the bottom will show similar links. There is another site, poster goes by juror13 on topix you might like. Let me look for it, she and her writing partner have done several recent books covering the case, brb
Adding an article from November where the authors of Craven Silence are included in the piece. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2108001/jonbenet-ramsey-mystery-silent-911-call-made-xmas-party-three-days-before-child-disappearance/
If John laid the note out on the steps so that he could read it start to finish, why weren't his prints found on the note? Only Patsy's (palm print?) and the investigator's. If Patsy runs and gets John right before she makes the call and tells him there's a note and he then lays it out for reading, surely he didn't wear his gloves to bed, that would be preposterous. And it's pretty impossible to pick up a page of paper only touching the paper edges.
Lil, you're so cute! Really, I like your consistent neutrality and upbeat personality. I think we can read people's personalities in how they write. I would think John would at the very least, get a paper cut, no? Anyway I don't think John spread that note out, but that's neither here nor there.
Well Gumshoe, what was discussed by detectives is that Patsy is a little blurry about when she came downstairs and stepped over the note or stepped on the note and Thomas said given the spiral staircase layout it would be hard to step over it and/or not see it. I'd have to grind out his quote from his book somewhere. It's those little dinky details that both J and P seem to always be not so clear on. Also one other thing - John's bathrobe was in his office - just when did he cast that off and why there?
lol, well thank you Inquisitive, I don't see myself always neutral.
In fact I was so tempted after reading some replies to your initial entries on the new blog, it looked like you were catching some flak.
And I was going to post -
To make an apple pie from scratch First you must create the Universe.
I was just sensing that you weren't allowed to claim your theory as others had thought it before, but sheesh! Do we have to copyright it?? Of course some of us will agree with something new or old, and others expound upon it, and I thought that was what you were doing, and then the flogging commenced.
Well none of it matters does it? (What we think.) We have every puzzle piece, we just don't know how they fit a picture in total. Some think they do know. We've got over a thousand puzzle pieces - we have an autopsy report, we have fibers, a note, then we have lies, statements, a wiped down blunt object,a wiped down victim, tons of theories, and here we are - nowhere. I actually wonder why no one is discussing the Baby Lisa Irwin case (in the media). Why this particular case over that one?
And, to be fair, name another case where a "kidnapped" child has been found dead in her home, the day after Christmas, with a garrote tied around her neck, along with a three page ransom note? I know I can't think of another case like it. That's why everyone is so attracted to this particular story.....it's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma! Everyone loves a good crime story, and this one has all the elements that a good crime author would be sure to include: sex, money, power, deception and many plot twists to keep the reader guessing right until the end.
Good - I was afraid this blogsite would go away if enough people became resigned and feel like they are beating dead horse. There are interesting elements to the Baby Lisa Irwin case - that the mother most likely was in an alcohol blackout. If any of those memories come back to her then doubtful she would say what happened.
There is something else but no proof, the closest I knew of someone in the media was a local tv cameraman. But when I think back to parents of missing or murdered children where the adults still got big media attention, whether Natalee Holloway's mom, Laci's mom, Caylee's grandparents, Kyron's dad...is that they may be visually appealing or speak better than other parents that don't get the same coverage. But the only way to know is to have someone from major print or broadcast tell us why they choose to cover one family multiple times than another.
Actually baby Lisa is big on the web, and the local news does run pieces at least once a year. She's one of the cases I have listed. However the same group that is part of the "footprints" came over to my listing for Dylan Redwine so there can be some dust ups. One difference I think is no body found, and the parents don't get on big media like Maddie McCann's' parents.
The Maddie McCann case has piqued my interest lately. I've never had any reason to doubt the parents official story, so I never really looked into it, but after a little research, it seems that - like the Ramseys - their stories keep changing, they hide behind their lawyers and they don't really seem to be interested in helping authorities find the person(s) who allegedly abducted their daughter.
Or - was it a beaver hair or really a dog hair belonging to Jacques. Jacques got lose from the Barnhills and jumped through the basement window. John covered for the dog by saying he broke in earlier that year.
This is bad, really bad, and Doc will come in at any moment and delete me, but I could see a board game based on this case - like the old "Clue." We would have pieces - a lead pipe, a bat, a golf club, a Maglite, a trophy. "It was Patsy Ramsey in the bedroom with a trophy or the flashlight" or "An Intruder, with a murder kit containing the following..." you get the message. Question is would any one of us get sued by Lin Wood if we tried to market such a game? Sorry Doc.
Oh snap! The police also took a hammer and a brick into evidence and we know the knives. And of course the rope. Yes, likely he would sue if you included real names of the family. So you'd have to stick with Mrs Peacock, Col Mustard...
Funny you should say that, Inq.....I was actually thinking of exactly the same idea about two weeks ago! Except mine went more along the lines of "It was John Ramsey in the basement with the rope".....I was thinking of that line all day, and it hit me: this sounds like I'm playing a game of Clue! Or as we call it here in Aus, "Cluedo"!
Even with this heat?! I'd kill for a bit of rain! Though, besides our summers, it's a pretty sweet place.....very laid back. I wouldn't live anywhere else :)
Maybe one day Doc might decide to write about one of Australia's biggest unsolved crimes? I can think of a few high profile cases that have gone on for decades.....
I'd live by the beach of course - just looking in my Pacific Modern book - Point Piper? or how about McMasters Beach - how about Mackerel Beach? I know not.
No, Port Douglas all the way, Inq......if you can tolerate epic humidity during the summer! Yes, MNLizzieB, I was thinking about the Azaria Chamberlain case as I typed my above comment.....many people here still believe that Lindy stabbed her nine week old daughter with a pair of scissors during an evening BBQ in the desert, decapitated her, then proceeded to walk around taking photos of Uluru (Ayres Rock) the next day with her baby's head stashed in the camera bag. Almost as plausible as BDI ;) What's more, evidence came to light - after she'd already served a few years in prison - that exonerated her, and we learned just how corrupt the NT police were during the investigation and trial. An absolute travesty of justice. The Chamberlain's marriage didn't survive of course, and Michael passed away only a few weeks ago.....a tragic story all round.
Have any of doc's posts discussed the beaver hair found on JBR?
Also, do you all feel that the evidence suggesting JBR was wiped down is indicative of John Ramsey's involvement or a potential intruder? For those of you not truly convinced it was John Ramsey responsible for this, I'm curious to get your take on this scenario.
discussion of beaver hair is it could be transferred from a makeup brush, Steve Thomas wondered if it was from a pair of Patsy's boot cuffs he observed her in - but not sure if anyone thought it was from the paint brush. My paint brushes, the good ones, are horsehair. So guess another question mark.
As for her being wiped down that you need to go back to Doc's threads where he discusses John Ramsey's involvement on this matter, it's a key ingredient of his theory.
Btw letting everyone know, DocG is one sexist dude.
I had him look over some info on my case, I told him exactly what parts to read, as it is in chronological order. And also organized into albums or chapters. I wrote, you have to read this specific part to get it, and I told him which part. That part is not too long to read. I said, just read this part.
First he writes back, like oh yes I know all about your case. Like he read what he was supposed to read. But as he writes, it turns out he just looked at some of the videos. I told him, no the videos are not much, they are just extras, you have to read the story to get it, and to get the videos.
Then he writes back, he tells me he looked at my pictures. So I ask him, which section and which pictures did you look at? He didn't answer. The pictures are organized into albums. Again, you have to read the story to get the pictures. So he could not answer which album he looked at, so I know he just looked at the general page, where my pictures are not in order, and actually those are just me redoing some colors on them. In other words, that is not how you look at them and how I told him to look at them. So again he lied. I told him what to look at again.
Then I guess he read a little bit more, he wrote back again, oh I know about your case, I read it. But I could tell from what he was saying, he read the introductory part, which really is just background and not my case.
When I questioned him on it, he could not deny it.
Then I told him again, no you have to read THIS specific part to get it. Then he writes back, no I am not going to read it anymore.
So the dude lied to me like four times, pretended four times he read the write information. and of course he came up with this strong conclusive negative opinion. But I could tell by his comments he made he did not read the right information, because he would have mentioned some things and not mentioned other things. So I knew he was lying again.
And then when I call him on it, he then refused to read what I told him from the beginning to read. He flat out said he would not read any more.
This is not an ethical guy. This is a messed up guy. I am sorry, you all read his blog, but this is a guy with some serious sexism problems. He is not a good person.
SC, for your information I read the entire screed, from beginning to end. I didn't get back to you because I finally just got tired of dealing with you and your obsessions. For the record, I do believe you might very well be the victim of stalking and yes, you could be in danger. But your over the top efforts to "prove" your theories about your situation go way beyond what is necessary and reveal, to my mind, an obsessive/ compulsive personality disorder. In other words, you really do need to see a shrink before you drive yourself even farther into the realm of madness and lose all your friends in the process.
Now this is officially the end of it. I won't tolerate any more posts of yours or anyone else's on this matter.
You're wrong. I've exchanged remarks with Doc on the subject of Ethics several times, and not only is he a highly ethical man, he's a very moral one. And he offered to help you, SC, when you were at your most inappropriate, rude and annoying, which makes him a very good guy indeed.
Judging by your remarks, I don't believe any amount of attention or support would satisfy you. I hope you get the help you need, but this is not the place to seek it. CC
Ms D wrote: "All John or Patsy had to say was "I accidentally hit my daughter" upon taking her to the Emergency room. Sure there would have been an investigation, but not the kind of investigation they actively invited after strangling their daughter to death and staging a phony kidnapping! And why would they negate the entire premise of the ransom note by staging a sexually motivated murder instead, thus guaranteeing that Burke was going to become a suspect?! Or - if they thought the sexual staging would point to a pedophile intruder - why didn't they ditch the RN and just go with that instead?"
My response: Ummm have you ever heard the Ramseys speak? Have you heard what their friends say to them. There is no way they would take their daughter to emergency when she was brain dead (they assumed she was dead), and had prod marks over her body. Plus she had been in that state for at least 45min. Heck, Burke may have even made that garotte and put it on her as a joke before hitting her when she cried out. There is no way the Ramseys would go to emergency...for their reputation, for Burke and for them sorry-a$$ selves because they neglected their child.
I think it actually makes more sense than a couple like them would stage what they did rather than ring emergency. So that whole notion that everyone keeps going about will continue to fall on my deaf ears.
And they NEEDED a ransom note because that was the ONLY evidence to point to an intruder being in the house. Not so sure what is hard to understand about that. And because they never planned on dumping her body, it had to be a kidnapping gone wrong so they staged a sexual element to it. Disgusting? Absolutely. But these two went to wild measures. I bet, over the years, they thought to themselves, if only we had just called emergency.
The only hope of this case being solved is if CBS go to court and something comes out of that...because CBS had the balls to tell it how it is and the grand jury definitely have other stuff we don't know about. The other way this gets solved is when John passes away and Burke speaks. But I'm not even convinced Burke knows because his parents sent him to bed telling him everything would be ok. Maybe in his mind he actually believes there was an intruder.
I have also heavily many many years in the Zodiac case (which I have a suspect). But i dont believe zodiac or JBR murder will ever see the murdered named or anyone prosecuted.
"There is no way they would take their daughter to emergency when she was brain dead (they assumed she was dead), and had prod marks over her body."
Bullshit. Of course parents would, and DO, take a dying child to Emergency.....at any rate, they couldn't have known she was brain dead. One doesn't just "assume" when their child's life is on the line! Show me the evidence to support your claim "They thought she was dead". Do you have any? There is no proof she had "prod marks all over her body", we don't know what caused those marks and we don't know when they occurred.
"Plus she had been in that state for at least 45min."
You have absolutely no way of knowing that! Assuming Burke hit her, he may have told them immediately, thus they could have responded immediately by calling for help the second they saw she was seriously injured.
"Heck, Burke may have even made that garotte and put it on her as a joke before hitting her when she cried out. There is no way the Ramseys would go to emergency...for their reputation, for Burke and for them sorry-a$$ selves because they neglected their child."
Show me the proof they neglected their children, Zed. Burke hitting JB on the head on Christmas night doesn't count because there is NO PROOF it ever happened!
Good God, at least give us something substantial, all you've given here is PURE speculation based on your preconceived opinion!
A. Prior sexual abuse points towards John. Yes, it's possible to have been Burke, but considering Burke didn't alarm any child psychologists or LE investigators during his interviews, I'd say they knew he hadn't been sexual abusing his sister very early on in the investigation.....we know for a fact they weren't so sure about John, because he was their number one suspect. B. We know, for a fact, that Burke did not write the ransom note. Whose purpose did the note serve best? John. Who was the note addressed to? John. Who would, other than John, have a reason to BEGIN the note with a clarification that the "foreign faction" respected JOHN'S business, for goodness sake? Major red flag right there! C. What scenario is more likely when we look at murders committed in the home: a murder to cover up sexual abuse - which happens way too often, sadly - or a phony kidnapping to cover for a minor who couldn't even be prosecuted?
All of my reasoning is based on logical inferences gathered from the known facts. Most of yours are based on an opinion, so I would argue that my theory is much sounder than yours, and that is why BDI has never been entertained seriously by anyone in LE.
Wowee, I'm sitting here at the hospital cafeteria having a late lunch and come back to this! I must give myself a little pat on the back,as this morning at breakfast ran into a woman that my dad and others suspected of burglarizing his houses a few years back. But since the PD didn't fingerprint, no way to know for certain. But I was polite, she's a junkie as well.
Then off to my appt where they are telling me they have no records, they all were destroyed of my xrays, ct scans, lithotripsy, lab work, stone removal surgery info...and I get a bit pissy. Try to keep it together. Actually today's cat scan was rather relaxing, with the white noise. Bummed tho that having my arms above my head hurt, so middle age is not pain free.
Of course they marveled at my gallstones, which now look like corn on the cob. But thankfully I only have a tiny stone in each kidney. But the doctor saw a cyst on my kidney so that will be monitored.
I managed to not bop the old lady in the waiting room on her cell talking about how she thinks she has ringworm.
And the cafeteria had lobster in mac & cheese, woot!
I also came up with a name for Inq's game- Stages. with the late David Bowie tune in my head ...changes, turn and face...
J and Zed, my turn to apologize for saying Burke can be ruled out. Obviously to you two and maybe one other, he can't be. Wouldn't it be great to eliminate rather than add to? As long as it's not our own belief! Doc - there are just two things in your theory I can't get past. If I could, I think I could get on the bandwagon. Those two things are: that John wrote the note for Patsy specifically to prevent her from calling 911 so that (2) he could get the body out of the house. Those are my two issues and why I can't hop aboard. And, the exchange right above me here is sad (3:37-4:30). I don't think this site is to be used for that.
I dont have any problems with the exchange between Ms D and I. There was no insults and she is free to disagree...just as I am free to disagree with her. Debate is healthy. And FYI there is no proof of anyone killing JBR...thats why no on was ever prosecuted and no one ever will be. Its about adding up the speculative evidence and looking at what makes the most sense. I am nearly 100% convinced Burke hit her over the head. But thats my opinion, albeit a very strong opinion.
Zed I meant the exchange between SC and Doc. Not you and Ms D. It was right at the top of what I had said earlier, which is why I put a time stamp on it, 3:37 - 4:30.
I have to agree with you inq,I don't think Burke can be ruled out as J and z believe. He was said to have been with J fixing up a toy and has admitted to creeping downstairs after this to play with the toy again later, this in itself of course doesn't make him guilty. The points you make about John, I can add that if the RN was premeditated, even back in 96' I can't see J using a pen and pad from own home, and with P there that night the note is too long. The only other thing I can think of is something CH who used to post here mentioned once, did J direct the note towards setting p up.? But from everything I've read there really are too many inconsistencies with P for me to believe she wasn't covering something up with J.
Yes,evej, and if it was Burke I think it was as Zed summarized earlier, ALL of it Burke. Not just part of it, all of it. But for the note of course. If she was dead then you would not call an ambulance, and if you found her as your son left her would you report him to LE? Just something to think about.
Just read a lengthy discussion, with pictures, on Forum for Justice regarding the head wound. The discussion was golf club versus flashlight. They were saying that the autopsy skull picture is deceptive and since there only is one picture it's hard to understand the angle. Apparently the wound was toward the top front of the skull, and right - so top right. To have an the oval shape be top to bottom someone would have to be standing to her right, their left. This would be difficult for a right handed person. They would also, if they used the maglight, have to be taller to strike the top with force. And, the fracture line goes forward. In otherwords, the 12 inch maglite would have to have struck her skull from HER right side to match the skull damage. The fracture goes forward toward the front of her head with bruising on her brain in front, not on the left side of her head, according to a discussion on this forum, as dictated by the ME. Different story if she were hit with a golf club or some other type of weapon where you could still get an "oval" at the correct angle. Also her hair would serve as a cushion so that a laceration wouldn't occur. The flashlight left out in the open may have been part of the staging.
"Can you cite another case where two parents, upon finding their daughter unconscious after having been accidentally hit in the head - with NO outward signs of the severity of the injury - decide to strangle her rather than call for help? Can you cite another case where two parents have staged a homicide to cover for an accident, knowing that a murder investigation is going to attract the attention they're actually trying to avoid if BDI cover up is to be believed?"
JDI like to ask these types of question periodically of others but don't seem to ask it of themselves. Put John's name into that question(Cite another case where a father would...bludgeon, strangle, ransom note, body in the house,etc.) and the answer is the same as it is when you ask everyone else.
"Burke hitting JB on the head on Christmas night doesn't count because there is NO PROOF it ever happened!"
Exact same amount of proof as there is for John, Patsy, or some non existent intruder.
"Good God, at least give us something substantial, all you've given here is PURE speculation based on your preconceived opinion!"
Which is exactly what you're doing as well. I don't understand why people who speculate like to jump on others saying they're the ones speculating. Everyone is doing it. His or her speculation isn't any better or worse than yours.
If you read the first three posts on this blog you'll see there is no speculation involved. The difference between PDI and JDI, in my version at least, is the difference between an accident and a sexual assault associated with deliberate murder. And if you need evidence of motive, check out the consensus among a distinguished group of pediatricians that JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night of the murder. While the alleged abuse cannot be proven beyond doubt, it certain does and certainly could contribute to a circumstantial case against John.
A key piece of evidence is the note itself. As I've already argued above, it's impossible for me to believe that a mother so deeply attached to her child would have been capable of writing such a carefully crafted, detailed, note after clubbing her so violently, either by accident or in a fit of rage. John, the "ice man" certainly could.
To see the vaginal penetration and "garotte" strangulation as staging by a loving mother who had never meant to kill her child in the first place, is, to me, ludicrous. When we see this as a deliberate murder committed by someone fearful of being exposed as an incestuous pedophile, this evidence takes on a completely different meaning.
So if you're looking for the difference, there you have it.
"I don't understand why people who speculate like to jump on others saying they're the ones speculating. Everyone is doing it. His or her speculation isn't any better or worse than yours."
Not quite, Tracy B. Refer to my response to Zed at 2:55 AM. Doc pretty much covered everything else in his above comment.
I've always found it unlikely that Patsy wrote the note, as well. If Patsy were trying to disguise her writing, it would make no sense to use the manuscript style letter "a" which we see in the note, which she often used. The letter "a's" in the note actually look as if someone struggled to write them. No, I don't believe Patsy wrote the note. I've also considered that the start of the "practice note" may have been left in her notebook deliberately by "someone".
If JR was intentionally framing Patsy, the fact that he handed over the note pad so willingly to the police makes sense. That he wrote a "practice note" on the same pad addressed to both of them could have been deliberate so that the police viewed the omission of Patsy's name on the final ransom note with suspicion. He may have drawn the heart on JB's hand to implicate Patsy, because it's something Patsy sometimes did. Changing the "a"s to her signature, manuscript style also points towards Patsy. Throwing in a couple of phrases she was known to use points suspicion towards her. As does using her paintbrush. Perhaps the whole reason John chose to fashion a garrote-like device rather than just tighten a ligature around JB's neck was so one of Patsy's tools would be found at the scene. In fact, the more I think about it, it really does seem like a Patsy frame-up. Because one would have to be really stupid to point the finger at themselves at such an obvious manner.....
Not to mention his odd remark to Linda Arndt upon bringing JB's lifeless body into the living room: "It looks like an inside job", or words to that effect. He sure as heck wasn't pointing towards himself, so who was he referring to and why did he feel the need to say it at such a tragic moment?
Has anyone read the analysis of the RN in the new Amazon JBR murder book "Listen Carefully"? I thought it was facinating and would love to hear others thoughts....
I have not but it certainly has been given very positive reviews as well as being very current. I read that at least two very informed posters contributed in some way to the book, or were at least quoted, "cynic" and "cherokee".
Was there something you found while reading it that stuck out that may have not been heavily discussed before?
thanks greg H - I just looked it up. It's on Kindle so I can only read so far with the look inside the book but it does put one back in the minute by minute horror of that morning. Have you read the whole book? I'd like your thoughts if so.
The problem I have with John being the sole suspect is there just wasn't anything in his past to suggest he was remotely a bad person, or capable of this. Now we're suggesting he could have potentially framed his poor wife who had been recovering from cancer? That seems like a stretch to me.
I know everyone on here is against the intruder theory, but let me ask one question. The BPD has said time and time again that there was no sign of a break-in. Whose to say nobody "broke" in. Why couldn't someone have walked through the front door with a key; or whatever door the Ramseys entered through that same night?
You can believe someone entered with a key, but that doesn't explain the staging at the broken window, the duct tape with a perfect smear of Jonbenet's lips that was applied after death, and other forms of staging in this case. An intruder wouldn't stage a scene. Not to mention forget to bring his own ransom note or anything used in the crime.
You're right, Gumshoe, because we can't exclude any of the theories. Nothing about this crime makes any sense and all theories have inconsistencies that can't be explained away.
If it was an intruder, they were no stranger to the Ramseys, and I believe there was more than one.
What would the motive of a non-family member/intruder to have have re-dressed her? Or if you feel that the oversized bloomies were put on earlier and not connected to the crime, why would that person care to pull up her pants at all? Or do you think Jonbenet pulled them up herself after being accosted with the paintbrush?
I agree Diamond. One of the biggest incidents that point towards the Ramseys is the care taken to re-dress her, wrap her in blankets, put her favorite night gown with her, then tuck her away in a secluded room. All things that would be beyond foolish for a "would-be" intruder to waste time doing.
Yes, some parts do show care in contrast to the cruelty of the cord around her neck. Without the autopsy no one could notice her head injury.
No bite marks, broken or torn nails, broken fingers, no bites on the tongue or inner cheeks. I don't know if they could tell if she had been recently crying, but her eyes didn't appear to show that she had gone thru a bout of sobbing. Irrc, John thought she looked like a sleeping angel. No bruising or redness apparently from any signs of being slapped or pinched. One medical examiner reviewing the autopsy reports thought her brain showed signs of "shaken baby syndrome ". But that doesn't mean out of anger, it could happen with someone trying to get an unconscious child to awaken.
It always comes back to the note Gumshoe. Even accounting for something going wrong (with an intruder scenario) why leave a note for a kidnap for ransom that isn't going to take place. If it was pre planned, the note written in advance, by someone with intimate knowledge of the family, used a key to come in either early that evening or after midnight and accounting for something having gone wrong - you still leave a note? Why? If the note was a McGuffin - (look that up from Alfred Hitchcock movies) all of this that night took some doing, and took some time. The intruder(s) left no trace evidence whatsoever behind. No fiber, no fluids, no hairs, no prints. And then he disappears and has never been found. Tied to the Ramsey's somehow but never found? Color me stupid if a DNA match is found sometime this year that's a match for someone who had some tie to this family or has no alibi or confesses or all three but I'm not optimistic. If more than one EG, that increases the likelihood that fluids, fibers, hair or prints would be left behind.
I agree with you. Prints aren't that hard to cover up though if a potential intruder had gloves on. What I can't get my mind around is how horrific her death was. I just haven't come across anything that would suggest the parents are capable of that.
A couple quick questions:
1. Did they ever conclude what was used to wipe her down and did they find this type of cleaning solution in the house?
2. In the book PMPT, they talk about how there was no evidence of the lights being turned on. How can this be determined? Any wouldn't John and/or Patsy turn the lights on if they themselves were going into the basement for some reason?
3. Why was there a need to break the ends of the paintbrush used for the garrote?
2. It can't be determined, and I don't remember this in the book, but John himself said he escorted Burke upstairs with the flashlight that's been theorized to be the murder weapon. John has denied recognizing or owning the flashlight for 20 years.
3. Who knows? Not everything has an explanation in this case unfortunately.
On #1. eh,I do wonder if something was presented as evidence to the grand jury. Only due to some questions back in Aug 2000 by either Kane,or statements from Beckner during the Nov 2000 with the Wolf/Ramsey lawsuit that seemed to have Lin Wood all in a dither.
Lots of demented folks in Colorado that certainly were strangers to their victim, and yes, strangulation was involved. In the case of 10 year old Jessica Ridgeway she had that done to her as well as dismemberment. I recall when she first went missing. Very tragic.
Of course it was the killer's mom that turned in her teen son. He also inserted something into Jessica's vagina. Thankfully enough evidence to go to trial.
House of Lies - a premise
ReplyDeleteBurke should be ruled out - as someone who struck the blow or tied the crude garrote or used the paint brush handle in a sexual attack. But not as someone who did not hear anything at all. He most certainly could have heard something. His bedroom was right next to JB's. What transpired that night may have involved him incidentally - she could have come down to his room initially. If that didn't wake him up hearing an altercation between his mother and sister or his father and mother discussing something is information he is not going to give up.
There seems to be a consensus among law enforcement, the aerospace audio enhancement personnel as well as people in here that there were three voices heard at the end of the 911 call. But the significance of that is primarily that his parents lied about it - that Burke contributed to the end of the call. Many reasons for them to do this. They would not want Burke to have any involvement at all, either in what he heard discussed, or what he heard the night before. Therefore, he wasn't up early and heard no discussion of the parents.
One of the most telling features of this case is what was observed, by the first officers on the scene. (continued)
continued -
ReplyDeleteYou have a "cordial" JR who remains so throughout the day with a few agitated moments toward the end who does not seem concerned the ransom call never materializes. He casually goes and gets his mail as well as disappears for an hour. There is also the observation that the parents were not speaking to each other, and who were separated from each other all day. Double homicide - one victim? It makes sense that he would take another look around to make sure nothing could be found that would suggest he and his wife were involved. What began in JB's bedroom, got finished in the basement. What all of this suggests, to me, is both of them knew and discussed and participated before the 911 call. It was agreed that a 911 call would have to be placed jointly. Who's idea it was first is not relevant. It's not likely that Patsy dealt with all of it on her own throughout the night. The crime has a look of two people's involvement. As Beckner suggests she may have been presumed dead, but was not. (one more continuation)
Part 1 was an emotional outburst, confrontation and accident. Part 2 a calculated coverup and staging, and of course Part 3, the ransom note which would have been a joint effort - one possibly dictating to the other who used the weaker hand to disguise the handwriting. Content containing a bit of both of them.
ReplyDeleteBeckner said there were signs of sexual abuse previous to that night but that the crime was not a sexual crime. It's a theory that it was a motive for murder, but just that, a theory. Doc, I read the thread "In It Together?" but I don't see it the same way you do. If Patsy accidentally shoved, pushed, or hit her daughter that caused her death (or presumed death) how in the world could that be explained to LE? Call for an ambulance? I think not. My premise is she got help, yes, but from John. And in it together, they came up with an idea that would take what happened in the house, out of the house.
"My premise is she got help, yes, but from John." That's not your premise, Inq, it's the premise of just about everyone who's followed the case -- until Burke became "popular," natch.
DeleteIt's also the premise that has gone nowhere for over 20 years now. First, because there is no evidence to back it up, second because it's very hard to understand why two apparently sane people would suddenly go bonkers together, or why John would have been willing to take such an extreme risk to cover for the woman who just killed his daughter.
Inquisitive- Funny...as I started reading your newest posts, I was thinking, "Wow! Inquisitive finally got it!" I thought you were there...but then it trailed off into nonsenseland toward the end. It's that last part that has us JDI's perplexed. Your thoughts only serve to confirm ours.
DeleteThen the intruder did it, with no particular vested interest in the outcome. Why would John help cover for Patsy's murder because Patsy couldn't make that accident not look intentional and she would be charged with child abuse. She wouldn't be up all night in the basement with her cord, stick, paint brush handle, the white blanket then a long note all by herself. Bet John and patsy were talking this over before the 911 call was made Burke heard
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletehttp://www.jameson245.com/redskull.jpg
DeleteA picture of JonBenet's skull. Does anyone think they'd be "conscious" anytime soon after suffering such a blow?
Mike G
Had Jonbenet bled all over from the head blow, do you think the outcome of this case would be any different?
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting question, Anon, and one I've thought about; I think it partly depends on where the blood was found. You?
DeleteCC
If she'd bled from the head blow that could easily have been explained as part of the assault. Since it was no secret that she'd been assaulted the blood wouldn't have changed anything.
DeleteIf Patsy hadn't called 911, and John's plan had worked, then blood in the basement (or anywhere else) could also have been blamed on an assault by the "intruder."
Blood in the basement, fine, I'm with you. Blood anywhere upstairs with a blood trail to the basement, not so much.
DeleteCC
I have a corollary question as well. I recall reading years ago that the bones in children's heads, the "plates" of the skull (the word "fontanelle" sticks in my mind) are not fully knit and hardened until puberty, and that a child's head is particularly soft and vulnerable. If so, perhaps it did not require a forceful blow to render JBR unconscious and fracture her skull. Any medical types out there that can shed light?
ReplyDeleteCC
Yes correct. This was in the CBS documentary as well. Burke could have delivered this blow quite easily.
DeleteA single isolated blow is not consistent with the way children fight.
DeleteBut if Burke delivered the blow then surely either one of his parents would have gotten emergency medical help. But if Patsy caused the head injury and she thought she killed her daughter she would not get help as there is no way she could explain it since she caused it. How could she explain it to LE - I got angry and shoved her and she hit her head I didn't mean to. She tripped?
Delete911! 911. I keep coming back to if it was an accident (or even Patsy or Burke doing something by force accidentally). 911!
DeleteJust from looking at the autopsy pictures, I find it hard to believe ANY medical expert would testify the blow to the head MAY NOT have rendered JonBenet unconsciousness. Quite the contrary, I believe many experts would testify that, while JonBenet's final breath of air was caused by the strangulation, she was already was brain dead.
DeleteMike G.
*unconscious
DeleteMike
I stand corrected:
DeleteRonald Wright, MD "director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine
""She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled," said Wright. 'That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.' He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation." [Emphasis added]
I'm still skeptical...
Mike G
So far, the only interest in the head blow I can find seems to be whether it was before or after the strangulation. Why more aren't interested in whether the blow could have independently render her brain dead or destined to die escapes me.
DeleteMike G
Ok Inq, I'm biting...
ReplyDelete"If Patsy accidentally shoved, pushed, or hit her daughter that caused her death (or presumed death) how in the world could that be explained to LE?"
It doesn't matter. You have to think what would you do. I would call 911 to try and save my daughter.
Why would she be afraid of LE? She had no history of abuse. It was an accident if it played out as you are proposing.
She would not have had to stage an elaborate kidnapping,sexual abuse,etc...IMO
Unless an ER trip involves the uro-genital area, there would really be no reason for anyone to have an examination in that area if coming in for an accident to the head. However, if unconscious, then I would think the patient would have to be cathed. So - if that would mean that medical staff could see some type of injury or abuse to the genital area when inserting a catheter.
ReplyDeleteSo that may be the reason NOT to call 911, for them. Either the fear that the child's genitals would be seen and/or if she regained consciousness and then told the medical staff that she had been physically assaulted - no accident, and previously sexually assaulted/molested/punished due to bathroom issues.
Have you ever had a cath inserted? I have. Having one inserted in no way entails a way to determine if the hymen was damaged or broken. Unless you are implying that there would have been outward signs of abuse.
DeleteOh yes, numerous times for various surgeries and for kidney stones, and I'm a female. Read my post again, I wrote genital AREA. Never said anything about using a pediatric speculum to observe the cervix or do a pelvic exam.
DeleteI'm glad you asked that Kath. I do not have the statistics to quote but many child abuse cases involve head trauma. If Patsy was enraged, whatever state she was in that accidentally caused her daughter head trauma and she was assumed to be dead (there was 45 min to 2 hours time before actual death due to strangulation; erring on the side of less time say 45 min.) I don't know how she would have explained the death to medical services and the law enforcement that would have followed. But I do see her telling her husband. Nearly everyone in here believes to a certain degree or 100 % certainty that John was involved. This was an accident, but it was precipitated by an event. To me, and former Chief Beckner, and Steve Thomas and Kolar (although he thinks Burke delivered the blow) all believe that the head trauma was not cold blooded calculated murder but an accident. I can't say that she had a history of abuse or not - nothing reported anyway. I'm not suggesting there was a history of reported abuse.
ReplyDeleteYes, any number of reasons Lil to not call 911 immediately. Maybe it was an agreed upon decision.
ReplyDeleteInq,
ReplyDeleteI get what you are saying but I think that nothing would have made Patsy mad enought to hurt her daughter (accident or not).
This is a woman who had escaped death once from cancer. A friend of mine battled cancer and eventually lost. I'm just saying it changed him. You could not make him upset.
I just don't think that anything would have upset Patsy to that point of using force on JBR.
So I think she was not involved at all.
I believe something happened with JR and JBR that upset him. Either she cried out or was going to run and tell Patsy.
He responded with the weapon that was near to him. The Maglite.
He killed her and then went into full blown damage control.
Nothing new here. But I do enjoy all the theories.
Thank you. I agree with you 100%. These theories are starting to remind me of all the JFK conspiracy theories.
DeleteI just don't understand this obsession with trying to pin it on Patsy, especially with all of John's lies and misdirection over the years.
DeleteIf PR was enraged she would not hit JBR in the back of the head, with a blow from above. You hit someone from the front, on the side of the head, if you are enraged.
ReplyDeleteThat's a perceptive observation, SC. If she were hit from behind, which I believe to be the case, it's hard to see that as the result of some sort of confrontation, which is usually head-on.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedistinction of the word accidental used here as in unintentional result of some reckless act. We have two investigators and one former Chief that believe the head trauma was an accident. But whatever it was that resulted in the head trauma she may have been "presumed" dead. She likely wasn't moving, she likely didn't come to.
ReplyDeleteThat's fine for folks to continue with their opinion of no evidence, as it seems no one here sat for 13 months seated at the grand jury that saw and heard enough evidence to sign true bills against John, as well as Patsy.
ReplyDeleteDoc:
ReplyDeleteResearching the case, I ended back up on this site, specifically, on this page:
http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/05/can-anyone-help-me-out-on-this.html
For the hell of it, I checked to see what was available and found the below. Maybe you already knew of it, but in case you didn't, well, here it is:
http://www.jameson245.com/doc1of2.htm
Mike G
Thanks Mike -- but yes I have had a copy on my computer for some time, and used it as a reference as early as the third post on this blog. Check it out.
DeleteOne thing I found interesting in the A&E link you posted, Mike, was the following comment by John:
Delete"The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, went to sleep, got up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went downstairs and discovered her body....."
John said the body was found four hours later, which would have made it approximately eleven a.m. This is at least the second time he has stated he found JB two hours before the official time of discovery, so that does bother me somewhat.
One forensics guy I read raised the question of, why not just keeping hitting JBR if the idea was to kill her. They were almost there with the one blow. So I think the one head blow could be for the following possibilities... The head blow was a spontaneous act to stop JBR from crying out and making noise, with the crime, whatever it was, already in progress. The head blow could be to knock her out, but not have her dead, so that the body could be removed from the house, without cadaver scent. Or the head blow could be for my idea, of the fake kidnapping plan, where they would knock JBR out and then leave JBR tied up in the basement, to cover for sex abuse charges.
ReplyDeleteBut a series of head blows suggests a thug, not a small foreign faction, which was the purpose of the garrote.
DeleteSome JDIs, myself included, believe the head blow was an act of mercy, to spare JBR the pain of strangulation and her father having to garrote a struggling child.
CC
That theory works if the head blow came first, which isn't conclusive based on the so called contradictory "experts'" opinions. Some of them claim that the garrote came first.
DeleteEG
I don't find them contradictory; most agree with the autopsy report. CC
DeleteI would like to believe that it was an act of mercy and therefore when she was strangled, she didn't suffer. However, we don't know that conclusively, because we weren't there.
DeleteAnd that's been the problem with this case all along. For every expert that testifies one way, there is another that testifies the opposite way, which creates conflict and confusion.
EG
Based on the evidence, it's difficult to conclude that she was conscious while being strangled. Contrary to claims made by Ramsey defenders, there were no nail stratches on her neck, but only petechial hemorrhages. And once again, contrary to certain claims, no skin cells were found under her nails -- not hers, not her attacker's. Tufts of her hair were intertwined with the knotting of the "garotte," meaning her hair was literally being pulled out of her head as the thing was being contructed. If she'd been conscious she'd have been screaming bloody murder, and struggling, which would have made it impossible to tie that very neatly constructed knot.
DeleteIf hitting her on the head was an act of mercy, why not just hit her a few more times till she was dead?
DeleteAlso didn't someone write that the perp tried to strangle her upstairs first? So maybe the perp tried to strangle her upstairs, JBR started to scream, and he hit her on head to silence her.
DeleteThe perp finished the job in the basement. It's possible the perp really wanted to specifically strangle her. He (most likely he) maybe wanted to try strangling someone. That is a common sex predator thing to do. That implies someone really sick.
Or, strangling might fit into the staging. The perp wanted it to 'look' like some sex predator did it. Hitting on the head is not specifically a sex predator act.
"If hitting her on the head was an act of mercy, why not just hit her a few more times till she was dead?"
DeletePossibly because he thought the one blow would do the job. He didn't want to risk causing a bloody crime scene, and probably presumed he'd hit her hard enough to kill her. After hitting her, he may have written the ransom note, only to find upon completion of the note, she was still breathing. Rather than beat her to a bloody pulp and risk her still surviving for another couple of hours - along with a messy clean up - he strangled her, which wouldn't have been too difficult to do to an unconscious, six year old. Just speculation, of course.
Hmm. Yes I think that makes sense Ms. D. He hit her, she was out. He thought she was dead or almost dead. He wanted to complete the other stuff, before he actually killed her. He wanted to make sure things were in order first. Maybe he was a tad conflicted. He left the final act till the end, after he was assured it all went to plan.
DeleteMy thought is that there was also a small element in there, where the perp, probably JR, specifically wanted to strangle JR. Strangulation is a common fantasy among sex predators. He took this opportunity, to engage in it.
DeleteDoes make you wonder Doc. If you think the head blow was merciful, why such a vicious finish? Using a stick and cord for leverage, twisting so hard the hair was caught up in it and pulled out, the cord embedded in the skin of the neck.
DeleteNow you're getting it, SC!
DeleteInquisitive, the paintbrush handle may have been applied to the cord as part of the staging - I tend to think it was a "straight forward" strangulation using materials that weren't found with her body. So when the garrote was applied, JB was already dead - I just don't see the garrote as being the actual device that ended her life because it was completely unnecessary as a means to end the life of a small child who was not even capable of putting up a fight.
I'd like to think that too Ms D. I don't like to imagine horror perpetrated on a child. I'd like to think that she had no pain or knew what happened.
DeleteIn my humble opinion, Burke being responsible is an easy solution. It would explain the parents feeling obligated to cover it up; perhaps they thought she was dead. Perhaps there was some kind of known abuse with Burke that they knew about. One of the biggest things though, that I can't get over with this theory, is how he wouldn't break under interrogation. I can't imagine it would take long at all for a professional interrogator to break a 9 year old.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't the parents just say Burke accidentally hit her? Just say he was swinging the flashlight around, and he accidentally hit JBR on head. He's nine. Nothing will happen to him. The records will be sealed.
DeleteVery true. Which is why I sometimes question if Burke could have had some kind of sexual issues with her; like the Duggars.
DeleteEven if he did, he is still 9. No one would ever hear about it. The records are all sealed. Why wouldn't the parents just take her to the hospital?
DeleteYou're speaking logically. In this scenario, I highly doubt the parents would be thinking logically. If they knew Burke had some sexual abuse issues, being in their position within the community, I can see why they wouldn't want that or him nearly killing her to get out. Maybe they thought she was dead too; I just don't know. Just speculating here.
DeleteGumshoe, Burke was never interrogated in the sense you are thinking of.
DeleteAccident or not, you still have to account for the parents decision to garrote their daughter, Gumshoe, which is premeditated murder whichever way you spin it.
DeleteIf Burke struck JB on the head, then essentially, John and Patsy are left with two options: save their son's hide, but sacrifice their daughter in the process, or call for help for JB but risk Burke being taken away. As Inquisitive once said - it's a Sophie's choice scenario. Why did they choose to save Burke and finish of JonBenet? I can't see Patsy going along with that.....she'd call for help and say SHE hit JB on the head, thereby saving BOTH of her children. Problem solved - no garrote/ransom note/genital mutilation necessary.
Not to mention that staging a brutal murder now makes their home the scene of a homicide, ensuring a murder investigation is imminent, making everyone in the house a suspect - including the person they're trying to protect, only now they *all* look like possible homicidal maniacs instead!
How is this an "easy solution"?
At one point Gumshoe I even considered if Burke didn't do all of it, starting with some kind of crude sex play in the basement, the loosely tied wrist cords and the crudely made garrotte using his boy scout knot tying skills. He could have started it - there was another cord burn lower from the cord that was pushed into her neck higher up. Then perhaps she got loose and he used the flashlight to make her still, then went back to the strangulation. By the time he tells a parent it's too late, she's gone. So one or both, not wanting to call LE on their son, comes up with a phony kidnap for ransom note. It would pretty much have to happen that way as if Burke only did the head blow and the parent was called she may appear to them dead but not knowing so may have thought to call an ambulance and try and explain it as a fall. But I don't see the elaborate way in which her final death was staged as any kind of cover up for Burke. However if Patsy's anger over not just one single incident but perhaps several led her in a temporary lapse of good judgment caused that head wound (SC you said it came from behind) some object she was shoved against, then presumed dead you are the mother, do you take charge and call emergency first or do you run get your husband. Someone in here said their child was injured and their husband was the one to say she'll be okay, right? Same thing happened in our household with my 11 year old boy who fell off the top of a moving truck (he liked to climb stuff). He seemed fine until evening when he began to get lethargic and vomited. I had been out of town and when I asked what was wrong I flew over there and he was taken to emergency where it was pronounced he had a concussion.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear from a few Patsy purists in here to refute how this makes sense or doesn't, but I see this is as a two person crime, one victim, and apparently the Grand Jury saw it that way as well. What would be the real heroic thing to do at this point is for John to confess, so that further questions regarding Burke could be put to bed but you know he's not going to do that.
It would only make sense with Burke, if Burke was also molested, and they were afraid that if Burke went into the system he would tell.
DeleteBut if PR hit JBR on the head, then I don't think she strangled JBR, so yes, she told JR.
I do concede now that she was sexually molested prior - after reading the Beckner Q&A. Yes, we had the four experts who said she was, we also had a few who said she was not, but Beckner sealed that for me. He said it could have been soon before or a few days before. But they have no idea, who would have. There was other vaginal trauma just inside, which could have been harsh vigorous wipe downs. She was wiped down that night. But Beckner also said that the crime was not sexually motivated. If you haven't read the Q&A please do so. I think it was bb who provided a better link, or you can google Beckner's Q&A on reddit 2015. Beckner said they interviewed some pretty odd characters including sexual predators in the area but no one matched up. He said there were a lot of people who did not have alibis as well, but again, no matches.
ReplyDeleteBased on the fact that she was wiped down, who do you feel that points more towards?
DeleteI think it was 6 medical experts not 4 Inq and irrc nobody disagreed. Kolar and Thomas put it in their books about the prior abuse way before Beckner did an AMA. Do you have names of a "few" you say disagreed, because I have looked.
DeleteYes, Anonymous - on the JonBenet Encylopedia website cited back in September-October, where there is an outline of events including all dissenting opinions. If you say 6 then I have no argument with you, and that the dissenters did not look at slides, I give it that as well. I have no argument that she was sexually abused prior to that night, I just cannot say with any degree of certainty who did it, can you?
DeleteHead injuries - something that HKH was trying to explain. Wife of actor Liam Neesom died from a subdural hematoma after a skiing accident. The actress Natasha Richardson was conscious, lucid and even joked afterwards and refused medical treatment. Doctors said that death can occur hours or days later from bleeding on the brain. This is why it's very important to seek medical care after hitting your head.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7119825&page=1
Why experts want people to wear headgear when biking, skateboarding, and even during the threat of tornadoes.
Many do think that the brother could have struck Jonbenet in the head, and delayed alerting his parents that this happened.
I'm glad you brought up the Duggar family Gumshoe. Irrc 4 of his sisters were victims of the brother's sexual molestation, and the youngest was age 6 if I recall. Absolutely nothing involving pageant wear, makeup, and adult themed costumes like Patsy had her daughter doing.
Both incidents including very religious families.
DeleteThat's why some experts think the garrote was used first--because the bleed into the brain wasn't significant and would indicate that she was deceased or dying when the blow was inflicted, especially that they seem to think there was quite some time between both the blow and the strangulation.
ReplyDeleteDoc - I do understand about no scratch marks on her neck and that she'd be screaming. BUT if there were two perpetrators as in that "small foreign faction", she could have easily been subdued.
I do think JR was involved somehow, whether covering up for someone OR himself being the murderer.
I read somewhere that JR made phone calls that morning from his home to the Governor. Not sure how true that is, but why weren't the police allowed access to those phone records?
EG
What do you mean you understand about "no scratch marks"? Weren't there scratch marks on her neck which some medical experts thought was a sign that she was trying to free herself from the garrote?
DeleteAww, c'mon, Gumshoe. I can understand you not wading through five years' worth of blog entries, but Doc just answered this today at 9:50. Scroll up.
DeleteCC
Relax your hair piece Anon. I'm at work and sometimes it's difficult to follow EVERY post :)
DeleteExcuse me? Then why post thoughtlessly in the dark?
DeleteI'm not anonymous and will not be defending your right to be uninformed again; twice was enough.
CC
Gumshoe---the marks were as Doc said--petechial hemmorhages and not scratch marks from her nails.
DeleteEG
Yes, I went back and saw it. Thank you for that EG.
DeleteEG -I had read rumors that Patsy also called the mayor that morning. Due to John having friends that were also attorneys they got representation that day. I also read that one of the attorneys for the family /John had connections to the phone company. John said he had lost his cell phone. Lots of that info is found on topix, ffj, and ws.
ReplyDeletediamondlil--The whole thing smacks of cover up. So many oddities, so many things that just don't add up or make sense. From the RN to the way the investigation was handled to the behavior of the parents, to the doctor visits, the school nurse visits, sealed medical records, sealed phone records. Who has that kind of power?
DeleteEG
EG - yes, it does seem to be very much a cover up by many, from the elected officials to the hired henchmen, to the bull dog bestie. However I do believe there were a few righteous people that were true to their work ethic and commitment to the victim, Jonbenet, but many had their hands tied due to the pressure by the those in power.
DeleteMoney will get things swept under the rug, and deals, bribes, all of that. Toss in whatever they found to bond over, be it cancer, religious affiliation, prescription meds, golfing, sailing...solving the crime it seems mattered to a very few, a very small minority in Boulder. imo
So so many lies. Patsy seems to be the lesser of the two good at lying. John provides information to appear helpful. This is a common set up for a lie. Act helpful. Volunteer information, or give too much information in an attempt to mislead - he took a melatonin so it couldn't be him, he was out cold. Oh wait, he took two melatonin - he was really out. He read to both kids, no, he forgot, he didn't. He had read to them on other occasions - just the confusion and all caused him to get mixed up. He can even provide us with the book he was reading before bed to himself. One of those mysteries by the number. Did he even say what number he was on? That would be immensely helpful to the investigation don't you think? And Patsy. Not so good at the details so uses her coquetry skills like in the deposition with Darnay Hoffman where he's trying to nail her on her handwriting. John does not want Patsy questioned right away. Have to ask why - because she's too distraught or because she isn't quite well enough versed at how this is all supposed to have gone down. They are both allowed at least 24 hours to grieve before the questioning begins, and even longer due to their connections and ability to hire one of the best law firms in town. If someone had entered my house and brutally killed my child I would somehow muster the strength to help LE find out who did it before the trail ran cold. They did not.
ReplyDeleteInq
DeleteAnd keep on looking until your last breath. I think JR stopped looking a long time ago.
EG
It is clear both PR and JR lied up a blue streak.
DeleteHe did EG for sure - and then said the killer should be forgiven.
DeleteJust had to add this as I know a few here deny that a person at the age of 9, almost 10, would have any sexual motivation, curiosity, experimentation, et al.
ReplyDeleteOn today's Wendy Williams show she just had on the guest KeKe Palmer, a 23 year old actrss who was promoting her new book. She said she was molested at the age of 5 by a family member. Wait for it, the family member was 9. It was her cousin. Her cousin is female. Then she talks about her mother and her dad and various other subjects with Wendy.
Sex play among 9-12 year olds in not uncommon. I was reading about it a bit. At that age, it is often same-sex, sex play. Hormones are starting to increase a bit at that age, pre-puberty. Funny how that is not talked about much. It was against Freud's theory, who called it the latent period.
DeleteRamsey Family Skills, Interests, Hobbies
ReplyDeleteJohn -sailing, former military
Burke - sailing, (that summer had had a sailing tutor per Patsy)
camping, Boy Scouts
Patsy - crafting?
Burke - baseball
Patsy - women's softball team
John - golf
Burke - golf
feel free to add more
Ho....Hum....
ReplyDeleteCBS response can't come too soon....
Mike G
Agree. Probably in the minority here, as I'm Team CBS.
Deletemy point in listing the family's interests is that the son knew knot tying and knows how to swing golf clubs and bats,
John knows knot tying at least thru sailing,
unknown if Patsy had hands on experience with sailing but she knows how to swing a bat, unknown if she golfed. But the majority here rule out the mom and son. That no parent would cover for a child. That no parent would cover for a pedo murderer. But other cases outside of Boulder, it has happened.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI thought we understood each other, SC. I will not let your obsession with those images take over this blog. We've already discussed your situation at length via email, so you can't claim that you are being ignored. Your most recent posts are off topic and, as I explained some time ago, will be deleted for that reason.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteOkay, I have wanted to pose this fun exercise for awhile now! I love reading the passionate arguments for JDI, PDI, and BDI... Now I have a challenge for those up to it. Pretend your theory is incorrect. What do you think is the next most likely theory and please argue it!
ReplyDeleteGood question, Megan. If in fact my theory were proven wrong, then I would be forced to accept some sort of very odd intruder theory. There is no way I'd even consider Patsy as the killer, or the writer of the note, and that's for several reasons, not just one. Same with Burke, not because he could not have done it, but because I can't imagine the Ramseys covering for him if he did.
DeleteThe nice thing about the intruder theory is that one can always argue that some very strange person with motives we can't imagine could have done it after all. While that might possibly raise some doubts in anyone's mind, to me it doesn't pass muster as far as reasonable doubt is concerned. So it would always be possible to argue for an intruder. However, as far as I'm concerned, John's obvious lies about breaking in earlier totally obliterate any possible intruder theory, so my choice of thatas a possibility is purely theoretical. All the evidence points to John as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry, I should have written "So it would always be possible IN THEORY to argue for an intruder."
DeleteWhat are you reasons you would not accept PR as killer?
DeleteWell I think B, J and P were involved! But obviously I think Burke delivered the head blow. If it was proven that it wasn't Burke I would also have to go John/Patsy as a team (50/50 who did it but both in on it and Patsy writing the letter). Theres no way John or Patsy did it alone and there is no way there was an intruder.
DeleteYes, I have been meaning to ask this question myself for quite a while......
DeleteIn order of likelihood, going only by evidence and leaving emotion out of the equation (which is how I came to to my current conclusion - had emotion factored into it, I would still be a firm IDI, as I was for all those years):
1. John Ramsey
2. Intruder known to family
3. John and Patsy as a team
4. Patsy
5. Intruder unknown to family
6. Burke
Important to note, I go from a staunch 9/10 for number 1, to a 2/10 on number two.....and it gets weaker down the list, so that by the time we get to Burke, I'm in the negative figures ;)
I'd name John Mark Karr as the killer before believing for a single second that Burke had anything to do with Jonbenet's murder. I believe a nine year old is capable of killing, I believe they are even capable of committing incest, but loving parents don't stage a brutal homicide by a foreign faction to cover for an accident. That really is "Twilight Zone" territory.....
"Theres no way John or Patsy did it alone"
DeleteAnd yet, both scenarios have been argued very convincingly. So, how do you figure one of them couldn't have acted alone? Is it based on your opinion, or can you show us why it is in "no way" possible?
Ha, yes, I still haven't given up completely on John Mark Karr either. Although hard to work him in there. But I would also go with JMK before Burke.
DeleteIts like beating a dead horse :S
DeleteZed, I am in agreement with you on the involvement. At least we know for a fact whose names were named on the true bills, it was two people named not one.
Delete"I'd name John Mark Karr as the killer before believing for a single second that Burke had anything to do with Jonbenet's murder."
DeleteI actually am struggling to find the words of how ridiculous this statement is Ms D. Yours and Doc's response to Megan's question tell me that you 100% would rather be right than find out who actually killed her. TO say that your 2nd option would be IDI is just unfathomable as when Leigh 2 and Inq were IDI, you argued and belittled both of them on multiple occasions.
Megan, to give you an actual answer to your question, here is mine. I am BDI all the way, BUT if it got proven that he didn't do it, then my 2nd choice would be JDI, then PDI and 4th choice would be both parents. IDI is absolutely not even an option ANY intruder theory must include Patsy and John being involved with them.
Thanks for the question and my apologies that certain people on here didn't answer honestly.
-J
"I actually am struggling to find the words of how ridiculous this statement is Ms D. Yours and Doc's response to Megan's question tell me that you 100% would rather be right than find out who actually killed her."
DeleteI absolutely knew you'd say that, J....perhaps I'm psychic?! Again - I'm going to tell you something I've said many times - I WANT to be wrong.....o.k? I hate the idea of John Ramsey sexually abusing his daughter, then murdering her to cover it up. You have no idea how many nights I lie awake desperately trying to convince myself of another likely scenario. You also have no idea how much thought I've put into the possibility of Burke being the culprit, and I've really tried to make that "fit" too. I just can't - I can accept he is capable of killing his sister, I cannot accept the cover up. It's unprecedented and no one in their right mind makes an accident look like a homicide, the opposite is always true. This has absolutely nothing with needing to be "right", it has to do with the sheer lack of evidence pointing towards Burke, and the unlikelihood of the epic cover up, pure and simple.
"TO say that your 2nd option would be IDI is just unfathomable as when Leigh 2 and Inq were IDI, you argued and belittled both of them on multiple occasions."
Yep. And if you read all of my comment, you would know that I still find the idea ludicrous - I simply find it more likely than the other scenarios, so I listed it above them.
"Thanks for the question and my apologies that certain people on here didn't answer honestly."
It's really condescending to suggest that because my opinion differs so greatly from yours, I am obviously being dishonest. I really take issue with that. You can attack my arguments, but don't question my integrity. I am nothing, if not brutally honest, in case that hasn't been abundantly apparent over the months.
Ms D – first off my apologies. I debated on leaving that sentence off my post and obviously should have. That being said, I have read countless posts from you being condescending towards others on here who believe an IDI. (Inq can attest to this). I wasn’t just talking about you and was for sure pointing fingers at Doc as well.
DeleteYou ONLY point away from Burke because you don’t think the parents would cover for him. Strictly opinion btw with nothing to say that is based on any fact. I have argued many of the JDI crowd, but IF Burke was proven to be innocent, than JDI makes way more sense that IDI. Just sad that your hatred for the BDI theory would make you say something that you know is beyond ridiculous. The one thing that all of us should be able to agree on is that IDI is absolutely not true. That being not true doesn’t mean JBR wasn’t murdered, so that leaves Burke, Patsy and John. Those should be the only choices
-J
Since you asked, SC, my reasons for believing in Patsy's innocence:
Delete1. If she were involved in staging a kidnapping, and either wrote the note or was aware that John wrote it, she would not have called 911 when she did, knowing that the body of the victim would sooner or later be discovered. Once that happened then the whole point of writing that particular note would have been undermined.
2. I don't see a motive for murder on Patsy's part. She doted on JonBenet, whose success as a "pageant princess" was obviously of great importance to her.
3. The assault was clearly no accident, as it involved a brutal and powerful blow to the head from above, and probably also from behind. Since it was not an accident, coupled with the total absence of motive, I see no reason to assume Patsy could have delivered that blow.
4. One does not cover up an accident by staging a murder. In all the history of criminal justice I can't think of a single instance of such a bizarre attempt. If anyone can find one, please share. If JBR had been felled accidentally, for whatever reason, her parents would certainly have called for help. No reason to stage a bizarre coverup.
5. The assault clearly included sexual elements, as the victim's vagina was penetrated to the point that it bled. While it's been alleged that Patsy did that to stage a sexual assault by a pedophile, it's impossible to believe that a mother who had just knocked her daughter senseless "by accident" would then proceed to cover up in such a brutal manner. And if the plan was to stage a sexual assault, one would expect the body to be found in the nude, not fully dressed and wrapped in a blanket.
6. It's impossible for me to imagine someone as emotional as Patsy being capable of composing that carefully thought out and carefully printed 2 1/2 page ransom note just after "accidentally" clubbing her daughter into unconsciousness. The margins were scrupulously adhered to, as were the horizontal guidelines. Every i was dotted, every t crossed, the note is carefully composed, with a clear beginning, middle and end. No amount of journalism training would compensate for the extreme distress she would have felt at that moment. And if one would want to argue that she planned this in advance, then one would need to come up with some sort of motive for planning such an evil act against a child so obviously close to her heart.
7. Once again, as with the vaginal penetration, the application of the ligature device is impossible to imagine for someone who would be in such obvious distress after "accidentally" clubbing a beloved child. There are many ways to stage a crime that would not be half as brutal.
8. Assuming she did in fact club JonBenet, it's hard to imagine why her husband would want to cover for her. To "protect the family name"???? Sorry, but I just can't take such a motive seriously. Your wife has just killed your beloved daughter and your first instinct is to cover for her by going along with an absurd kidnap staging involving vaginal penetration and strangulation with a garotte? Sorry, John may be many things, but he is not a henpecked fool.
Apology accepted, J. :)
Delete"I have read countless posts from you being condescending towards others on here who believe an IDI. (Inq can attest to this). I wasn’t just talking about you and was for sure pointing fingers at Doc as well."
I sure have been! Because everything points away from the crime having been committed by an intruder, and I stand y that. And, in all honesty, I've been a lot more condescending to BDIs than IDIs (lol)....and that is because, as improbable as the IDI scenario is, I still find it more believable than BDI.
"You ONLY point away from Burke because you don’t think the parents would cover for him."
You're mostly correct with that statement, though lack of evidence plays a big part. Can you cite another case where two parents, upon finding their daughter unconscious after having been accidentally hit in the head - with NO outward signs of the severity of the injury - decide to strangle her rather than call for help? Can you cite another case where two parents have staged a homicide to cover for an accident, knowing that a murder investigation is going to attract the attention they're actually trying to avoid if BDI cover up is to be believed?
If John and Patsy really loved both of their children, why wouldn't one of them take the rap for Burke's accident and call for help, rather than sacrifice one for the other when it wasn't even necessary? All John or Patsy had to say was "I accidentally hit my daughter" upon taking her to the Emergency room. Sure there would have been an investigation, but not the kind of investigation they actively invited after strangling their daughter to death and staging a phony kidnapping! And why would they negate the entire premise of the ransom note by staging a sexually motivated murder instead, thus guaranteeing that Burke was going to become a suspect?! Or - if they thought the sexual staging would point to a pedophile intruder - why didn't they ditch the RN and just go with that instead?
All of these reasons are more than enough evidence to make the logical inference that JB's murder wasn't the result of a cover up for an accident.
Ms D - above you said
Delete"I absolutely knew you'd say that, J....perhaps I'm psychic?! Again - I'm going to tell you something I've said many times - I WANT to be wrong.....o.k?"
Ive got REALLY good news for you....you are wrong! BDI :-)
-J
Well, if your BDI scenario involving a folie a deux of two homicidal parents who had no regard for their daughter's life were true, it wouldn't make me feel any better.....
DeleteMegan- I'm a JDI, but if forced...and I'll probably get some guff ;)
Delete1. Burke with insane parental coverup
2. Patsy in cahoots with John on coverup
3. Intruder who was familiar with family
4. Random intruder
5. Bad Santa (kidding)
I am, in order most to least:
ReplyDeleteJR/PR
JR
PR
JMK/JR
Burke
Back to the shoe prints in the wine cellar. According to acandyrose.com, two unidentified shoe prints were found in the wine cellar as well as one HiTech shoe print. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like these were ever confirmed as to who the owner was. A previous poster suggested that they were Burke's but surely detectives would have figured this out. Even if they were Burke's, that still leaves two additional unknown prints. Acandyrose also states that Fleet White owned a pair of HiTech boots. Somewhere in all these comments, I assume Fleet White has been discussed in detail, no? He seems like someone who could have been involved.
ReplyDelete.....speaking of dead horses......
DeleteGiven that this site is over 4 years old, virtually anything posted is in regards to a dead horse. Maybe everyone should just stop posting unless new evidence comes to light or additional news breaks. Thanks again for being insightful Anon.
DeleteJr owned a pair, NOT senior. the White boy owned a pair.
DeleteSo if two children each owned HiTech boots, couldn't it be ruled out if it was their print or not? Surely the size boot found in the wine cellar door would be obvious if it belonged to a child versus a grown man.
DeleteIt was the instep imprint found, not a full toe to heel print.
DeleteKeep in mind over 100 people were interviewed and investigated, many gave handwriting samples, hair, blood and DNA swabs. Likely all got the eyeball on the sized of their feet.
A shoe print cannot be time stamped either unless it was left over something fresh, blood, vomit, urine, other liquids, etc.
Keep in mind the parents lied/denied the brand of footwear being owned.
But Burke and his friend admitted to owning the brand.
No clue what any of those Stines wore. I find them suspicious.
The HiTec print is clearly a red herring. All that's visible is the HiTec logo, the rest of the print has been obliterated, telling us it could not have been fresh on the morning after JBR's murder.
DeleteGumshoe, have you done any reading at topix for the Jonbenet case? They are on point when it comes to news stories and new book releases as well as link back to info such as the police questioning. Granted they have trolls and troublemakers there but after awhile they are easy to spot and then scroll by.
ReplyDeleteFor historical reference and discussion I find the ffj site helpful- freedom for justice. I don't post at either, just read.
Thanks Diamond. Yes, I have come across Topix when googling certain aspects of the case. The challenge I am finding, given that I just got into this case 2-3 weeks ago, is the voluminous amount of information on the internet.
DeleteThere is that, lol. Try next time on a search something like "flashlight Jonbenet topix" or ffj, and if on ffj, the bottom will show similar links. There is another site, poster goes by juror13 on topix you might like. Let me look for it, she and her writing partner have done several recent books covering the case, brb
DeleteIt's the shakedowntitle site,
Deletebesides books they have done some podcasts
https://www.google.com/amp/s/shakedowntitle.com/2016/09/15/excerpt-from-the-craven-silence-jonbenetramsey/amp/
Adding an article from November where the authors of Craven Silence are included in the piece.
Deletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2108001/jonbenet-ramsey-mystery-silent-911-call-made-xmas-party-three-days-before-child-disappearance/
Darn it, meant "forums" for justice, not freedom. But I think you knew what I meant.
DeleteInteresting John isn't wearing his wedding ring in the pic of him holding up a pic of JBR.
DeleteProbably so he can carry on his clandestine, extra-marital affairs.....
DeleteIf John laid the note out on the steps so that he could read it start to finish, why weren't his prints found on the note? Only Patsy's (palm print?) and the investigator's. If Patsy runs and gets John right before she makes the call and tells him there's a note and he then lays it out for reading, surely he didn't wear his gloves to bed, that would be preposterous. And it's pretty impossible to pick up a page of paper only touching the paper edges.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great point Inquisitive. Has this not been discussed more by detectives?
DeleteI found that suspicious at first also. Until I read that none of their friends prints were on the note either, yet several of them had read it.
DeleteHe said he had just recently got out of the shower. From what I've read, fingerprints aren't always deposited on surfaces.
ReplyDeletePatsy's prints weren't found on it either.
DeleteSong dedication, fitting for Ground Hog Day as well as previous posts
ReplyDeleteBy Amy Stroud - In the Shadows
https://youtu.be/TynHJ0_amDY
Lil, you're so cute! Really, I like your consistent neutrality and upbeat personality. I think we can read people's personalities in how they write. I would think John would at the very least, get a paper cut, no? Anyway I don't think John spread that note out, but that's neither here nor there.
ReplyDeleteWell Gumshoe, what was discussed by detectives is that Patsy is a little blurry about when she came downstairs and stepped over the note or stepped on the note and Thomas said given the spiral staircase layout it would be hard to step over it and/or not see it. I'd have to grind out his quote from his book somewhere. It's those little dinky details that both J and P seem to always be not so clear on. Also one other thing - John's bathrobe was in his office - just when did he cast that off and why there?
lol, well thank you Inquisitive, I don't see myself always neutral.
ReplyDeleteIn fact I was so tempted after reading some replies to your initial entries on the new blog, it looked like you were catching some flak.
And I was going to post -
To make an apple pie from scratch
First you must create the Universe.
I was just sensing that you weren't allowed to claim your theory as others had thought it before, but sheesh! Do we have to copyright it?? Of course some of us will agree with something new or old, and others expound upon it, and I thought that was what you were doing, and then the flogging commenced.
Well none of it matters does it? (What we think.) We have every puzzle piece, we just don't know how they fit a picture in total. Some think they do know. We've got over a thousand puzzle pieces - we have an autopsy report, we have fibers, a note, then we have lies, statements, a wiped down blunt object,a wiped down victim, tons of theories, and here we are - nowhere. I actually wonder why no one is discussing the Baby Lisa Irwin case (in the media). Why this particular case over that one?
ReplyDelete"I actually wonder why no one is discussing the Baby Lisa Irwin case (in the media). Why this particular case over that one?"
DeleteBecause an affluent, pretty, smiling, six year old beauty queen sells more papers.
And, to be fair, name another case where a "kidnapped" child has been found dead in her home, the day after Christmas, with a garrote tied around her neck, along with a three page ransom note? I know I can't think of another case like it. That's why everyone is so attracted to this particular story.....it's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma! Everyone loves a good crime story, and this one has all the elements that a good crime author would be sure to include: sex, money, power, deception and many plot twists to keep the reader guessing right until the end.
DeleteGood - I was afraid this blogsite would go away if enough people became resigned and feel like they are beating dead horse. There are interesting elements to the Baby Lisa Irwin case - that the mother most likely was in an alcohol blackout. If any of those memories come back to her then doubtful she would say what happened.
DeleteThere is something else but no proof, the closest I knew of someone in the media was a local tv cameraman. But when I think back to parents of missing or murdered children where the adults still got big media attention, whether Natalee Holloway's mom, Laci's mom, Caylee's grandparents, Kyron's dad...is that they may be visually appealing or speak better than other parents that don't get the same coverage. But the only way to know is to have someone from major print or broadcast tell us why they choose to cover one family multiple times than another.
DeleteActually baby Lisa is big on the web, and the local news does run pieces at least once a year. She's one of the cases I have listed. However the same group that is part of the "footprints" came over to my listing for Dylan Redwine so there can be some dust ups.
ReplyDeleteOne difference I think is no body found, and the parents don't get on big media like Maddie McCann's' parents.
The Maddie McCann case has piqued my interest lately. I've never had any reason to doubt the parents official story, so I never really looked into it, but after a little research, it seems that - like the Ramseys - their stories keep changing, they hide behind their lawyers and they don't really seem to be interested in helping authorities find the person(s) who allegedly abducted their daughter.
DeleteHave I missed any Jonbenet gossip?
ReplyDeleteYep. They found her killer. It was Jaques, the scorned Bichon Frise ;)
DeleteWho was removed from the house that morning as something was about to go down later that night. Arf
DeleteHahaha.....yep!
DeleteDoes Jacques count as IDI? Or RDI?
And wasn't Jacques actually Jacques II? The plot thickens.....
Or - was it a beaver hair or really a dog hair belonging to Jacques. Jacques got lose from the Barnhills and jumped through the basement window. John covered for the dog by saying he broke in earlier that year.
DeleteLol.
DeleteJohn Ramsey lying through his teeth for twenty years to cover for a dog. I did laugh though.....
O.K, Doc - I can sense you grimacing - we're done taking up space with this silly shenanigans now :D
This is bad, really bad, and Doc will come in at any moment and delete me, but I could see a board game based on this case - like the old "Clue." We would have pieces - a lead pipe, a bat, a golf club, a Maglite, a trophy. "It was Patsy Ramsey in the bedroom with a trophy or the flashlight" or "An Intruder, with a murder kit containing the following..." you get the message. Question is would any one of us get sued by Lin Wood if we tried to market such a game? Sorry Doc.
ReplyDeleteOh snap! The police also took a hammer and a brick into evidence and we know the knives. And of course the rope. Yes, likely he would sue if you included real names of the family. So you'd have to stick with Mrs Peacock, Col Mustard...
DeleteFunny you should say that, Inq.....I was actually thinking of exactly the same idea about two weeks ago! Except mine went more along the lines of "It was John Ramsey in the basement with the rope".....I was thinking of that line all day, and it hit me: this sounds like I'm playing a game of Clue! Or as we call it here in Aus, "Cluedo"!
DeleteIf I could live anywhere in the world other than where I am now, it would be Australia.
DeleteEven with this heat?! I'd kill for a bit of rain!
DeleteThough, besides our summers, it's a pretty sweet place.....very laid back. I wouldn't live anywhere else :)
Maybe one day Doc might decide to write about one of Australia's biggest unsolved crimes? I can think of a few high profile cases that have gone on for decades.....
I'd live by the beach of course - just looking in my Pacific Modern book - Point Piper? or how about McMasters Beach - how about Mackerel Beach? I know not.
DeleteYou have to admit it is kind of hard to top "the dingo ate my baby" for a true crime story!
DeleteMNLizzieB
No, Port Douglas all the way, Inq......if you can tolerate epic humidity during the summer!
DeleteYes, MNLizzieB, I was thinking about the Azaria Chamberlain case as I typed my above comment.....many people here still believe that Lindy stabbed her nine week old daughter with a pair of scissors during an evening BBQ in the desert, decapitated her, then proceeded to walk around taking photos of Uluru (Ayres Rock) the next day with her baby's head stashed in the camera bag.
Almost as plausible as BDI ;)
What's more, evidence came to light - after she'd already served a few years in prison - that exonerated her, and we learned just how corrupt the NT police were during the investigation and trial. An absolute travesty of justice. The Chamberlain's marriage didn't survive of course, and Michael passed away only a few weeks ago.....a tragic story all round.
Have any of doc's posts discussed the beaver hair found on JBR?
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you all feel that the evidence suggesting JBR was wiped down is indicative of John Ramsey's involvement or a potential intruder? For those of you not truly convinced it was John Ramsey responsible for this, I'm curious to get your take on this scenario.
discussion of beaver hair is it could be transferred from a makeup brush, Steve Thomas wondered if it was from a pair of Patsy's boot cuffs he observed her in - but not sure if anyone thought it was from the paint brush. My paint brushes, the good ones, are horsehair. So guess another question mark.
ReplyDeleteAs for her being wiped down that you need to go back to Doc's threads where he discusses John Ramsey's involvement on this matter, it's a key ingredient of his theory.
Btw letting everyone know, DocG is one sexist dude.
ReplyDeleteI had him look over some info on my case, I told him exactly what parts to read, as it is in chronological order. And also organized into albums or chapters. I wrote, you have to read this specific part to get it, and I told him which part. That part is not too long to read. I said, just read this part.
First he writes back, like oh yes I know all about your case. Like he read what he was supposed to read. But as he writes, it turns out he just looked at some of the videos. I told him, no the videos are not much, they are just extras, you have to read the story to get it, and to get the videos.
Then he writes back, he tells me he looked at my pictures. So I ask him, which section and which pictures did you look at? He didn't answer. The pictures are organized into albums. Again, you have to read the story to get the pictures. So he could not answer which album he looked at, so I know he just looked at the general page, where my pictures are not in order, and actually those are just me redoing some colors on them. In other words, that is not how you look at them and how I told him to look at them. So again he lied. I told him what to look at again.
Then I guess he read a little bit more, he wrote back again, oh I know about your case, I read it. But I could tell from what he was saying, he read the introductory part, which really is just background and not my case.
When I questioned him on it, he could not deny it.
Then I told him again, no you have to read THIS specific part to get it. Then he writes back, no I am not going to read it anymore.
So the dude lied to me like four times, pretended four times he read the write information. and of course he came up with this strong conclusive negative opinion. But I could tell by his comments he made he did not read the right information, because he would have mentioned some things and not mentioned other things. So I knew he was lying again.
And then when I call him on it, he then refused to read what I told him from the beginning to read. He flat out said he would not read any more.
This is not an ethical guy. This is a messed up guy. I am sorry, you all read his blog, but this is a guy with some serious sexism problems. He is not a good person.
SC, for your information I read the entire screed, from beginning to end. I didn't get back to you because I finally just got tired of dealing with you and your obsessions. For the record, I do believe you might very well be the victim of stalking and yes, you could be in danger. But your over the top efforts to "prove" your theories about your situation go way beyond what is necessary and reveal, to my mind, an obsessive/ compulsive personality disorder. In other words, you really do need to see a shrink before you drive yourself even farther into the realm of madness and lose all your friends in the process.
DeleteNow this is officially the end of it. I won't tolerate any more posts of yours or anyone else's on this matter.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYou're wrong. I've exchanged remarks with Doc on the subject of Ethics several times, and not only is he a highly ethical man, he's a very moral one. And he offered to help you, SC, when you were at your most inappropriate, rude and annoying, which makes him a very good guy indeed.
DeleteJudging by your remarks, I don't believe any amount of attention or support would satisfy you. I hope you get the help you need, but this is not the place to seek it.
CC
Ms D wrote:
ReplyDelete"All John or Patsy had to say was "I accidentally hit my daughter" upon taking her to the Emergency room. Sure there would have been an investigation, but not the kind of investigation they actively invited after strangling their daughter to death and staging a phony kidnapping! And why would they negate the entire premise of the ransom note by staging a sexually motivated murder instead, thus guaranteeing that Burke was going to become a suspect?! Or - if they thought the sexual staging would point to a pedophile intruder - why didn't they ditch the RN and just go with that instead?"
My response:
Ummm have you ever heard the Ramseys speak? Have you heard what their friends say to them. There is no way they would take their daughter to emergency when she was brain dead (they assumed she was dead), and had prod marks over her body. Plus she had been in that state for at least 45min. Heck, Burke may have even made that garotte and put it on her as a joke before hitting her when she cried out. There is no way the Ramseys would go to emergency...for their reputation, for Burke and for them sorry-a$$ selves because they neglected their child.
I think it actually makes more sense than a couple like them would stage what they did rather than ring emergency. So that whole notion that everyone keeps going about will continue to fall on my deaf ears.
And they NEEDED a ransom note because that was the ONLY evidence to point to an intruder being in the house. Not so sure what is hard to understand about that. And because they never planned on dumping her body, it had to be a kidnapping gone wrong so they staged a sexual element to it. Disgusting? Absolutely. But these two went to wild measures. I bet, over the years, they thought to themselves, if only we had just called emergency.
The only hope of this case being solved is if CBS go to court and something comes out of that...because CBS had the balls to tell it how it is and the grand jury definitely have other stuff we don't know about. The other way this gets solved is when John passes away and Burke speaks. But I'm not even convinced Burke knows because his parents sent him to bed telling him everything would be ok. Maybe in his mind he actually believes there was an intruder.
I have also heavily many many years in the Zodiac case (which I have a suspect). But i dont believe zodiac or JBR murder will ever see the murdered named or anyone prosecuted.
"There is no way they would take their daughter to emergency when she was brain dead (they assumed she was dead), and had prod marks over her body."
DeleteBullshit. Of course parents would, and DO, take a dying child to Emergency.....at any rate, they couldn't have known she was brain dead. One doesn't just "assume" when their child's life is on the line!
Show me the evidence to support your claim "They thought she was dead". Do you have any?
There is no proof she had "prod marks all over her body", we don't know what caused those marks and we don't know when they occurred.
"Plus she had been in that state for at least 45min."
You have absolutely no way of knowing that! Assuming Burke hit her, he may have told them immediately, thus they could have responded immediately by calling for help the second they saw she was seriously injured.
"Heck, Burke may have even made that garotte and put it on her as a joke before hitting her when she cried out. There is no way the Ramseys would go to emergency...for their reputation, for Burke and for them sorry-a$$ selves because they neglected their child."
Show me the proof they neglected their children, Zed.
Burke hitting JB on the head on Christmas night doesn't count because there is NO PROOF it ever happened!
Good God, at least give us something substantial, all you've given here is PURE speculation based on your preconceived opinion!
Newsflash!!
DeleteALL theories are based on some speculation and preconceived opinions. JDI has that in spades (more than most other theories).
Not entirely true, Zed, and I think you know it.
DeleteA. Prior sexual abuse points towards John. Yes, it's possible to have been Burke, but considering Burke didn't alarm any child psychologists or LE investigators during his interviews, I'd say they knew he hadn't been sexual abusing his sister very early on in the investigation.....we know for a fact they weren't so sure about John, because he was their number one suspect.
B. We know, for a fact, that Burke did not write the ransom note. Whose purpose did the note serve best? John. Who was the note addressed to? John. Who would, other than John, have a reason to BEGIN the note with a clarification that the "foreign faction" respected JOHN'S business, for goodness sake? Major red flag right there!
C. What scenario is more likely when we look at murders committed in the home: a murder to cover up sexual abuse - which happens way too often, sadly - or a phony kidnapping to cover for a minor who couldn't even be prosecuted?
All of my reasoning is based on logical inferences gathered from the known facts. Most of yours are based on an opinion, so I would argue that my theory is much sounder than yours, and that is why BDI has never been entertained seriously by anyone in LE.
Wowee, I'm sitting here at the hospital cafeteria having a late lunch and come back to this! I must give myself a little pat on the back,as this morning at breakfast ran into a woman that my dad and others suspected of burglarizing his houses a few years back. But since the PD didn't fingerprint, no way to know for certain. But I was polite, she's a junkie as well.
ReplyDeleteThen off to my appt where they are telling me they have no records, they all were destroyed of my xrays, ct scans, lithotripsy, lab work, stone removal surgery info...and I get a bit pissy. Try to keep it together. Actually today's cat scan was rather relaxing, with the white noise. Bummed tho that having my arms above my head hurt, so middle age is not pain free.
Of course they marveled at my gallstones, which now look like corn on the cob. But thankfully I only have a tiny stone in each kidney. But the doctor saw a cyst on my kidney so that will be monitored.
I managed to not bop the old lady in the waiting room on her cell talking about how she thinks she has ringworm.
And the cafeteria had lobster in mac & cheese, woot!
I also came up with a name for Inq's game- Stages. with the late David Bowie tune in my head ...changes, turn and face...
J and Zed, my turn to apologize for saying Burke can be ruled out. Obviously to you two and maybe one other, he can't be. Wouldn't it be great to eliminate rather than add to? As long as it's not our own belief! Doc - there are just two things in your theory I can't get past. If I could, I think I could get on the bandwagon. Those two things are: that John wrote the note for Patsy specifically to prevent her from calling 911 so that (2) he could get the body out of the house. Those are my two issues and why I can't hop aboard. And, the exchange right above me here is sad (3:37-4:30). I don't think this site is to be used for that.
ReplyDeleteI dont have any problems with the exchange between Ms D and I. There was no insults and she is free to disagree...just as I am free to disagree with her. Debate is healthy. And FYI there is no proof of anyone killing JBR...thats why no on was ever prosecuted and no one ever will be. Its about adding up the speculative evidence and looking at what makes the most sense. I am nearly 100% convinced Burke hit her over the head. But thats my opinion, albeit a very strong opinion.
DeleteZed I meant the exchange between SC and Doc. Not you and Ms D. It was right at the top of what I had said earlier, which is why I put a time stamp on it, 3:37 - 4:30.
DeleteI have to agree with you inq,I don't think Burke can be ruled out as J and z believe. He was said to have been with J fixing up a toy and has admitted to creeping downstairs after this to play with the toy again later, this in itself of course doesn't make him guilty. The points you make about John, I can add that if the RN was premeditated, even back in 96' I can't see J using a pen and pad from own home, and with P there that night the note is too long. The only other thing I can think of is something CH who used to post here mentioned once, did J direct the note towards setting p up.? But from everything I've read there really are too many inconsistencies with P for me to believe she wasn't covering something up with J.
ReplyDeleteYes,evej, and if it was Burke I think it was as Zed summarized earlier, ALL of it Burke. Not just part of it, all of it. But for the note of course. If she was dead then you would not call an ambulance, and if you found her as your son left her would you report him to LE? Just something to think about.
DeleteAgreed, if Bdi, he did it all bar the note and staging, parents wouldn't cover just an accident.
DeleteJust read a lengthy discussion, with pictures, on Forum for Justice regarding the head wound. The discussion was golf club versus flashlight. They were saying that the autopsy skull picture is deceptive and since there only is one picture it's hard to understand the angle. Apparently the wound was toward the top front of the skull, and right - so top right. To have an the oval shape be top to bottom someone would have to be standing to her right, their left. This would be difficult for a right handed person. They would also, if they used the maglight, have to be taller to strike the top with force. And, the fracture line goes forward. In otherwords, the 12 inch maglite would have to have struck her skull from HER right side to match the skull damage. The fracture goes forward toward the front of her head with bruising on her brain in front, not on the left side of her head, according to a discussion on this forum, as dictated by the ME. Different story if she were hit with a golf club or some other type of weapon where you could still get an "oval" at the correct angle. Also her hair would serve as a cushion so that a laceration wouldn't occur. The flashlight left out in the open may have been part of the staging.
ReplyDeleteMight be why JR was so anxious to get his golf clubs.
ReplyDelete"Can you cite another case where two parents, upon finding their daughter unconscious after having been accidentally hit in the head - with NO outward signs of the severity of the injury - decide to strangle her rather than call for help? Can you cite another case where two parents have staged a homicide to cover for an accident, knowing that a murder investigation is going to attract the attention they're actually trying to avoid if BDI cover up is to be believed?"
ReplyDeleteJDI like to ask these types of question periodically of others but don't seem to ask it of themselves. Put John's name into that question(Cite another case where a father would...bludgeon, strangle, ransom note, body in the house,etc.) and the answer is the same as it is when you ask everyone else.
"Burke hitting JB on the head on Christmas night doesn't count because there is NO PROOF it ever happened!"
Exact same amount of proof as there is for John, Patsy, or some non existent intruder.
"Good God, at least give us something substantial, all you've given here is PURE speculation based on your preconceived opinion!"
Which is exactly what you're doing as well. I don't understand why people who speculate like to jump on others saying they're the ones speculating. Everyone is doing it. His or her speculation isn't any better or worse than yours.
If you read the first three posts on this blog you'll see there is no speculation involved. The difference between PDI and JDI, in my version at least, is the difference between an accident and a sexual assault associated with deliberate murder. And if you need evidence of motive, check out the consensus among a distinguished group of pediatricians that JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night of the murder. While the alleged abuse cannot be proven beyond doubt, it certain does and certainly could contribute to a circumstantial case against John.
DeleteA key piece of evidence is the note itself. As I've already argued above, it's impossible for me to believe that a mother so deeply attached to her child would have been capable of writing such a carefully crafted, detailed, note after clubbing her so violently, either by accident or in a fit of rage. John, the "ice man" certainly could.
To see the vaginal penetration and "garotte" strangulation as staging by a loving mother who had never meant to kill her child in the first place, is, to me, ludicrous. When we see this as a deliberate murder committed by someone fearful of being exposed as an incestuous pedophile, this evidence takes on a completely different meaning.
So if you're looking for the difference, there you have it.
"I don't understand why people who speculate like to jump on others saying they're the ones speculating. Everyone is doing it. His or her speculation isn't any better or worse than yours."
DeleteNot quite, Tracy B. Refer to my response to Zed at 2:55 AM.
Doc pretty much covered everything else in his above comment.
I've always found it unlikely that Patsy wrote the note, as well. If Patsy were trying to disguise her writing, it would make no sense to use the manuscript style letter "a" which we see in the note, which she often used. The letter "a's" in the note actually look as if someone struggled to write them. No, I don't believe Patsy wrote the note. I've also considered that the start of the "practice note" may have been left in her notebook deliberately by "someone".
ReplyDeleteIf JR was intentionally framing Patsy, the fact that he handed over the note pad so willingly to the police makes sense. That he wrote a "practice note" on the same pad addressed to both of them could have been deliberate so that the police viewed the omission of Patsy's name on the final ransom note with suspicion. He may have drawn the heart on JB's hand to implicate Patsy, because it's something Patsy sometimes did. Changing the "a"s to her signature, manuscript style also points towards Patsy. Throwing in a couple of phrases she was known to use points suspicion towards her. As does using her paintbrush. Perhaps the whole reason John chose to fashion a garrote-like device rather than just tighten a ligature around JB's neck was so one of Patsy's tools would be found at the scene. In fact, the more I think about it, it really does seem like a Patsy frame-up. Because one would have to be really stupid to point the finger at themselves at such an obvious manner.....
DeleteYour points made above MS D, is the only way Imo that I could believe Jdi
DeleteNot to mention his odd remark to Linda Arndt upon bringing JB's lifeless body into the living room: "It looks like an inside job", or words to that effect. He sure as heck wasn't pointing towards himself, so who was he referring to and why did he feel the need to say it at such a tragic moment?
DeleteHas anyone read the analysis of the RN in the new Amazon JBR murder book "Listen Carefully"? I thought it was facinating and would love to hear others thoughts....
ReplyDeleteI have not but it certainly has been given very positive reviews as well as being very current.
DeleteI read that at least two very informed posters contributed in some way to the book, or were at least quoted, "cynic" and "cherokee".
Was there something you found while reading it that stuck out that may have not been heavily discussed before?
thanks greg H - I just looked it up. It's on Kindle so I can only read so far with the look inside the book but it does put one back in the minute by minute horror of that morning. Have you read the whole book? I'd like your thoughts if so.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with John being the sole suspect is there just wasn't anything in his past to suggest he was remotely a bad person, or capable of this. Now we're suggesting he could have potentially framed his poor wife who had been recovering from cancer? That seems like a stretch to me.
ReplyDeleteI know everyone on here is against the intruder theory, but let me ask one question. The BPD has said time and time again that there was no sign of a break-in. Whose to say nobody "broke" in. Why couldn't someone have walked through the front door with a key; or whatever door the Ramseys entered through that same night?
You can believe someone entered with a key, but that doesn't explain the staging at the broken window, the duct tape with a perfect smear of Jonbenet's lips that was applied after death, and other forms of staging in this case. An intruder wouldn't stage a scene. Not to mention forget to bring his own ransom note or anything used in the crime.
DeleteAlso, just because he didn't have a record doesn't mean he isn't guilty of a crime. Look at BTK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader
DeleteYou're right, Gumshoe, because we can't exclude any of the theories. Nothing about this crime makes any sense and all theories have inconsistencies that can't be explained away.
DeleteIf it was an intruder, they were no stranger to the Ramseys, and I believe there was more than one.
EG
What would the motive of a non-family member/intruder to have have re-dressed her? Or if you feel that the oversized bloomies were put on earlier and not connected to the crime, why would that person care to pull up her pants at all? Or do you think Jonbenet pulled them up herself after being accosted with the paintbrush?
DeleteI agree Diamond. One of the biggest incidents that point towards the Ramseys is the care taken to re-dress her, wrap her in blankets, put her favorite night gown with her, then tuck her away in a secluded room. All things that would be beyond foolish for a "would-be" intruder to waste time doing.
DeleteYes, some parts do show care in contrast to the cruelty of the cord around her neck. Without the autopsy no one could notice her head injury.
DeleteNo bite marks, broken or torn nails, broken fingers, no bites on the tongue or inner cheeks. I don't know if they could tell if she had been recently crying, but her eyes didn't appear to show that she had gone thru a bout of sobbing. Irrc, John thought she looked like a sleeping angel. No bruising or redness apparently from any signs of being slapped or pinched.
One medical examiner reviewing the autopsy reports thought her brain showed signs of "shaken baby syndrome ". But that doesn't mean out of anger, it could happen with someone trying to get an unconscious child to awaken.
"All things that would be beyond foolish for a "would-be" intruder to waste time doing."
DeleteAlso foolish for someone trying to stage an intruder.
It always comes back to the note Gumshoe. Even accounting for something going wrong (with an intruder scenario) why leave a note for a kidnap for ransom that isn't going to take place. If it was pre planned, the note written in advance, by someone with intimate knowledge of the family, used a key to come in either early that evening or after midnight and accounting for something having gone wrong - you still leave a note? Why? If the note was a McGuffin - (look that up from Alfred Hitchcock movies) all of this that night took some doing, and took some time. The intruder(s) left no trace evidence whatsoever behind. No fiber, no fluids, no hairs, no prints. And then he disappears and has never been found. Tied to the Ramsey's somehow but never found? Color me stupid if a DNA match is found sometime this year that's a match for someone who had some tie to this family or has no alibi or confesses or all three but I'm not optimistic. If more than one EG, that increases the likelihood that fluids, fibers, hair or prints would be left behind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Prints aren't that hard to cover up though if a potential intruder had gloves on. What I can't get my mind around is how horrific her death was. I just haven't come across anything that would suggest the parents are capable of that.
DeleteA couple quick questions:
1. Did they ever conclude what was used to wipe her down and did they find this type of cleaning solution in the house?
2. In the book PMPT, they talk about how there was no evidence of the lights being turned on. How can this be determined? Any wouldn't John and/or Patsy turn the lights on if they themselves were going into the basement for some reason?
3. Why was there a need to break the ends of the paintbrush used for the garrote?
1. They did not.
Delete2. It can't be determined, and I don't remember this in the book, but John himself said he escorted Burke upstairs with the flashlight that's been theorized to be the murder weapon. John has denied recognizing or owning the flashlight for 20 years.
3. Who knows? Not everything has an explanation in this case unfortunately.
On #1. eh,I do wonder if something was presented as evidence to the grand jury. Only due to some questions back in Aug 2000 by either Kane,or statements from Beckner during the Nov 2000 with the Wolf/Ramsey lawsuit that seemed to have Lin Wood all in a dither.
DeleteLots of demented folks in Colorado that certainly were strangers to their victim, and yes, strangulation was involved. In the case of 10 year old Jessica Ridgeway she had that done to her as well as dismemberment. I recall when she first went missing. Very tragic.
ReplyDeleteOf course it was the killer's mom that turned in her teen son. He also inserted something into Jessica's vagina. Thankfully enough evidence to go to trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517225/Chilling-aftermath-Jessica-Ridgeways-murder-pictures-Evidence-photographs-zip-tie-teen-uses-suffocate-year-old-dismembering-her.html