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

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

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

Thursday, January 5, 2017

The Complaint

OK, the official Burke Ramsey Complaint  against CBS et al. is out there -- all mind numbing 108 pages. Let's take a look:

 The defendants are:

CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC, JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A. JAMES KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B. BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and HENRY C. LEE

As evident from the prefatory remarks, an important part of Lin Wood's case is that the program was presented as a documentary, based on the premise that new evidence had been uncovered and that this new team of investigators was going to conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.” However, according to the Complaint,


CBS perpetrated a fraud upon the public—instead of being a documentary based on a new investigation by a so-called team of experts, The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey was a fictional crime show based primarily on a preconceived storyline scripted in a self-published and commercially unsuccessful book, Foreign Faction, written by Defendant James Kolar (“Kolar”) and published in 2012. 
Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was not based on truthful facts, new witnesses, new evidence, or new theories.
As I see it, since Burke, like everyone else in that house, lacks an ironclad alibi, it's not possible to prove he could not have committed this crime (and here I part company with Wood -- see below), and that the defendants lied on that score -- but he can prove that the case they put before the public was based on a series of lies and "reckless disregard for the truth." If in fact the investigators presented nothing new, and almost everything in the program was based on evidence and ideas drawn from a book published five years ago, then, in itself, the claim of "a fresh reinvestigation from scratch" was a lie, perpetrated on the American public. It looks to me as though, with only a few exceptions, Wood does manage to prove that point -- the promise of a thorough re-examination of the case from scratch, based on new, never before released evidence, does, as I see it, turn out to have been false. As Wood insists, the "pseudo-experts," as he calls them, had Burke in mind from the start, and the whole point of the show was to distort the evidence, based on James Kolar's book, to make it look as though Burke was the one who killed his sister.

Wood goes on to broaden his indictment, claiming that the "Defendants supported their Burke-did-it accusation with a web of statements, re-creations, and images, of which some were true but most of which were knowingly false, misrepresentative, and/or omitted and ignored accurate information." As I see it, while it's impossible to demonstrate beyond doubt that the defendants lied in accusing Burke, it is possible to demonstrate that much of the material they brought to bear in their accusations was based on untruths, half-truths and misrepresentations. In this I believe Wood to be on solid ground.

Of course, as far as Wood is concerned, he does believe he can prove Burke could not have committed this crime, despite his lack of an alibi. To that end he employs two strategies: 1. he offers a long list of statements from a long list of investigators, including DA Alex Hunter himself, that Burke was never considered a suspect in any aspect of this crime; and 2. he goes over the entire case in some detail, in an effort to prove that the crime could only have been committed by an intruder, capping his argument with DA Lacy's "exoneration" of the entire Ramsey family, back in 2008. As I see it, this might turn out to have been a mistake. Much of the intruder "evidence" Wood presents is based on theories promulgated by "master detective" Lou Smit, theories that have been proven over and over again to be weak at best, and deceptive at worst. If the CBS lawyers take the trouble to familiarize themselves with the case, they could easily create serious problems for Wood by thoroughly debunking any and all intruder theories, on the basis of both the evidence and the logic of the case. Wood would thus be forced to fight his battle on two fronts: the defense of Burke, and the promotion of the intruder theory. Even if he is able to make a case in favor of Burke, any serious re-examination of the intruder theory would place his other client, John Ramsey, under the microscope. And if the CBS lawyers are smart, that's where they will focus their attention.

More next time . . .

OK, it is now next time, so let's continue. I'll be sifting through some of the highlights of this "Complaint" and commenting accordingly.

Section A begins with the heading: "The Undisputed Historical Record Established Years Ago that No Evidence Has Ever Existed to Support an Accusation that Burke Killed His Sister." This is most certainly true. But it does not mean the defendants lied in that respect, first because they claim to have uncovered new evidence and second, because, even if no such evidence exists, that does not mean Burke could not have committed this crime.
80. On the night of December 25 or the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, while Burke was sleeping in his family’s home in Boulder, Colorado, an unknown intruder brutally tortured, sexually assaulted, and murdered his sister, JonBenét.
So now, right off the bat, Wood leads with the weakest part of his argument, the "intruder theory." The above assertion is, as we know, widely disputed, and cannot in any sense be offered as a fact. By presenting the case in this manner he shifts the burden of proof onto himself, committing himself to prove what has never been proven in the 20 years since this crime was committed.

Wood then moves on to consider Burke's role, on which he is on much safer ground. The following statements make it clear that Burke was never considered a suspect by anyone involved in the investigation until Kolar came on the scene. He correctly accuses the "pseudo-experts" of willfully ignoring this important evidence, strongly suggesting that they were biased against Burke from the start.

In paragraph 98, however, Wood once again reverts to the intruder theory by referring to the decision by judge Julie Carnes, in the Chris Wolf lawsuit, that “the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét[.]” It's useful to note that Carnes decision was based almost entirely on Lou Smit's dubious theory, which could easily have been shot to pieces by Wolf's lawyer, Darnay Hoffman, had he had the opportunity to argue his case. Unfortunately, Hoffman never showed up, due possibly to illness, but also, it is rumored, due to a fear of flying. Thus the allegation that this was an inside job never got a proper hearing.

Wood then goes on to cite DA Mary Lacy's notorious "exoneration" of the Ramsey family, based on then new DNA evidence that has currently come into serious question. As with so much of his presentation, one has the sense that Wood is stuck firmly in the past, with little or no realization of how much has changed since the early stages of the investigation and how much of the so-called "intruder evidence" has been explained as either misleading or inconclusive.

This becomes evident when he attempts to support the intruder theory by citing some of Lou Smit's highly questionable notions regarding the evidence at the basement window, the lack of footprints in the area surrounding the house, the tufts of grass peeking out from the window grate, the notorious "Butler" door, and even the patently ridiculous assertion that "seven windows and/or doors" in the Ramsey household were found to be unlocked on the night of the murder.

Lacy's "exoneration" of the Ramseys has recently come under serious criticism from many law enforcement sources and, as the current Boulder DA has repeatedly made clear, has no legal bearing on future consideration of the case -- meaning that everyone in the Ramsey family can still be considered a suspect. As I revealed some time ago on this blog, there are serious problems with the DNA evidence, a conclusion recently borne out by experts in this field, as quoted in a thoroughgoing analysis published in the Boulder Daily Camera.

Lou Smit's theories have been widely debunked in law enforcement eircles, including both Steve Thomas's and James Kolar's books. My own take can be found in the blog post titled "The Lou Smit Show," where I demonstrate how, in each and every case, Smit has either naively or deliberately omitted crucial pieces of evidence that undermine his findings. As for the Butler door and the related "seven windows and doors" meme, widely echoed in naive media accounts for years, those assertions are meaningless on their face. When the police arrived, John announced that he'd checked all the doors leading to the outside and all were locked. A policeman checked and confirmed that indeed all the doors were locked. That certainly included the Butler door, which was later opened by a technician, not an intruder, as both John Ramsey and Lin Wood well knew. As for the seven windows and doors, yes there were open windows and doors found, but none could have provided access to an intruder. An open window in the basement was barred; the basement window with the broken pane was thoroughly examined and there was no sign that any of the thick layer of dirt on the sill had been disturbed; another basement window also showed no signs that it had been opened; several interior doors were naturally unlocked, but none could have provided entry into the house.

Other so-called intruder evidence, such as the Hi-Tec boot print, the "pubic hair," the palm print, the lack of any source for the duct tape or cord, etc., etc., was all researched and accounted for ages ago and found to be either mistaken or inconclusive. Despite the fact that, at this late date, ALL of the so-called intruder evidence has been thus thoroughly explained and/or debunked, Wood presents it as though no time had passed at all since these dubious scraps of "evidence" were first brought to light. Once again, if the CBS lawyers bother to research this case with any degree of diligence they should have no trouble shredding Wood's feeble intruder case. And if they are really smart, they will read this blog, or better still, my book, where I've demonstrated the logical absurdity of any possible intruder theory.

More to come . . .









247 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doc, couldn't CBS, in the process of showing that an intruder did not do it, while as you suggest putting JR under the microscope, end up showing that JR is the culprit and lose their case because it becomes clear that Burke did not do it? I'm just trying to follow how they can defend their Burke theory whilst pointing to John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent question. Unless they take the tack I've taken here, which is extremely unlikely, they won't be in a position to argue that John did it, nor would they want to, as you say, since Burke is obviously their target.

      However, if the intruder theory can be debunked, that could only mean that this was an inside job, regardless of Burke's role. And at that point the heat would be on John as, at the very least, a conspirator in a coverup. So if it becomes clear that the intruder theory is about to crumble, John might well force Lin to back off and withdraw the lawsuit. Therefore, if the CBS people have the sense to push hard against IDI, and forget about implicating Burke, which would be an impossible task, they would have the upper hand nevertheless. Hope this makes sense, as it's a bit complicated.

      Delete
    2. Of course, John could not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting, as the statute of limitations has run out on that. However: if IDI could be debunked in this very public arena, his credibility would be shredded, his facade of noble victimhood would crumble to dust, and he'd no longer be able to show his face in public.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for explaining! Yes, at the very least I'd like to see him suffer for what he has done.

      Delete
    4. How can the intruder theory be debunked when they still have to deal with those "stun gun" markings? When there is no way to prove or disprove that they were or were not stun gun marks?
      Obviously, if a stun gun was used, it was an intruder. They will just continue to do what they've done all these years. Raise doubts.

      EG

      Delete
    5. The stun gun can easily be dismissed as a red herring, as there is no actual stun gun evidence, only some abrasions that might possibly have been made by a stun gun. And as the CBS sleuths demonstrated, an actual stun gun would have produced very different marks and caused its victim to scream with pain rather than fall unconscious.

      That sort of "evidence" might possibly be useful as part of a reasonable doubt defense, but this will not be a criminal trial, so reasonable doubt won't apply. Smit really pulled a rabbit out of a hat on that one, since he conned RDI's into accepting his premise and then trying to prove him wrong, rather than doing what they should have done from the start: dismiss it as an obvious distraction with NO basis in fact.

      Delete
  3. Even if the CBS lawyers focus on debunking IDI, it doesn't remove the fact that the first part about them lying and misrepresenting facts still stands. Seems like Lin would still be able to find enough success to put pressure on CBS to settle, no?

    SL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're exactly right, SL, it does not change that fact. Not only does BR have enough to pressure a good settlement - which I think CBS planned for from the jump - imo he may be able to prevail at trial.
      CC

      Delete
    2. If this were an ordinary defamation case I'd agree with you, CC. But as I've said, if they are smart, and understand the case sufficiently, they will be in a position to attack Wood on two fronts: the issue of Burke's guilt, which is their weak point, and the absurdity of the intruder theory, which is their strong point. If they can steer the case away from Burke and in the direction of the intruder theory, they can make things so hot for John that Lin could be forced to withdraw.

      I think that would be their best strategy, but of course they aren't listening to me, so may well feel forced to fold as you say.

      Delete
    3. I take your point, but first and foremost CBS must answer the allegations raised in the Complaint, item by tedious, repetitive item.

      It's the fact that CBS did not use its usual legal team to vet, but instead relied on the sketchy, if not altogether absent, efforts of the production company that leads me to believe they factored the cost of an eventual settlement into their decision to go ahead with the production. I'm sure this was not lost on Lin Wood either.
      CC

      Delete
    4. They might, Doc, introduce the IDI theory as an affirmative defense appended to their Answer. We'll have to rely on HKH to alert us to that filing - now that will be a very informative read.
      CC

      Delete
  4. I am not a lawyer, but know a little about law. I have not read all the facts on this complaint, so I don't know the specifics.

    But in general, the media outlets tend to cover themselves. They all have lawyers usually.

    If they quote someone else saying something, they are more covered. If they put Joe Schmoe on camera, and have Joe say what he thinks, they are mostly covered. The more they put language in there, that this is just Joe's idea, the more they are covered. And also, Joe has a right to his opinion.

    If they also put in an opposite theory or facts, they are more covered.

    I fail to see how they (Burke's side) are going to win. I don't see what fact they could put in there about the crime scene, that would be provably false. Because no one else was at the crime scene. But I haven't read the specifics yet. Maybe it's something.

    If they said something like, Burke was in trouble with the law as a juvenile, and he wasn't, something like that would be liable.

    No, they are not getting anywhere with this. It's all for show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only true statement in that post is that you are not a lawyer.
      CC

      Delete
    2. SC, when they claim, on the basis of some fingerprints only, that Burke slugged his sister over the head, with his parents covering by sexually molesting and strangling her comatose body, that looks to me like a willful misrepresentation of the facts, which any jury could easily see as libelous.

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

      Delete
    4. Yes DocG, I agree with you.

      It all depends though HOW they said that. Did they actually come out and say, Burke did that? Which I doubt, but I did not see the show.

      Or did they have some guy come on and demo how it "could be" done. And then say, because a nine year old could do it, BR "could have" done it. Which seems more likely to me.

      It is true Burke "could have" done it. He was there. He had the means, opportunity. According to this demo, he had the strength. If he was not there, if he was too small to actually physically do it, he could win. There are limits to speculation. Like if they just picked Joe Schmoe off the street, and said Joe Schmoe strangled JBR, Joe could win. Because Joe was never there. But since Burke was there, etc, they probably won't win with that.

      Also Burke has a reported history of hitting JBR on the face with a gold club, if that is actually true. That lends good evidence to CBS. They can say, well Joe Schmoe has no history harming JBR. but BR DOES have a history. Therefore it is not unfounded by us to speculate he did that act. I think that covers CBS a lot.

      It all depends of the language, and how much they differentiated between, he did it, to, he "could have" done it.

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

      Delete
    6. Yes, certainly, Burke COULD have done it. We have no way of proving otherwise. But they present this scenario as though it's the only possibility that makes sense, implying that he DID in fact do it.

      Delete
    7. Yes Doc, that starts getting very indirect though. Did they actually 'say' there was no other way to do it? Did they just 'imply' it, as their opinion. I don't know that they have a responsibility to explore all ways, it could have been done. If they say, 'this reason makes the most sense', again, it would be very hard to prove, without going into all the facts, that it does NOT make the most sense. It could be a long trial.

      Just from what I read, I think the accuser is going to stick with the fact that BR was cleared by the DA's. I think that is their main game plan. I don't know how well that will hold water now though, considering there is a lot more cynicism with DA's nowadays.

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I stated above, while it's not possible to prove that the general accusation of Burke killing his sister is false (as he has no alibi, and the intruder theory has never been proven), it IS possible to prove that many of the allegations and evidence presented in the CBS special are false, or based on false premises. One example is the claim that the program is based on new evidence, which is for the most part false, as so much of the presentation is based on Kolar's five year old book.

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

      Delete
    3. Oh, horseshit. CBS knew precisely what it was doing: creating a sensational JBR special to grab ratings and boost their advertising rates during September Sweeps Week. It took a look at the success of "Making of a Murder" and the Robert Durst expose of a year ago and climbed right on the true crime bandwagon. It weighed the potential settlement costs, deliberately circumvented it's own legal team and charged ahead.

      Wood is no better. That Complaint is poorly drawn, and nothing I'd want to argue in open court. It was written with settlement in mind, nothing more.

      There's no great search for the truth or justice for a murdered child going on here.
      CC

      Delete
    4. I agree Inquisitive.

      It all depends on the language though. Maybe one day I will read a transcript of the show to see.

      For example, CBS can't say he did something BR physically could not do, due to his age. Or other exculpatory evidence for him, like fingerprints. If they suggested he did things, that he can prove he did not do, that is defamatory.

      If they speculate on things he could have done, and they have a decent reason to speculate it, then I don't think that defamatory. Plus hopefully they differentiated between speculation and a definitive statement.

      But mostly it would be nothing different than what goes on Nancy grace every day.

      Delete
    5. "it IS possible to prove that many of the allegations and evidence presented in the CBS special are false, or based on false premises. One example is the claim that the program is based on new evidence, which is for the most part false,"

      No I don't think that would work. Whether the fact of the information being new or not, does not directly defame Burke. It not only has to be false, the specific fact has to be material to the reputation of Burke. The age of the information, does not harm Burke directly, whether the material is new or old.

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

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

      Delete
    8. Thanks again Inq. You are always so helpful.

      Yes these lines, "I think if Burke was upset about circumstances of Christmas presents, he probably would've been upset about her trying to snag a piece of pineapple. Out of anger he may have truck her with that flashlight."

      Those are strong lines. Possibly actionable. What is protective, is the guys said "I think", and he "may have". That helps a lot. That shows it is opinion. Not 100% percent protective. But more than nothing.

      So the accuser will have the burden of proving, that did not just come off as a personal opinion, but would be taken as fact by most people. I think it would be tough to prove. Also they have to prove it is false. And there is no way to know it is false or not.

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

      Delete
  8. Just want to remind everyone that I've just now added several paragraphs to my previous post, above, so please check it out. Thanks.

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does anyone have a link to the transcript of the CBS show?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some fyi info I saw today. This goes to my idea JR was trying to set up FW. JR did not let the police go in that room. He was saving it for White.

    Also the switches were outside, not low on floor.

    "First, this "wine room" is the same room where, earlier in the day, Ramsey reportedly told a policeman the door had been painted shut. ..Thomas reports in his book that White did look into the wine room but did not see JonBenet's body because it was too dark inside and he didn't know that the two light switches were outside the room."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the light switches were inside the wine cellar room, not on the outside. I don't recall Ramsey telling the police the door was painted shut. If memory serves, I believe that was a question being asked by the police, and Patsy said the door would stick on the carpet but not prevent it from being opened.

      I believe JR tried to implicate anyone that would draw attention away from himself and Patsy. I don't believe he had actual intent to frame Fleet.

      Delete
    2. Yes I don't know how accurate this info is that you can see online sometimes. I think I heard more about the carpet before. Not sure about the painted shut. That would be kind of weird.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for asking Inq. I have a few things that make me think that. But again, so far none of my thoughts are cast in stone yet. And although some of you might not like that, I think it allows me to be light on my feet with this.

      But one for thing, we know that anyone who murders their daughter in cold blood, has no loyalty, and he will frame anyone he can, as long as it is not himself. So we can start with that. I think people have this misguided idea that JR would be loyal or something, and I do not believe that to be the case.

      The fact that JR put his Xmas bonus in the note, and he accused FW of having money trouble recently. (I mean how many other people could know that about the bonus, really? JR probably just got the bonus.) So that seems be a link.

      JR seemed to have some weird plans for the body. Many of you think he was going to dump it later. I think that would be too risky. I think JR had some other plan in mind, something tricky. If not dumping the body, the next best thing is framing someone else with it.

      And who better, than his good friend Fleet White. The only guy with a key to your house. And the guy he invited over, first thing to look.

      So I think there could be a connection there.

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

      Delete
    3. And to reply to myself, how many people, outside of PR and JR's work management, knew about the Jr's Xmas bonus amount?

      When did JR learn that amount? Could not have been too far before that date, you tend to get bonuses right before X Mas. The closer in time he got it, the less people he could have told.

      My thought is, he probably did not tell too many people. It's not like something you announce out loud. Maybe the only person he would tell, is his best friend, Fleet White.

      So by JR putting that Xmas bonus in the ransom note, he is trying to point the finger at FW. The only guy (outside of his work) who knew about it. And the only guy with a key.

      And if JR actually did not tell FW about it, then JR would lie and say he did tell FW about it.

      So people, I think it could be likely that that is why JR wrote the ransom note. It was to point the finger at Fleet White.

      My vague theory on this part, is when FW heard about the Xmas bonus in the note, the wheels in his head started churning. He started to get an idea of what was going on. And that is why he shut the door on that cellar room, and messed up JR's plans.

      --Another thought is, FW or his wife maybe were the ones who called 911 three days before at the party. Maybe JBR told them something. So that was the impetus for the murder. And JR wanted to discredit FW in the process.

      Delete
    4. Ramsey told LE in one of his interviews he received his bonus months before, in January or February of 1996.

      Doc will know, but iirc Fleet did indeed make the 911 call while at the Ramseys' Christmas party, but said he did so mistakenly, intending to call information to get a phone number for his mother's nursing home.
      CC

      Delete
    5. Hmm. Interesting. I did not know FW made that 911 call, I just guessed that, and looks like I got that right. Good for me.

      I don't believe he called 911 mistakenly. That was a liiieeee.

      Delete
    6. And to expand on my thinking, maybe whatever JBR told FW and his wife before Xmas, was part of the grand jury testimony used to indict the parents. And why FW refused to testify later, and apparently got away with it. Some knowledge of sex abuse of JBR.

      Delete
    7. So your notion now is that JBR told her friend Daphne's father (not her own mother, and not Daphne's mother, which would make marginally more sense) "something" that prompted him to make an abortive call to 911, then lied about it and never mentioned his suspicions to LE when the child was murdered three days later?

      Way too Byzantine, and not remotely believable.
      CC

      Delete
    8. Yes what is so weird about a child telling a little friend something, and that friend telling her mother. Kids don't always tell the mother. Or maybe JBR DID tell the mother before, and the mother did nothing, which sadly, is very common in sex abuse cases. Perhaps the Whites had heard something before, and then had the chance to ask JBR in person at the party.

      "that prompted him to make an abortive call to 911, then lied about it and never mentioned his suspicions to LE when the child was murdered three days later? "

      Yes, people are very cowardly. They have some bizarre primitive fear of getting involved in any tiny little thing. I know this from my personal life and a situation I am dealing with. Extreme cowardice, everywhere.

      So he heard the info, he was instantly outraged. Then after a second, he thought, uh oh, I do not want to get involved. He did not want to get involved after the incident either, he was still in shock. And afraid. But after he was interviewed some more, and had more time to process it, he came forward. That process is not unusual. I am guessing his testimony was part of the grand jury.

      Delete
    9. In fact, maybe FW and his wife thought about it, and decided not to pursue any charges until after the holidays. They wanted JBR to have a nice Xmas. They themselves wanted to have a peaceful XMas.

      JR knew this or guessed this, he thought, uh oh, I better do something NOW. Because after the holiday, it will be too late.

      Delete
    10. Fleet had words with JR after the funeral at the Paughs' home in Atlanta; he was outraged the Ramseys weren't cooperating with LE yet intended to appear on CNN. Fleet has defied subpoenas and published letters critical of the investigation in the newspaper. This is not a shy, retiring guy who is afraid to be involved.
      CC

      Delete
  13. One thing the CBS special led us to believe is that we would be hearing from the Whites, which turned out to be nothing but a teaser.

    I would be very curious as to what the edited out material contains. Originally, the program was to air for 3 nights, then it was shortened to only 2.

    CBS claimed that due to all the other JonBenet programs on different stations, they decided to free up valuable air-time during sweeps week (as if the program would not be a huge audience draw).

    I imagine to myself that this was not the real reason for the shortening of "The Case Of", and that what was kept in the "documentary" was thought to be "defensible", as they had most likely heard that Lin Wood would be bring suit if they aired the special.

    And since it is based on Kolar's book, why wasn't Kolar sued before it went this far?

    As I recall, Kolar opens with the statement that all of the people in the house that night needed to be considered as suspects, and since no one had ever considered Burke, this was his scenario.

    I'm not even sure if he really considered it the best scenario himself, but might help sell his other crime fiction novels.

    GS

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. DocG says "Once again, if the CBS lawyers bother to research this case with any degree of diligence they should have no trouble shredding Wood's feeble intruder case. And if they are really smart, they will read this blog, or better still, my book, where I've demonstrated the logical absurdity of any possible intruder theory."

    Anyone have any friends in high places at CBS?

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

    ReplyDelete
  17. I doubt that this case was a surprise to CBS, given the Ramseys' predilection to sue in the past. The cutting of their special from 3 to 2 episodes was likely made for the reasons stated.

    We don't need conspiracies for every aspect or development of this case. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....

    -Sisu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CBS could use the defense that Kolar writes crime fiction.

      That's a fact. No conspiracy needed.

      GS

      Delete
  18. I just wrote a couple responses on prior thread, Mike G and others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read them and was, as usual, unimpressed. You need to stop accusing anyone who corrects or disagrees with you as lacking sufficient intelligence to participate in these discussions.
      CC

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

      Delete
    3. Wrong Inquisitive, I enjoy discussing this case and having spirited debates at times with the posters I respect who have put much effort and thought into this case and blog, even if I disagree with their views and /or logic. like I do with Doc, CC, Mike, Ms D etc. I still respect their views. Some others I dont and I will correct looney tunes type scenarios and bipolar like rambling.

      Delete
    4. CC, if someone goes to the effort to make fun of you for putting two opposite statements in a post, but then doesn't bother to read that those two opposite statements are based on two different scenarios, even though it is clearly marked, the person is not too bright, AND a jerk.

      Come on. Don't apologize for other people's stupidity.

      Delete
    5. But Keiser it's "looney tunes" according to you, and the only one in here that should be allowed to do the correcting is Doc, especially when you mock people and call them stupid. I've studied this case for 20 years, read five books on the subject, try and stay current with new developments and happened in here when I read Burke was being sought for further questioning. It's possible that was a part of the CBS minion-hounding, not anything LE was attempting to do. By being in here since the end of last summer, reading every page Doc posted but not every comment, I have learned more than I had heretofore on my own. I've changed my mind frequently which is an irritant to others, I acknowledge that. I've taken Doc's coaching to correct myself but won't apologize for bringing something else to the table and other ways of looking at things. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

      Delete
    6. I was not apologizing for anything, I was defending Mike's right to post what he pleases and asking, politely, that you refrain from insulting others. In my view he simply misread your comments, easily done, as they are often rather convoluted.
      CC

      Delete
    7. I agree with you Inq. You seem to have an open mind and can handle new ideas. People don't have to agree with the new ideas. But they can at least read them for some new insight or angle. New ideas is why we like to comment on and read this page. That's the main fun of it.

      Delete
    8. I never called anyone stupid Inquisitive. If people arw going to muddy things up with ridiculous, mindless comments than other bloggers on here will continue to correct the gibberish.

      Delete
  19. The only thing I haven't figured out as much yet, is, why was Patsy so on board the whole thing. What was her role in this? How much did she know? How much did she do? I believe she knew something at least. I do not believe she was the innocent adoring mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do believe she was innocent. She always seemed genuinely distraught and openly grieving. Even if she got suspicious later on, after she was taking less or no sedatives, or even years later after reflecting on John's behavior on Dec 26, it would be understandable to me for her to go into denial. She knows that ovarian cancer is always terminal. She knew the cancer would come back and that she was going to die young. She put on her best face and tried to create normalcy for Burke. She practiced her faith and trusted God. I know she needed John for her medical bills to be paid. She convinced herself that there is no way John molested her child right under her watch and clung to the belief that someone got in their house and killed JB as revenge toward John.

      Delete
    2. I agree. I think PR was innocent. PR's frantic 911 call sounds legitimate. She's almost hyperventilating, in a panic, as one would expect from a mother whose daughter has been kidnapped. She doesn't even let the 911 dispatcher finish some of her questions because she wants the police to hurry to the house. She has no history of slapping JBR for wetting the bed or any other time. If she snapped that night, she would have called 911 for life squad. Why would she go through all that staging? She could have left JBR's body at the foot of the stairs and said she must have fallen in the middle of the night as she sneaked out of her bed to play with her dolls/toys if she had wanted to hide the fatal head injury she inflicted on JBR. Why stage the body as a homicide? In my opinion, there is only one reason to stage the body in that way - to hide the previous molestations. And there was only one adult male in the house that night who wanted to keep that hidden.

      Delete
  20. Someone mentioned the significance of the $118,000 bonus amount factoring into the ransom note. I'm going to suggest that it may have been of more significance where Patsy had the Bible turned to for daily reading, which was Pslam 118. If you read that passage it's a mantra for healing. If Patsy wrote the note, as I believe she did, she would have drawn strength from the passage she no doubt had memorized. The housekeeper said she kept the Bible turned to that Psalm and read from it daily after surviving cancer. A few quotes from Pslam 118 below.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paragraphs from Pslam 118:
    "Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: The Lord's right hand has done mighty things!
    The Lord's right hand is lifted high;
    the Lord's right hand has done mighty things!

    Lord save us!
    Lord grant us success!"

    ReplyDelete
  22. $118k was intended by John to further suggest a disgruntled employee at AG, as he does elsewhere in the RN. Further, since his original plan was to dump the body when ostensibly making the drop, the ransom amount had to be an amount John was comfortable parting with, and to his mind that was a relatively small sum, and "found" money.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree with that as well CC, and have considered it solely as the reason it was inserted into the note. However there's more than one way to look at the note and the amount used, as well as the possible state of mind of the author.

      Delete
    2. You know, the mind works in mysterious ways. If that was Patsy's daily reading, and then John receives $118,000, in bonus mind you, she probably took that as an answer to prayer. And the two became intertwined in her mind.

      GS

      Delete
    3. People of a spiritual mindset do look for synchronicity as confirmation.

      GS

      Delete
    4. Lol -- ya'll are crazy-biased. First, how do you know if Patsy even knew yet about the bonus? Secondly, I've read that the Bible was opened to Psalm 118, but never heard that she read that passage daily. Her housekeeper didn't come daily, and secondly, I doubt she followed around Patsy to check and see what she read each day. Whatever. Patsy was a Christian. It is not part of the doctrine to look for synchronicity, GS. That would likely be considered mysticism by Christians. Geez, can you all generalize about people and make any more ridiculous assumptions about people? CC is right, $118K is an amount that John knew he could cover in cash, quickly, and part with easily.

      Delete
    5. Here's the link I've found to the original program, for SC, or anyone else who wasn't able to view it.

      Now that I am more familiar with the case details, I'm rewatching it to see what, if anything, has been "left out". I believe it stops short of analyzing if Burke was capable of the staging.

      GS

      Delete
    6. http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey/video/24057F14-C6CD-B5FC-5F37-36E83AF1D780/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-part-1/

      GS

      Delete
  23. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/28/se.01.html

    "WHITSON: You will withdraw $118,000 from your account.

    WALKER: If I were kidnapping this guy's daughter, I'd ask for a quarter million, half million, $1 million. So the amount of money is just really odd to me.

    CASAREZ: The Ramseys thought so, too.

    J. RAMSEY: What's that mean? We looked at Psalm 118. Was it a biblical reference -- where did this number come from?

    CASAREZ: When did it hit you that the $118,000 equated to your Christmas bonus?

    J. RAMSEY: It didn't initially because that bonus had actually occurred a year earlier, in January of '96, but it was on every pay stub that I got.

    CASAREZ: Police asked the Ramseys for handwriting samples. John gave them two note pads.
    ...

    J. RAMSEY: No, that's total fiction. We talked to them in the home, went down to the basement, talked to them. They kept persisting. We've got to take you down to the police station."

    ReplyDelete
  24. So above, it says that THEY looked at the Bible for a biblical reference. Not that the so called intruder opened the bible.

    Also JR said they went down to the basement that morning. They went down to the basement, but they did not bother to look in all the rooms.

    ReplyDelete
  25. An intruder wouldn't have opened the Bible to Psalm 118. It was open and available to Patsy daily as a mantra for her healing process. Obviously it was also John's bonus amount. Accept or reject every single handwriting expert, they agreed the note had a feminine bent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Inq, I am still torn about PR's role. I do agree that note had a feminine bent. For one thing, it was too long and had too many dramatic elements for a male to write it. Too many fanciful tangents. It was a like a female trying to pretend to be a male. It was either a very clever JR, doing some double imitation, on PR faking a note, or it was PR. But it defo had PR elements in many ways.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if JR had something to do with that amount in his Xmas bonus. Like was 118 his lucky number, and he made some request for that. Just a thought.

      Yes I had wondered before about an intruder opening a bible, always thought that was kind of weird. So now it is confirmed to me PR did that.

      Delete
    3. It is not confirmed to you that PR did that. Read above: JR said they wondered if 118 was a biblical reference and looked it up. Ok, maybe he was lying. But you still don't really know and to say that this was her mantra? You are really a mind reader, SC, aren't you?

      Delete
    4. Just that if you read the note and look at the way Psalms 118 reads, something she had out and looked at daily according to the housekeeper, than when it came time to write the note she might have pulled from it, and actually taken strength from it given what she had just done. The way the note is signed, "Victory S.B.T.C." she could have used her daily reading and her faith to strengthen and provide her with inspiration, something other than the paltry bonus amount. I think Steve Thomas mentions this in his book, it's not my novel idea, but if it makes no sense to you, discard it. Also SC, yes, the note was very very specific. It was specifically directed at John, it told John how to get the money, how to put it in small bills, when the call would be coming in, any deviation from plan could mean death, so meticulous - which points away from Intruder. Too specific, knowing too many details about John's good southern common sense which Nedra her mother would say. If John wrote the note staging the event to look like a kidnap for ransom HE himself would have made it for a few million dollars, knowing he wasn't really going to have to pay it, lose it, or not get it back.

      Delete
    5. He most likely planned on getting rid of the money, Inq. His story was going to be that he handed the ransom over to the kidnappers, so I don't think he'd risk being caught by actually keeping it. Therefore it had to be a relatively small amount, and an amount he had readily available.

      Delete
    6. Anony, Inquisitive wrote that about the mantra, not me. Man, people, if you are going to bully people, get your facts straight at least. Otherwise you just look like an idiot.

      Delete
    7. I wonder if insurance covers stuff like that. He might as well make a few bucks in the process right? That is what a good sociopath would think.

      Delete
    8. Unless he was trying to remove all culpability from himself and onto someone else by making references to amounts of money only intimate friends/colleagues would know. How coincidental is it that he (not Patsy) called out Atlanta friends when he told police he had overheard them saying phrases like "fat cat" "don't try to grow a brain". And yes he also mentioned that Nedra and Don Paugh were known to say "good southern common sense." If you were desperately trying to cover for your wife, knowing she accidentally murdered your daughter then covered it up, realizing police were scrutinizing Patsy's every word, does it make sense to offer this information willingly to police, or would you just say, I have no idea who could say things like that? In my opinion, he's a narcissist, so it's not a stretch to believe he would consistently yet passive/aggressively throw Patsy under the bus, which he does, and write the ransom note with his own self-interest in mind (be rested, we respect your company,$118,000, etc). I'm surprised he didn't sign it, "sincerely yours, Patsy"

      Anybody have any thoughts on the Award program (by program I mean the booklet that describes the chronology of events, like in a play) that had John Ramsey's face circled with what looked like a child scrawling the words, Y-E-S, a heart, and no-no-no, then yes again. What's better is to read the difference between Patsy's and John's reaction to police when they are asked about it. John rails about it being the work of some sicko and deviant, and he acts utterly disgusted, while Patsy just acts like she is confused and not sure who would write it, calling it strange. An innocent piece of information that police brought up during the interviews that may have nothing to do with the crime scene. They just wanted to see the parents react. How many instances can we count like that where John Ramsey shows his guilt but always gets looked over because of the absolute thorough job he did in bullshitting his way out of this murder and planting evidence that pointed away from him and toward his wife, sons, friends, Santa Claus, ex-Fatal Attraction lover, Atlanta fat cats, ....did I mention he was the first to call this an inside job? Suzs

      Delete
    9. Geezus, SC. Sorry I thought you were the one who wrote about the mantra. Regardless of who wrote that, I'm not bullying. Its a valid point! I will say though: you and Inq both seem to want to solve this case by getting into the Ramsey's minds way past the point of just connecting the facts that we do have and making reasonable inferences.

      If you're so sensitive that you think the rest of us, who are being pretty patient with all the random brain dumps going on here, are trying to bully you, then maybe try to put together your ideas better.

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

      Delete
  26. Okay bizarre conspiracy theory of the day. This one is mostly just for fun.

    JR and PR knew the Whites knew about the sex abuse. They both discussed it, they argued. JR came up with this bizarre plan to make it look like JBR was victim of an attempted kidnapped. With a note. They would leave her in the basement. The police would find her the next morning.

    When she was found, she would be examined. They would think her injured hymen was done by the intruder.

    That was their way to save themselves from sex abuse charges.

    But the plan went wrong, JR ended up killing her. Actually, JR always intended to kill her. But he lied to PR about the plan, saying he would not kill JBR. He told PR it was an accident. That was why PR said later,'we did not intend for this to happen'.

    Okay, that one was too complicated, even for me, lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the Whites knew about the abuse and being the passive people that they are known to be (sarcasm), they didn't call Children and Family Services or whatever the agency is in Colorado and ask for an investigation. Riiight.

      This is my guess: Patsy's remark about "we did not intend for this to happen" could be as innocent as, we didn't realize by calling people over, it would result in our daughter being left dead in our home (aka we thought she was gone, we felt time was of the essence, and we really thought if we handed over money we'd get her back.) I feel that her statement was about blaming themselves for how they reacted to the note. Period.

      Delete
    2. I have read that Patsy believed a pedophile watching JB at her pageants was perhaps responsible for her murder, and that was why she made the comment that they "did not intend for this to happen". There are many possibilities, and we'll never know why she said it, it's always going to be pure speculation on any of our parts. She was heavily sedated and in a deep, inconsolable state of grief at the time she made the remark, and it isn't unusual for someone to feel unnecessary guilt over the death of a loved one, it is quite common. I believe it was the same woman who she also asked if she "could fix it" (JonBenet's pageant costume maker), so clearly, she wasn't making a lot of sense at the time. Copious amounts of Valium will do that to a person.

      Delete
    3. True, it is all speculation. But to me, that statement means more than idle talk. 'We did not "mean' for this to happen'. To me, that seems like some specific action they took, that resulted in her death. And not just a home tour. Something more.

      And no Anonymous, it was not about the kidnap note and what they did, because JBR was already dead by the time they read the note.

      Delete
    4. Well you're missing the point. My premise is that Patsy is innocent. So when she read the note, she did not know that JBR was dead. And after she was found dead, at which time she had probably had the chance to read the entire note or learn about the threatening contents (beheading), she realized that they could have gotten their daughter killed by not following the note. This is just one possibility, The other is Ms D's points, above. Bottom line, you can further this case by hinging any theory on that remark, made while Patsy was really out of it.

      Delete
    5. *can't* further this case by hinging...

      Delete
    6. No due to the body being cold and the pineapple in her system, it is likely she was dead the night before. Not after they read the ransom note that morning.

      Delete
    7. Once again: I assume Patsy was innocent. So when she read the note she did NOT KNOW JBR was dead. I'm explaining my theory on what the "we didn't mean to do this" remark could have possibly meant, when she said it later on, after the body was found and while she was in shock.

      Delete
    8. Yes, but PR said that remark, a long time afterwards. By that time PR said that, PR already knew JBR had already been dead a long time before PR got the note. So your idea does not make sense there.

      Delete
    9. I don't know how you define a long time, but she was very much under the influence of sedatives and was, I've read, laying on a couch crying and grieving. The bigger point is: we can't make too much of that comment. Its too much of a reach to assume that it was some form of confession. If it was, the police didn't put too much stock in it. Hope you can see the bigger point. I think this one has been beaten to death.

      Delete
  27. "So the Whites knew about the abuse and being the passive people that they are known to be (sarcasm), they didn't call Children and Family Services or whatever the agency is in Colorado and ask for an investigation. Riiight. "

    Well it was Christmas. Most of those governmental services are closed during those times. They were probably going to do it after the New Year.

    He thought about calling 911 right away. But he thought better of it. Maybe they wanted to talk a lawyer first. They had to worry about themselves and their daughter too, you know. Perhaps it was not a smoking gun. If it was, JR would have been charged afterwards. It was instead one of those statements that needed further investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh. Do you really think, that if the White's determined (and discussed) that they though JBR was being molested, that JR knew they were on to him, decided what his countermeasure would be, which was to frame Fleet, and carried it all out before Fleet could report him? No, Fleet is a very aggressive guy. Sure, on the 26th he no doubt started to suspect that something was up. But JR did not frame Fleet on the fly, nor plan this crime with an intent to frame Fleet (who had many houseguests over Christmas and clearly would have a solid alibi anyway). No, John thought he planned this out in a way that he would not get caught - or so he thought - but he was not focused on framing a rich friend who could afford lawyers himself and could make this backfire on John. That would be dumb, really dumb.

      Delete
    2. " but he was not focused on framing a rich friend who could afford lawyers himself"

      First of all according to what JR loudly told everyone, FW was having money troubles recently.

      "hat JR knew they were on to him, decided what his countermeasure would be, which was to frame Fleet, and carried it all out before Fleet could report him?"

      Yeah, why not? FW probably told JR in private at the end of the dinner party, he was on to him. Possibly in a subtle way (he doesn't want to get sued). Probably hinted something. I would think FW would at least do that, to ease his conscience. Maybe say something to his friend like, maybe you should get some help.

      Of course he would want to frame FW. FW is the main witness against him. Also JR is shocked that anyone would dare stand up to him, even a little. He wanted to assert control again.


      Delete
  28. I know my latest theory above sounds crazy, but thinking about it, it kind of does makes sense. It hits every element, in one.

    The Whites, the sex abuse, the need for the act to cover up at that date, PR's involvement in part of the crime and her implicit approval, which would explain her odd behavior afterwards, the urge to frame White to discredit him, and the ransom note being written for him. The need to restage when White does not discover the body. It kind of works. I'm just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't work for me at all. I'm sorry, but you are not connecting the dots. You start with an assumption that the White's knew. Let's face it, Priscilla had already expressed her concern to Patsy that JBR was growing up too fast (she gave her the book Reviving Ophelia). Indeed, she may have expressed concern to Patsy over JBR's toileting issues as well. I even wonder if Patsy was so moody during Nov/Dec because she was stewing over JonBenet's developmental issues. (The poop in her room was probably her's, not Burke's -- he smeared poop on the wall in the years while Patsy was sick. He was not being mothered then, didn't know how to wipe himself well, was frustrated and wiped it on the wall.) Patsy knew the cancer was going to come back; everyone knows that ovarian cancer is a beast that can't be slayed. She was very sad about her kids and probably John knew that she was very worried. If he had molested JBR, I think he realized that Patsy was on the verge of figuring that out. He didn't need to frame anyone, least of all people with resources who could mount a defense that totally backfired on him! He needed a perfect plan. He thought he was smart because he read John Douglas. He simply needed to cover up what he did and invent a non-existent intruder who could not be found. How you can make the leap that this was all designed to frame Fleet is beyond my comprehension!

      Delete
    2. "The poop in her room was probably hers." The poop as reported by LE was in pajamas in her room that were stated to be BR's. How you get that it was probably hers, I do not know, but this is more of the backwards logic that muddies this case and is nothing more than fitting evidence to make your theory more credible.

      Delete
    3. Nor has there been any report of JBR smearing poop on anything EVER by the housekeepers or anyone else. The only one ever reported to smear poop was BR and on more than one occasion so therefor your logic = It was JBR's ?

      Delete
    4. Plenty of reports of JBR soiling her underpants i. e. pooping her pants, not flushing toilets, asking for help from adults because she could not wipe herself, though.

      GS

      Delete
    5. I have not heard of multiple occasions with Burke, just one - and it was on the bathroom wall, right by the toilet. If you've had kids, you'd know the types of things they'll do when they don't want to wipe themselves -- toys are calling or they're frustrated with themselves.

      GS, the poop found on the box of chocolates was not enough, I hear, to know if it was actually smeared or if someone threw their soiled clothes on the box and it got there that way. Her room was a mess - things strewn everywhere, so its a rather big leap to assume that ANYONE purposely got the poop on the chocolates. I've had kids, I've cleaned up after them many a time. This looks to be a house where there was not a lot of day to day cleaning behind the kids was going on.

      Delete
    6. Keiser, I'm not clear on what you're theory is, honestly. I believe that you have said that you mostly want to put some of the logic to test here and poke holes where you can. That's all good. But you don't know what my theory is, because you've never asked and you don't know who I am, anyhow. For the record, I am JDI and find Doc's case to be most compelling and logical.

      I've said before that the hardest part for me has always been, why would Patsy not eventually figure this out? I've resolved that in my mind with some speculation about her state of mind and impending death due to cancer. Women know that ovarian cancer is terminal. There is no cure, it always comes back, and all you can do is enjoy the time during remission if you can.

      You are wrong to say that I want to twist things to fit my theory. I didn't have a theory until I read Doc's, and again I am on board with his point of view. I think there is a lot of extrapolating of facts going on here. For instance, I have never read that Burke smeared poop more than once -- which was the time that Nedra was there while Patsy was away getting cancer treatments and she asked the housekeeper to clean it up. When were the other events? Which housekeeper said this? The housekeepers said they didn't come every day. I've had housekeepers, and my house is not as big as the Ramsey's, but I can tell you they don't know what is going on in every room, all the time. Based on the appearance of JBR's room in the photos, there was not a lot of ongoing housekeeping going on in there. So I don't put stock in much of anything you say the housekeepers knew.

      Besides, the poop proves nothing. I think everyone accepts the fact that JBR had toileting issues. If its related to sex abuse, we'll never know will we?

      Delete
    7. "How you can make the leap that this was all designed to frame Fleet is beyond my comprehension! "

      It was not planned TO frame FW. It was planned so JR did not get arrested for child sex abuse. And the side event, was to try and frame FW, if he could, to try and discredit his testimony about what JBR told him about the sex abuse, and also point the finger at him, the only guy with a key to the house.

      Delete
    8. I believe there were as many as nine keys distributed to various people prior to the murder.

      The rest is baseless speculation and defies logic. Had Fleet White known about sexual abuse he would have reported it immediately; there is nothing whatsoever known about him that permits any other conclusion.
      CC

      Delete
    9. "Had Fleet White known about sexual abuse he would have reported it immediately; there is nothing whatsoever known about him that permits any other conclusion. "

      Oh? And THAT is not speculation? I take it you know Fleet White personally then?

      You have no way of knowing how he would react. And in fact, it makes sense he reacted like he did. He called 911 impulsively. And then he and or maybe his wife, thought better of it, and hung up.

      You really think he called 911 about phone numbers? Come on. If he did, he would have said, oh sorry, wrong number, because he knows to just hang up would be a problem.

      I think he talked it over with his wife, they wanted to talk to a lawyer and then after Xmas maybe do something about it.

      We don't know what he knew. He probably did not know specifically, chances are he probably just heard a more vague troubling statement. Yes if he knew specifically, he might call police. But if you hear something, and you are not so sure, do you just call police, willy nilly? I don't think most people would.

      Delete
    10. Fleet Wood behaved honorably through this debacle, and did his best to get justice for JBR. I've already given you several examples. I believe, iirc, it was Schiller in PMPT who recounted the nursing home story.
      CC

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I'm sorry if you took my comment as a personal attack Doc, I meant it as a humerous valid point

      Delete
    2. I got it, Eve. Shafer does seem drawn to the obscure and improbable. It's interesting, to a point, but when s/he doesn't follow through with facts, logic, reason, or a cohesive theory it becomes somewhat frustrating.
      CC

      Delete
    3. Agree with CC and Eve. SC's musings are derailing the objective. Let's focus on next steps -- getting JR to face the music. Going on the basis that there was no intruder, we need to know what John's role was. Regardless of whether or not Burke could have hit JBR, there is evidence of sex abuse. John must have some knowledge about that or he would have called an ambulance and hoped that JBR could be saved from the head injury.

      I wonder if we can have Doc compose a letter to Stan Garnett, signed by "Concerned Citizens for Justice" (we all sign it) that summarizes what we would like to see happen next in this investigation:
      1 - Rule John back in. Revisit the handwriting to see that the experts were not qualified, their findings were cherry picking, and that an analysis of the contents of the note are just as telling as the "strokes."

      2 - Ask John to come in for questioning. He won't, but announce that the statements by Burke on Dr. Phil about the flashlight need further clarification.

      3 - Ask if JBR can be exhumed to look at the sexual abuse evidence more closely. If its too late for that, bring the to experts back together to nail down some conclusions.

      4 - Carry out the further DNA testing, if for no other reason than to shoot down Mary Lacy's exoneration for good.

      5 - Put enough pressure on John Ramsey to cooperate that Burke has no choice but to either help or hurt his dad. No more fence sitting for Burke. Its possible they will both throw Patsy under the bus, but I say watch out for Pam, Polly, and Don if he does that. They will come out loaded for bear.

      Delete
    4. Sorry Doc, but I am beginning to question why you have removed several of the more reasonable posters comments - my own included - in reference to SC's comments, yet she continuously belittles our intelligence, asserts that we're all a bunch of bullies (I believe I have seen her call no less than four of us "bullies" in the past week and a half alone) and accuses the majority of the most reasonable, long time posters here as having low IQ's, which is terribly unfair. So my question is, why are our comments deleted, yet hers remain? You don't consider her constant antagonistic tone and ad homs to be personal attacks? Everyone here is growing tired of the manner in which she interacts with us, yet we're the ones you're censoring instead. I've never questioned the manner in which you see fit to run your own blog, but I have to question your logic here.
      I hope you don't misconstrue my post as being combative, I really am just confused, and more than a little frustrated, and it appears I'm not alone.

      Delete
    5. Ms D, hope you see this. I'm signing off for the same reason. I liked this blog because Doc was not only being methodical with his analysis, but he handles the banter well. It has gotten out of hand, but just so you know, I very much enjoyed reading your points of view. You're very articulate and clearly a reasoning person. After years of reading here, I'm definitely in the JDI camp, just have been working out in my mind some of the more nebulous information (such as observations that night by the neighbors). Until 2017, we didn't have this bully mentality on the blog, save for Hercule who was maybe not a bully but was not nice (I'll leave it at that.) I'm done with the brain dumps from those who can't bother to put a cohesive set of thoughts together. It is a waste of my time and hasn't helped further the case.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry, Ms. D, but when things get too personal I feel an obligation to delete posts. I may not always be consistent, because it's not always easy to track down every offensive post, but I do try to keep things under control here. I just now deleted a whole bunch of posts because what they all amounted to was just bickering and insults and were totally off-topic. I don't like to offend anyone, but it is necessary to exert some level of control or our discussions will just degenerate into flame wars.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for responding, Doc. Yes, I see that quite a few comments were deleted (though, strangely enough, there's no record they were there to begin with? Perhaps you just deleted an entire section?) Hopefully we'll avoid further squabbles in the future by simply ignoring the comments we vehemently disagree with, if we have nothing insightful to add. But sometimes it's just so damn difficult! Cheers. :)

      Delete
  31. Regarding the new DNA testing which will be done this year, and according to the CNN link Mike sent us weeks ago, The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is opening a new DNA testing facility in 2017 and will use new technology in the JB case, as well as other cold cases. DA Stan Garrett does not think it will "be a big deal" quote unquote. But why, when this happened, did Alex Hunter dismiss the help of the FBI where DNA testing could have been performed at the best facility in the US in Quantico.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dunno. Ask Alex! Most people think he was pressured by the big lawyers, he was more interested in protecting his career, and he was definitely not experienced in prosecuting murders. Also, he was soft on criminals, they say. He was also very much hindered by the fact that the police didn't do what they should have done.

      Delete
  32. So I have a few questions about the page theory:

    Why do think JR would be dumb enough, to think that PR would be dumb enough, to not call police? This is not TV, like the Brady Bunch or Gilligan’s Island, where people never call police, to further the plot. Or some country like in Latin America, where the police are corrupt. This is real life, in the US. Why do you think, JR would think, that PR would not do exactly like she said? Call 911 in an instant.

    Why didn’t JR get up first and grab the note first thing. Maybe put some language in the note, to look outside at a nearby pay phone, for a note for more instructions. And if his goal was to leave the house, why not say to her, JBR is someplace, and I have to get her. I can’t tell you now, I don’t want you to worry, don’t call police, but I’ll be back soon. And then he can leave the house. Maybe call from a payphone later.

    -So why do you think PR did not search the house first thing. If I were the mother, the first thing I would do is look everywhere in the house. The kidnapper would be some mentally ill guy who committed suicide. He could be dead in the house with a tied up JBR. I know I would want to search the whole house, myself. And maybe not just once, probably several times, looking for any clue. I wouldn’t just sit there, with my fingers over my face.

    -So why did JR think that dumping the body, during the day, was a good idea. You do know they have surveillance cameras everywhere. The police would be able to retrace his every move.

    -So why did JR think that putting a dead body in his own car is a good idea. Wouldn’t look a bit suspicious when cadaver dogs hit on his car? And he is not a doctor, so he does not have that excuse. They can also follow the scent from the exchange site, and see that the trail only goes one way, to his house.

    -So you do realize that cadaver dogs can follow the scent of a car with a dead body in it, afterwards, for miles. That is what they did in the Laci Peterson case. The dogs followed the car trail for miles, until they got to the beach. Why would JR want to risk that.

    -So how was JR going to call from a payphone? You do realize there are surveillance cameras everywhere. And they can trace which phonebooth it was. The police would have a good chance of tracing him to that phone booth.

    -And if JR calls back from a phone booth, don’t you think PR would recognize his voice and know who he is?

    -No, sorry, this plan has too many crazy variables. I don’t think I buy it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surveillance cameras are relatively new. I doubt that many, if any at all, were deployed in Boulder at that time. As for cadaver dogs, as I've said, John's plan could have been to seal the body in a plastic garbage bag. In his mind, that could have been sufficient, even if technically cadaver dogs could smell through it. My best guess is that cadaver dogs never entered his mind.

      Delete
    2. Cadaver dogs certainly would not enter my mind if I were to commit a murder, because I'm not an expert on committing murder, and neither was John. I don't know why you are so sure John would have thought to factor them into his plan, especially if he murdered JonBenet in the heat of the moment, which would mean he was left with a dead body in his home and no other choice but to work out a plan that would always involve the risk of being sniffed out by a cadaver dog. He made a lot of errors simply because he was winging it, as most murderers have to do. It's easy, in retrospect, to say "why wouldn't he have done this", or "but he would not have done that", but the simple fact of the matter is, after killing his child, he would have been in a state of panic, therefore not thinking as clearly as all of us armchair sleuths, so his number one priority would have only been to buy himself some more time in order to be able to work on the minutae of his plan when his thinking became clearer, and when no one was sleeping upstairs - hence the ransom note. I don't know how far he'd thought out the rest of it by that point, believing he'd have all of the next day to figure out his best course of action. The police were called at a point where he was only half way through his plan, so no one will ever know what the rest of said plan entailed, but I'm sure, with the luxury of time and solitude, he would have worked out the finer details, and none of us would be here discussing it today, because, no doubt, it would have been written off as a simple case of a kidnapping for ransom where the victim was never recovered.

      Delete
    3. There were not as many cameras as today, but I remember 1996, they still had a lot of cameras. Sometimes just VCR cameras, but they still worked.

      You know, they would know which phone booth he used. You think he thinks no one would remember seeing him there? I mean that is very risky. There is always someone who remembers something. And the call at the same time he is gone from the house? That would look a little obvious, wouldn't it?

      And how would he trick PR into not thinking it is him?

      Delete
  33. But, just as a fun idea, to roll with your theory, and combine it with my theory. If JR wanted to get really sneaky, JR could go to a phone booth, call, and then drive to FW house. Maybe park far back so he is not seen. Put the body on the ground outside FW's house. Pick it back up. Drive back to the phone booth, and drive home.

    See, that way there is cadaver scent from FW's house to the phone booth. JR cannot have a one way cadaver trail. It has to go somewhere else too. And also if he does that, JR has an excuse now to have cadaver scent in the car. He can say he got it, AFTER he picked up the body.

    JR would defo have to return with body in his car for your plan to work though, otherwise, JR would have no excuse to have the cadaver scent in the car.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bottom line is that cadaver dogs were, for whatever reason, not used, making this further pointless speculation. Enough with the cadaver dogs, already.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Whether they were used or not is not the point. The point, he THOUGHT they would use them.

      Delete
    3. I think we all are speculating here. If we weren't, JR would be jail already. But we have to go on personality profiles and what fits someone profile, to help us along.

      Delete
    4. We most certainly do not. This blog was built around accepted facts from which logical inferences may be drawn. "Personality profiles" are entirely subjective and of no help to deductive reasoning.
      CC

      Delete
  34. People give John too much credit. He clearly is the perpetrator, but he's not a criminal mastermind. He's just a regular rich guy with a plan. It didn't go according to plan which ultimately worked in his favor. Sleuths saying that he would have made sure Patsy didn't call are giving him too much credit. There are so many variables involved, and he couldn't keep tabs on Patsy all day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Zachary. He utilized what little time and resources he had available to him, hoped for the best, and - probably to his amazement as much as the rest of us - got away with murder due to a comedy of errors made by LE that day. John Ramsey got away with it, not because he was a criminal mastermind, but because of a poorly handled investigation. That he didn't count on Patsy calling 911 is just one of several mistakes he made, but the lack of securing the crime scene and LE's belief his wife was the culprit, ultimately lead to him being ruled out. That he is a free man today is not because he is a genius, criminal, mastermind. It is because of a botched investigation.

      Delete
  35. "Ramsey joined the Navy in 1966, served as a Civil Engineer Corps officer in the Philippines for 3 years, and in an Atlanta reserve unit for an additional 8 years."

    John Ramsey was in the military. Canines are very important to the military, they are used all the time to sniff out all kinds of things. Drugs for one. Stowaways into the base. They are often used in battle, to locate injured people. Military dogs are just used for morale too. Military members know the importance of K9's and their uses. And their great noses.

    I do not believe JR was unaware of the use of dogs.

    Now he was lucky enough that the police did not use them. I think if things had gone differently, dogs would have been used. If there was a death suspected right away, they would have called in state police reinforcement. And every state has some more skilled investigators, and use dogs too.

    His use of the kidnapping note delayed or cancelled the use of dogs. Although I think they should used them even after her body was found, and wonder why they did not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just read your comment to my family member who is a retired Navy Commander. He has never come in contact with investigative dogs. Never had them on ships, he says. And if on the base, he's never seen one at the 6 or so bases he has worked at since the early 1970's. Maybe the Army uses them more so.

      Delete
    2. there was no need to use a dog SC, as the body was found in the house. Had it been moved then a dog would have picked up on that, where it had lain, and where it went from there which would have absolutely led the trail to the killer.

      Delete
    3. A dog could have been used to find out what other objects were in contact with the body. For instance, to see if the dog hit on any clothes or objects in the Ramsey's bedroom closets. That would have been very interesting to see.

      They should have brought them in, just as standard. The fact that they didn't, meant they bought the Ramsey's as innocent right away. Which they shouldn't have done.

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

      Delete
    5. I deleted my previous comment because I erroneously believed Inquisitive had been the author and wanted to keep good on my word that I would no longer respond to SC in order to avoid petty squabbles, as she herself had suggested was the best course of action, and for once, I agree (I went to bed last night convinced I would not post on the blog at all until new information was released, but I read a couple of posts from a few people who had asked me to stay, which made me realize some of my comments are actually valid after all! So I decided it served no purpose to "cut off my nose to spite my face", and figured I would now just limit my time here from this point rather than leave altogether, and only respond to comments I feel I can add to.

      So.....this is what my deleted comment read:

      "Actually, the Ramseys were considered as suspects right from the beginning, namely John I do believe, then later, Patsy. I don't think anyone bought the intruder story, did they? I've never read anything to the contrary, but if you do have information that I'm not aware of in regards to LE believing the Ramseys were innocent, therefore not bothering to bring in the cadaver dogs, can you post it here please?"

      Delete
    6. I'm not exactly sure what you were saying here Ms D but I convinced myself over Christmas that an Intruder could not have done this - not because of Lou Smit's unconvincing scenario, but other reasons so you won't be getting an Intruder Did It from me any more. If this DNA testing shows otherwise then of course....back to that we go, but not at this time. Partly because Doc said a few years ago that focusing on an IDI is almost impossible to argue as there are just too many variables, too many possible suspects, it gives rise to fantasy speculations. But the reasons I convinced myself to give it up were other than that. For one the note is just way too specific. An Intruder would have to know the dog was out of the house - and not coming back. An Intruder would have to believe the Ramseys were going to stay out of the house and not come back unexpectedly. An Intruder would have to know how other people spoke about John (good common southern sense). An Intruder would have to have extraordinary skills not making a sound for hours, and take the risk of planting a note upstairs after spending a good deal of time downstairs. Anyway I for one don't think you are anything but a passionate arguer for what you believe. Sometimes when we get a hard critique in here it feels like bullying, but it might not be the case. This site though, is addictive, and it feels good to take time off for a while here and there.

      Delete
    7. Ms D, I'm glad you are back. I've vowed to do the same as you. I won't bother responding to posts that are not well thought out or not well informed, or anything that seems implausible on its face.

      Ms. D: you are exactly right. John Ramsey was the initial focus. Linda Arndt knows this, as do I and many others because it was in the press at the time. Dogs are used to find people, primarily. They are also brought in to prove where a dead might have been. Finding cadaver scents on John or Patsy could be explained away as they touched JBR after she was found, and then those clothes came in contact with other clothes.

      Again, the top sniffer dogs in the world could not get the McCann's arrested. They are helpful to an extent, and I personally believe Madeleine's body was in that rental car of theirs, but it apparently was not enough proof.

      Inq, I'm glad you've been convinced that an intruder is unlikely if not impossible.

      Delete
    8. Yes, thanks Inquisitive, and thank you Anon. I'm so glad you stuck around, you always make a valid, logical argument, along with CC, Mike G and a couple of others.

      My comment above was pertaining to SC's post: "They should have brought them in, just as standard. The fact that they didn't, meant they bought the Ramsey's as innocent right away..."

      The contrary is true as far as I know - LE suspected the Ramseys, or at least one of them, straight away, so I was asking the poster to back up her claim with a source (which I thought you had written, so I responded - it has been constant 100 degree heat for almost a month here and I think it might have, quite literally, fried my brain)

      Delete
  36. Even with the McCann case, with the child immediately gone missing, they didn't bring in the dogs right away.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes I think it was around August when they brought eddie and keeler in, there was controversy over the way the dogs were handled but they at least discovered no one ever reportedly had ever died in the apartment before. It seems pointless to me to discuss cadavers in the JBR case as they were never brought in

    ReplyDelete
  38. I haven't been here for a few days, so I was happy to come back and see that Doc had devoted a new thread to the Complaint against CBS. When I saw that the thread already had 140+ comments, I was excited to open the page and start reading everyone's thoughts.

    My excitement was short lived.

    The majority of these comments are SC Shafer's musings; either flavor-of-the-day amendments to his/her theory or bickering with other posters.

    @SC, While you are free to post your thoughts and theories, please do your homework first. It is only fair to those who have. One of the earliest posts on this thread came from you. You admitted that you hadn't read the Complaint or even watched the CBS show, yet you proceeded to make post after post discussing both. How can you possibly offer anything substantial when you have no knowledge of the subject at hand? It's especially frustrating when that information is sitting right there in front of you, just a click away, yet you chose not to pursue it.

    While it's best to stick with the facts of the case, some aspects we just don't know, so it's hard not to speculate sometimes. That being said, speculation should at least be based on something known. For instance, what you deduce above about FW's behavior flies in the face of what we know about his behavior regarding this case. I think that before you propose a theory, it's important to examine every aspect of said theory. I have no problem reading a post of pure speculation, as long as it's logical and doesn't become obsessive.

    I would like to respectfully ask that you don't drive away the long-time posters here. Along with Doc, they are the "meat and potatoes" of this blog. Whether you choose to see it or not, they offer quite a bit of insight that I, for one, find very useful.

    @Doc, thank you for your review of the Complaint. @CC, thank you for your insight, as always. Ms. D., don't go. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well HKH, I have done a lot of research into defamation case law prior to this. So I might know more than a lot here do about it, other than the actual lawyers. (And trust me, lawyers do not know the law half the time either, especially if it is not part of their specialty.) And my point was to correct some misconceptions. One, information does not just have to be false, it has to be false AND material. Two, I do not believe a person has the responsibility to present all scenarios. The person just has to make sure the information he specifically presents is accurate

      Also I looked for the transcript of the show, I did not see it at that point. It was posted later.

      Also I only made a couple comments on the lawsuit, most in response to my comments, so I hardly think I dominated the thread in that.

      So once again, your criticisms have no merit. But thanks for at least to make your post sound logical.

      Delete
  39. I haven't been here for a few days, so I was happy to come back and see that Doc had devoted a new thread to the Complaint against CBS. When I saw that the thread already had 140+ comments, I was excited to open the page and start reading everyone's thoughts.

    My excitement was short lived.

    The majority of these comments are SC Shafer's musings; either flavor-of-the-day amendments to his/her theory or bickering with other posters.

    @SC, While you are free to post your thoughts and theories, please do your homework first. It is only fair to those who have. One of the earliest posts on this thread came from you. You admitted that you hadn't read the Complaint or even watched the CBS show, yet you proceeded to make post after post discussing both. How can you possibly offer anything substantial when you have no knowledge of the subject at hand? It's especially frustrating when that information is sitting right there in front of you, just a click away, yet you chose not to pursue it.

    While it's best to stick with the facts of the case, some aspects we just don't know, so it's hard not to speculate sometimes. That being said, speculation should at least be based on something known. For instance, what you deduce above about FW's behavior flies in the face of what we know about his behavior regarding this case. I think that before you propose a theory, it's important to examine every aspect of said theory. I have no problem reading a post of pure speculation, as long as it's logical and doesn't become obsessive.

    I would like to respectfully ask that you don't drive away the long-time posters here. Along with Doc, they are the "meat and potatoes" of this blog. Whether you choose to see it or not, they offer quite a bit of insight that I, for one, find very useful.

    @Doc, thank you for your review of the Complaint. @CC, thank you for your insight, as always. Ms. D., don't go. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, H. May I add my plea to yours? Please don't go, Ms D and Anonymous at 8:55 AM (whom I think I recognize and remember from last year). We JDI are few, and we need to stick together and hang tough against the slings and arrows.
      CC

      Delete
  40. Darn. I think my comment got sent to the spam folder again. Doc, would you please check, if you don't mind? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry about that HKH. Don't know why that's happening, but you are right. I just now reinstated your post(s).

      Delete
  41. Yes, it's easy to get bogged down in what might have been and speculate from here to Sunday. This cadaver dog speculating was due to the JDI theory that if Patsy had not called 911 (and heeded the dire warnings spelled out in the note) then John could have removed Burke and Patsy from the house and transported the body from basement to garage to car trunk and then no trace. However cadaver dogs would eventually have been brought in noticing smelling decomposition from basement to garage to trunk of John's car so to speculate that that was his intention is just as much speculation as foreseeing this would have happened. It didn't happen that way so more arguing about it is pointless, but I believe that was SC's claim so it could be laid to rest now? In the case of Baby Lisa Irwin it was quite a shock to find out during the investigation that the scent of decomposition was obtained from the foot of mother's bed. That was a major clue, but only deepened the mystery. Many criminals don't consider the science after the fact, and if John's intention was to remove the body from the house he may have weighed the risk and come up with an explanation, if he could.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Doc - Can we do a full post just about the pineapple bowl? I don't think we have had a chance to discuss that enough ;-)

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miss me, J-man?
      CC

      Delete
    2. Always :-)

      I figured since I already solved this case, I keep coming back to see if Doc starts a new blog with a new case.
      In all seriousness, I enjoy reading your posts and the other lawyer on here to help explain what the current status of the lawsuit is. I keep hoping Burke has a Matlock moment and just confesses to everything while eating pineapple. That is a dream of mine

      -J

      Delete
    3. The way things are going around here lately, I almost share that dream.
      CC

      Delete
    4. J, if Burke can't prove the allegations CBS made about him were false as Dog said, then you will feel vindicated at last :)

      Delete
    5. J, if you would like to write a guest post on the pineapple bowl, email it to me and if it makes any sense at all I'll post it.

      Delete
    6. J, if you could ask Burke three questions while hooked up to a poly, but you couldn't ask if he killed his sister, what would your three questions be.

      Delete
    7. "Documentary (noun): a movie or a television or a radio program that provides a factual record or report."

      "Fact (noun): something known to exist or have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation."

      And therein lies the rub.
      CC

      Delete
    8. And BTW, thanks for the other, J. I try to be informative without lecturing, don't always feel I succeed.
      CC

      Delete
    9. Doc...I think J was kidding,right?

      Delete
    10. Lately, whenever I see the word "pineapple" my head starts spinning and I lose all sense of proportion. So you could be right. On the other hand, why not?

      Delete
    11. Hahaha, yes. When I was grocery shopping last week, they had fresh pineapples on sale at the front of the store, and it immediately got me thinking about J! Needless to say I spent the rest of the shopping trip musing over our discussions here and, as a result, was distracted most of the time.....thanks J! :P

      Delete
    12. LOL!!!! Ms D, you're welcome

      Kathy, I was kidding....sort of :-). I obviously think that pineapple bowl plays a part in this case but to avoid being the guy who people groan when they see my posts, I won't post much more about it.

      Inq - my 3 questions for Burke.....that's tough. 1. Did you ever abuse your sister? 2. Did one of your parents write the RN? 3. Was Patsy involved in any of the staging?

      Those are off the top of my head. It's tough because if I knew for sure he didn't kill her, then my questions would be different and more along the lines of, was your Dad out of bed that night or something similar. Was he ever abused by either parent? Did JB ever confide in him about abuse from a parent?

      -J

      Delete
    13. Oh no, I think your last three questions are dead on! Keep in mind he would be hooked up to a poly, and it would show deception if he answered untruthfully. I'd want to narrow down his timeline that night. I think I'd ask (and they have to be yes or no answers to register on a poly) 1) did you hear your mother up when you snuck back downstairs; 2)did JB come downstairs at any time while you were still up? 3) did you talk to your sister at any time after she was carried to her room asleep. He might not know if Patsy was involved in staging, as he hasn't expressed much interest (appearances)to wanting to know the truth.

      Delete
  43. " However cadaver dogs would eventually have been brought in noticing smelling decomposition from basement to garage to trunk of John's car so to speculate that that was his intention is just as much speculation as foreseeing this would have happened."

    We don't know what JR knew about cadaver dogs.

    I knew about cadaver dogs. Anyone who watches any amount of crime TV knows about cadaver dogs. Nancy Grace was on back then I think. There are many other TV shows too. Anyone who is in the military or police or maybe travels a lot knows about sniffer dogs, and from that, might have heard of cadaver dogs. I would think an engineer who studied science and maybe some biology as a core class would know about chemicals and body decomposition.

    Heck, for all we know, PR was a big Nancy Grace watcher, and JR would sit down and watch it with her.

    And I am surprised you all did not seem to know about cadaver dogs. That shows, that, as interested as you all are in this case, you do not watch crime shows on TV about other cases.

    Clearly a low rent disorganized criminal is not going to know or care about cadaver dogs. But a smart deliberate guy, an engineer, no less, might know about them.

    And like the quote above here, the dogs would have picked up the trail, just to the car, in a second.

    His only chance would have been to remove the body right away, at night. Because I just read, that under like an hour after death, the scent is not as strong.

    So we are speculating on if he knew or did not know about the dogs. If he knew, that would be one good reason to keep the body in the house. And maybe the reason he wrote the kidnap note. To prevent the dogs from being called.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well ahem, I'm not speculating he did or did not know about the dogs as I don't think he did it. I love your playfulness though!

      Delete
  44. You guys are giving new meaning to the old saw, "This place is going to the dogs."
    CC

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I am a, they "both did it" person. So I half believe PDI. I believe she was at least partially involved.

      Delete
    2. So Inq, since I am in the mood to type, I have thought about the PDI theory. It is very possible. It could work in a lot of ways. The problem with all these theories though, is they all work, but only up to a point.

      It works with PR, up until JR just closes the window and does all that restaging. I do not think that JR would do all that, on just a "guess" that maybe PR did it, and he should protect her. I don't think it is enough for him to just sit there for hours, after he saw the body. It does not explain how he picked up the body and messed up the scene.

      I think all that by JR, shows a more active involvement than just guessing his wife might have done it. In fact, most people are in denial about people they know. I don't think his first thought would be, oh my wife did it. He would probably only think that after a long time after and much evidence. I just think it is too much of a leap.

      Not to say that it is not possible, though.

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

      Delete
    4. Oh and another thing that points away from PDI, is the strangulation. I read the strangulation was very strong, leaving grooves in her neck, not just something for show. I do not think Patsy would have the physical and mental strength to do that. That sounds more like something a male would do.

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

      Delete
  46. I just saw this article and was struck by how close it was to the theory of the crime from The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey. In it, a father goes berserk and shoots at his wife and daughter because one of them took a bite of his food. I've always been partial to Doc's theory, but I have to say that the 2-part CBS show did a good job of putting together a convincing argument.

    http://www.wbaltv.com/article/police-called-to-barricade-situation-in-dundalk/8576365

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nope I think my theory, as crazy as it sounds, that both JR and PR staged a faux kidnapping of JBR to cover up for JR's sex abuse, and the abuse that PR also knew about too, after FW called them out on it. But JR had different plans to kill JBR.

    I challenge you all to find one element that does not fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, should be above, "Nope I think my theory, as crazy as it sounds"- works the best,...

      Delete
  48. You are not, despite your insistence, an expert or even particularly well read in child abuse, psychology, the law, handwriting analysis or the facts of this case. Your "theory" which even you have described as "bizarre" and "crazy" has no basis in known facts and cannot be reached through logical reasoning.

    The elements thereof have already been challenged, successfully, many times by many people here - you just refuse to acknowledge it.

    And now I'm done with you, which I believe will leave you talking to yourself and Inquisitive, which seems entirely appropriate.
    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CC, you have have no idea on whatI know about anything. Even though I told you what I know. I read two books on handwriting analysis a long time ago, because I had an interest in it. I read up on defamation case law. I know about child abuse, because I read a lot of articles about it, and also a lot of advice columns where people write in, and other places with case histories of people who talk about their pasts.

      So I know a lot. Probably more than most of you. I just read a lot of stuff. Not to say that there are not people out there, who know more than I do on these subjects, but apparently it's not any of you.

      I think people are just jealous that I know more than they do. I am sorry that other people are not as smart as I am. But I cannot do anything about your insecurities and jealousy. When I see someone smarter than I am, I give them credit. I don't get all jealous and try to bring them down. But that seems to be what is happening here. It's kind of a, 'we hate people smarter than we are' cult going on here.

      Delete
    2. You actually made me laugh out loud! you have been wrong about the underwear,house keys & Fleet White & other things & corrected many times.

      Really smart people don't have to announce that they are, like CC & DocG.

      Delete
    3. On what was I wrong about the underwear? Fleet White did have a key, I did not know so many others did.

      I never professed to knowing all the details of this case. I did not study it for 20 years. I know most of the details, not all. I just got interested in it again. I am learning quick though.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PDI purist, here, Inquisitive. You know that. But, its Doc's blog, and the idea is to put forth another theory, which I respect. But yes, for me, PDI.

      GS

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

      Delete
  50. It may not have been "over bed wetting", but certainly on account of the established history of bed wetting, that no one else heard anything out of the ordinary that night. It was normal routine for JonBenet to wake up in the middle of the night, and to hear footsteps in the hall, a little scolding, and crying.

    I always remember that Patsy was repeating "why did I not hear my baby?"

    Could have been as simple as JonBenet following Patsy, unbeknownst to Patsy, down to the basement to that washing machine. Maybe she grabbed a piece of pineapple on the way down. JonBenet could have startled her, and Patsy swung around with the flashlight in hand.

    But the flashlight, again, makes sense, the usual routine of trying to be quiet and not wake John, using the flashlight so as not to have to turn lights on.

    The reason it has been so hard to solve was because there never was an admission, even between the parents. If you want to keep a secret, like Burke said, you don't tell ANYONE.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
  51. Inquisitive, reading your comments above, yes JR could have been all those things, organized at work, loving towards his daughter, and still do the crime.

    A sociopath is very good at hiding who they are. And to add to that, most people are naive. They will not believe the person they know, can do the things they suspect, and will usually in some way be in denial or even cover for them.

    So any of those things you mention, does not preclude JR, or even PR. There is often no history and no evidence with a true sociopath. You cannot just go by that.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "If you want to keep a secret, like Burke said, you don't tell ANYONE."

    GS, where did he say that? That is interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The only sticking point with all these theories is, you have to come up with a scenario, where "both" parents knew what was going on, on some level.

    And the reason I say that, is the way both parents acted that first morning. Neither searched the house. Both grabbed the body, when they shouldn't have. PR hung up on 911. They invited all those people over right after. Were both vague on crucial details afterwards, that most people would remember. I also think there is a chance PR wrote that note, and used the duct tape.

    And it is tricky to come up with a scenario, where both parents would give consent for this. What would be the motivation.

    Clearly the main motivation is covering up sex abuse. Because if it were just some accident, they would just bring her to the hospital and get lawyers, and lie.

    So it's more than just some accident. It is something intentional. And probably done to cover something up. And what that most likely is, is sex abuse.

    Clearly JR was the main actor here. I do not believe PR would have the physical and mental strength to strangle JBR in that way.

    So how was JR able to get his wife on board, for this act? That is tricky.

    One way is, he lied to his wife, he manipulated her in some way, and he got her to participate, or at least help cover up.

    How could he have done that? Hard to say.

    He could have lied and said he accidentally killed JBR. He could have lied and said Burke accidentally killed her. He could have come up with some weird fake kidnapping plot.

    But JR came up with something. And whatever he came up with, worked. Probably because PR had been manipulated for years already. She probably had already covered up for him before. She perhaps had her own resentment over JBR. And so PR was too weak to fight him. She just accepted it. She chose herself over JBR.

    If you think about it like that, it works. It had to be both.

    ReplyDelete
  54. SC, in his interview shortly after JonBenet's death, with the social worker. She asks him if he has any secrets. He says, more or less, "probably", but that if he did, he wouldn't tell, because then they wouldn't be secret anymore.

    GS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He says, more or less, "probably", but that if he did, he wouldn't tell, because then they wouldn't be secret anymore.

      Okay thanks, that is interesting.

      Delete
  55. "And the reason I say that, is the way both parents acted that first morning. Neither searched the house."

    But the ransom note said she was not in the house.


    "Both grabbed the body, when they shouldn't have."

    Who would not grab their child if she had been missing for several hours?


    "PR hung up on 911. They invited all those people over right after."

    *Patsy* invited all those people over.

    "Clearly the main motivation is covering up sex abuse."

    That's not clear at all, SC, nor established fact. Even the experts disagree that there was any evidence of prior sexual abuse, or that the motive for that night was a sexual assault.

    The only established fact is that there was a history of night time bed wetting, and that Patsy took care of JonBenet when that happened.

    "Because if it were just some accident, they would just bring her to the hospital and get lawyers, and lie."

    Two out of three ain't bad. But then, someone would have had to say "I did it", accident or not.

    A "wait and see if she wakes up" scenario soon showed that it was too late for a trip to the hospital, which may have done poor JonBenet no good, even if that would have happened in a timely fashion.

    GS


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I but I already went into the fact that any reasonable person would search the house for any clues. Only a parent would know the house that well, not police. You would also want to make sure JBR is not tied up in the house somewhere. Come on. You don't just go read that note, as weird as it was, and think, oh okay she's gone now. I'm too tired to look around. You think, oh my god, she can't be gone, she has to be here still, I can't believe it, I have to look everywhere just to make sure! Your scenario that they would just sit there is not realistic.

      ""Both grabbed the body, when they shouldn't have."

      "Who would not grab their child if she had been missing for several hours?"

      Because they were told not to. And any caring parent would not want to mess up the evidence.

      Delete
    2. So GS, I was wondering, since you all know this stuff, how bad was this head injury? Was it something they thought she would have died from? But they said she was conscious when she was being strangled, because it looked like she fought back.

      Delete
    3. Yes, SC, the skull fracture would have killed her, but left no visible injury or blood. That was only found on autopsy. And experts again disagree as to whether JonBenet fought back, or if those marks are just burst capillaries from the ligature.

      GS

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

    ReplyDelete
  57. I just had another thought.

    My idea, was that the parents would want to cover up sex abuse. But earlier, I was thinking about how doctors never check the hymen area on a child, unless there is a really good reason, because no one wants a sex abuse lawsuit.

    So I was just thinking, there has to be something more. The parents would not think they would get busted on sex abuse, just by bringing a child to the hospital. Because they would not think anyone would check.

    And that something more, could be someone, probably FW, threatening to take them police on sex abuse charges.

    Unless the parents were afraid of someone saying something, I don't know that they would be scared of any doctors. There weren't before. But something was different now. And that was someone who knew something.

    ReplyDelete