For those of you interested in the Teresa Halbach murder case, Dateline will be airing a special tomorrow night (Friday). Ken Kratz, the prosecutor with a new book out will be a featured guest. All sorts of tests have been taking place, supposedly, but Steven Avery's lawyer Kathleen Zellner has been uncharacteristically quiet for some time now, suggesting that all may not have panned out as she had hoped. Once the tests are in, I'll probably have more to contribute regarding Avery's guilt, which for me is a no brainer. Meanwhile a decision on the possible release of his nephew, Brandon Dassey, is pending. He could be out any day now.
Thanks for posting this, Doc. I watched the series, and will definitely tune in tonight to watch this. I think his defense is that someone is trying to frame him so they don't have to pay him for the false imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteEG
Lil - I'm still reading this article you linked. I skipped ahead to page 5, then I'll go back to page 3. What I like is they are literally bringing every single thing up that may have had to do with her murder - and of course previous abuse. And discussing it. There is no trying to refute it, possibly because as you said there are only two discussing it. For Anonymous I think it was, since there is more than one, or Gumshoe, or anyone, John Andrew figures rather prominently in the discussions and so I think it's worth reading what Lil sent in it's entirety. It is really a picture of a dysfunctional family, and dysfunction in Patsy Paugh's home before she became a Ramsey. There are things in this article that are similar to what the book mentions I referred to Gumshoe by the Psychiatrist. There is also a very interesting passage in this article where Patsy is questioned by investigators regarding them finding evidence of prior abuse. She doesn't act shocked at all. He then presses her "wouldn't that information be shocking to you?" (my own italics) and she then seems to feign shock. She then stammers and says "I...I..knew" but her attorney is present and the interviewer isn't good at pressing at all so she is able to take control of the interview and divert attention once again.
ReplyDeleteWhat is clear from this article is that JB could have had several abusers. She was sexualized - by none other than Patsy - in the pageant videos. She was made to dress up like a doll, her hair was bleached, lipstick was applied and not just for the pageants but for photographs, for parades. All semblance of looking like a six year old was erased for at least a portion of her life. She was, according to this discussion, at the school nurse's office every single Monday morning for one thing or another. She just did not have a chance in life for growing up a normal kid. And very likely history repeated itself from Patsy's life.
The two on the forum really do go over the police interviews, the books written by those that worked the case, and news coverage. There is some chitchat, as they are music fans, and apparently the forum was originally created about Nine Inch Nails, art,etc. I gave the link to the direct thread on the case discussion. Further into the posts there is discussion of the Ativan and Paxil, etc that Patsy was taking. I'm very happy you are enjoying reading the entries.
DeleteCan you repost the link, please, diamondlil? I looked for it on the previous thread, but it took me to a review of Steve Thomas's book, so I must have opened the wrong one.
DeleteOne other comment before continuing to read. People in here say Patsy couldn't have killed her daughter, she "doted" on her. But when you see how unhealthy that "doting" was you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that there was some "break" that night that served as the trigger for what came next. She was a life sized doll some of the time, and a little girl other times. I think she carried that family in that she was the life spark in that very messed up family - an aloof put all your time and energy into your business father; an ambitious put all of your time and energy into your daughter and by doing so, stay in the limelight yourself mother; and a neglected son who is given attention only peripherally. His primary caregiver was Patsy, and her attention was not on him.
ReplyDeleteI never saw how unhealthy Patsy's "doting" was. I lived thirty miles south of Boulder and my kids attended different schools. The possibility there was a "break" that night between her and JonBenet, that triggered what came next, is far too small to reach a threshold beyond which certainty John acted alone in murdering his daughter is no longer established beyond a reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteOr, to put it in terms you'll be sure to understand, "to at least acknowledge the possibility that...some "thing" happened"...is just another you, the spider, inviting us, the fly, to supper tonight at your place. Sorry Spidey, but we have other plans.
Mike G.
No, it's me trying to make sense of who could have done this, was it an accident and then intentional murder, what precipitated it, why all of the subterfuge and lying surrounding it, why the detectives couldn't figure it out and make an arrest, and why we are still scratching our butts about it 20 years later. No intent to mislead, misdirect or confuse anyone here. What is your point about never seeing Patsy's doting - if you lived 30 miles from her and kids attended different schools does that mean you knew her or didn't know her? I'm going to suggest that very few did know this family, their image they projected was "perfect". So how does the daughter of a perfect family in a perfect town get perfectly murdered.
DeleteMike G, I apparently forgot you were living close to Boulder at the time. Did you ever know of the pageants and parades she was in then as far as seeing it in the papers or being at one of the events?
DeleteLil:
DeleteNever. I had two boys...no girls. I was as shocked as anyone when the news first came out about JonBenet's participation in pageants. All I remember was being very angry when Alex Hunter announced the decision not to indict; I knew right away something was rotten in Denmark. And this was without EVER seeing the ransom note, just being aware that one existed and was left behind by the "kidnapper". I don't think the police released the RN until at least a year or two later. Had the public seen it letter early on, the outrage would have been twice what it was. No one ever talked about Burke, and rarely did I hear anyone say they suspected an intruder. Everyone believed it was one or both parents.
Inquisitive, I think you put too much emphasis on the pageants. They were a very small part of JB's life, and a relatively recent addition. Unfortunately, the media swooped on the pics after her death, and the image of a little girl with a halo of chemically lightened hair, mascara and lipstick became indelibly etched into our minds, and it is those pictures that are synonymous with JB's death. But upon further inspection, she really hadn't been in a great deal of pageants (though how many is "too many" is relative, of course) and from all who knew her, she adored participating in them, and was never pushed. Little girls love to play dress up (For the record, I am not in support of beauty pageants either for children or adults - it is demeaning for women/young girls to be paraded around like prize cattle at a country fair - but I'm looking at it as a six year old girl might). Beauty pageants are common amongst the upper class in the south and adding hair extensions, false eyelashes and spray tans is the norm. Creepy? Yes. Inappropriate? Absolutely. A sign of an abusive parent? I don't believe so. I don't see Patsy as a control freak who pushed her daughter, I really don't. Most of what I've read regarding Patsy's behaviour was that she was actually pretty lax in regards to her parenting skills. Both of her children were weened off their bottle quite late, and were potty trained even later - not the hallmarks of an overbearing mother who is trying to present a public image of perfect children.
DeleteI know you don't see it Ms D. We differ there.
DeleteHowever, I put some emphasis on the pageants. I put more emphasis on how Patsy answers the interviewer's questions. Once you begin reading Lil's link you will see. Pages 7 and 8 so far in particular. There are questions and answers there I haven't read anywhere else. As for potty training, both kids regressed in that area. And you have to wonder why. Both kids.
DeleteOh Brother...from a DNA to a potty training case.
Delete"You say you wanna a Devolution, well..you know, we all want to solve the case...
You talk about a real solution, well...you know, the potty ain't the place.
So if you want Justice for JonBenet...
It wasn't her brother or Patsy that put her...IN HER GRAVE!
da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da
Don't you know it's gonna be, J. Ramsey...!
You know it's gonna be...J. Ramsey...!
(repeat and Fade out)
Mike G
Hahaha, Mike! I like it! :D
DeleteDiamond, I'm not sure why your so excited about that forum thing between James Lofton who posted here a few times last September with the rest of you who arrived after all the TV specials and RF. He's done some more reading and research since then, but its still just some guy's opinions.
ReplyDeleteAnd? See when I posted about this yesterday, I knew some weren't going to care, read it...so James Lofton posted here? And what? People posting then also didn't have opinions? He was told to bugger off?
DeleteWhat or who is RF? Real as f*ck?
One of those photos I hadn't seen before Lil - little miss Christmas - in her red jumpsuit, boots, green ribbon around the boots, gay little red hat on her head, long very bleached blonde hair, posed, and makeup. I really think the little girl had had enough but was too young to do anything about it. I didn't begin my rebellion until age 13 but I wanted to at age 7. It's that knowingness that you are powerless as a child, and so you just bide your time until you can put your foot down.
DeleteSome of her pictures I swear Patsy had to be adding hair extensions, falls, weaves to make her Jonbenet's hair fuller, thicker, and of cousre more blonde. Notice her natural hair in the death photos and her last Christmas, she seems to have fine hair.
Delete(I didn't get my first hair cut until I was 7. And then it was my mom's decision so it was only bangs. The rest of my hair was past my waist. And it's never been colored.)
I was molded in other ways. I had to have proper table etiquette, correct posture, speak only when spoken to, be quiet and let the adults talk, never interrupt, don't slur my words or blur my consonants, enunciate. I see where it was coming from. Now, ha. But it was control. Imagine if your mother was fixated on your looks, and that you had to be identical to her? The pressure.
DeleteMy mother sent me to finishing school in my mid teens to learn proper etiquette and deportment.....I think I failed miserably, I'm still as uncouth as I always was. Can't take me anywhere! :P
DeleteMay I take that Lil? Because I'm very fascinated with the piece. Because for the most part no one is trying to make what they discuss "fit" into any particular theory other than the occasional "horseshit" comment. They aren't arguing their case, they are expressing their concerns, doubts, and in the process giving the reader more information than I have gotten anywhere else. Lil was just passing the information along, right Lil? I'll take the heat, :)
ReplyDeleteApparently Inq I did not get the syllabus that Anon has. Ah, again, the petunia in the onion patch.
DeleteCorrect Inq, I found the forum link when doing a Google search on the case and had never come across it before. Of course I see ffj, reddit, topix, et al come up with various searches. Heck, I didn't know what to expect when I clicked on it. Did some reading off and on, and thought that a specific few might enjoy it here. I thought of you and Gumshoe. Who knows, possibly zed and j. Apparently not Anon but like I GAS. But as Bobby Brown says- everybody talkin all this stuff about me, why don't they just let it be...
Ah, you like rap? That's cool. There are some very poetic revealing linguistic twists and turns to rap music, if you appreciate it for the artform it is!
ReplyDeleteI found this article written by a one, Michael Yerkey a while back, who was in the "Santa Bill did it" frame of mind. Okay yes, it had multiple misspelled words, but whoever he was he put a great deal of work and thought into it and I thought it would be interesting. No - because it was an IDI theory. Oh well. You can please some of the people some of the time and ...you get the drift.
I like a big variety of music, and that is probably the only Bobby Brown song I know of his the best. The other day I linked to an Ella Fitzgerald song, I love Grandpa Jones, The Offspring, Dean Martin, Def Leppard, Louis Prima, Tennessee Ernie Ford, Rhianna...reiki music, bagpipes, Juggernaut Jug Band, Flo Rida...oh I could go on for months about music I dig. - gimme the beat boys that free my soul...okay, yes, I ran across that Yerkey piece and didn't finish it for some reason. It also crossed my mind if he could be some shirt tail cousin of mine, due to his name.
DeleteNo need to look up Yerkey again. It wasn't the best footnoted reference to this case, but if something is interesting, I'll read it.
DeleteFinished page 5 Lil and am partially down page 6. It's very clear both parents are allowed to take control of the interviewing process, the questioning in multiple instances. They are allowed to divert attention to certain objects by bringing in other objects as possibly being relevant or saying (both of them) they don't understand what a particular object is doing in the picture, it doesn't look right, it shouldn't belong there - like the box of tissues. As if John Ramsey would know or care where a tissue box would belong. It's a diversionary tactic. Remember when he said the Maglite looked "dirty"? But what is very pathetic is that none of these detectives - Smit, Thomas, Trujillo, DeMuth, make much attempt to keep the Ramsey's on point. I do give Thomas points for confronting the Ramsey's on Larry King, but the time to have done that was much earlier on. Interviewing in a murder investigation is an ART. And should be a developed skill, taught, learned. They should have handed it over to the FBI and left it there. Would that we could all be as accomplished as a television actor with a script to follow but just to point out an old show NYPD Blue Jimmy Smits had a style of interviewing that was nothing short of amazing. Dennis Franz, okay, but used anger. Smits used emotion. He sensed a crack in the facade of his killer - be it man or woman - and exploited it. Leaned in. And leaned hard. When, for example, John Ramsey is offering up Bill McReynolds as a possible suspect by saying JB gave him a tour of the house Dec. 23, and spent time with him the previous Christmas - that she, if she was anticipating a secret visit from Santa would have gone any place at any time with him, even to the Mall, would do that with anyone pretty much I would have leaned in hard on that. Asked him if he thought that was appropriate behavior for a six year old. Who in his household was training JB or allowing her to get the message that that was okay? Is that an example of teaching values such as safety, proper trust in people, especially males who are much older than yourself? I would have leaned in on John and said "I'll go bring Mr. McReynold's right now if you have any reason to believe he could have harmed your daughter, and I will let him know exactly why we think that." I would not, under any circumstances, allow the Ramsey's to direct my investigation. Sorry, but it's not so much that the Ramsey's were so clever in this case, it's that the detectives were so utterly inexperienced. Smit should have known better. Someone needs to write a book on this case how NOT to run it.
ReplyDeleteMs D, here is Lil's link for you:
ReplyDeletehttp://fincklandboard.proboards.com/thread/23/jonbenet-ramsey-20-years
Thank you, Inq!
DeleteYou betcha!
DeleteI think I'm up to page 8 on that forum. Thanks for adding the link again. Earlier I did a search for posts here by James and found a few.
ReplyDeleteMike - thanks for replying. To be almost a local, the saturation must have been crazy then. Or was it more national coverage and after awhile the local news went back to normal after awhile?
Did your sons seem aware of the murder? I would think that kids might have their own fears.
Hey, that makes me wonder if Jonbenet and Burke's school had counselors available to the other students? These days it seems to be done at schools whether it's a car accident or violence.
I have to take breaks from the forum Lil. There is so much transcripts to read, much more and complete than I've ever seen anywhere else. I thought I was on 8 but I hadn't finished 7. Now I'm on 8. I'm getting more convinced that JB was not asleep and carried into the house. I think she was awake. Burke said she was. All of the time we're trying to figure out when she would have taken a piece of pineapple and she may have just walked into the house that night when they arrived home and taken it then, and no one may have noticed. What is really creepy is there are a whole heck of alot of pictures that aren't released to the public. The roll of film in the Ramsey camera, pictures that were taken from their camera and then the way the house seems to have been staged, re-staged and then staged again, and pictures taken at the White's party, which would of course clear up what she was wearing that night. The police are holding on to those pictures.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any new comments for several hours, which is unusual. I'm wondering whether there's a problem with the blog software or whether the usual participants are losing interest in this case. That wouldn't be surprising because we keep going round in circles so much of the time. However, if any of you are having problems publishing your comments, please email me at doktorgosh (at) live.com and I'll see if I can fix it.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know when CBS's response to the complaint is due, or did they already submit it and it just didn't make the news? I think we're all kind of waiting for that at this point Doc.
ReplyDeleteMike G
Yeah, Mike, I've been waiting for that too. Everything connected with the legal system takes forever.
DeleteI've been uncharacteristically silent due to being immersed in the link diamondlil posted. As Inquisitive said, there are a few things contained therein that I was unaware of. Most of it, I take with a grain of salt, unless it is a transcript of a police interview. I must admit, Doc, I did find this comment of Patsy's a tad troubling, but it could just be a case of unfortunate wording on her part:
Delete"Uh-huh, I have flashbacks of seeing my daughter lying down on the floor in our living room, and I have flashbacks of hearing Jonbenet scream"
Hearing Jonbenet scream.....hmmm. Did she mean she has dreams where she hears her scream or was it a slip? DID she possibly hear her scream that night?
Disturbing Forum, isn't it Ms D? How about the interview where the detective asks her if she knew about previous sexual abuse, and tells her it would be shocking information would it not? In any event yes, shocking she admits. He asks her if she knew and she stammers. Now that is around page 15 possibly? She stammers I...knew...I...Shortly after that her attorney (who was not Lin Wood at the time) advises they take a break.
DeleteYou have to take anything you read on any of the forums with a huge grain of salt, Ms. D. Lots of these reports are at second or third hand. Assuming she did say that, I find it hard to believe she intended it as some sort of confession. She was certainly aware of her neighbors report about the scream, which is probably what she was referring to. People keep fishing for anything they can find in any of Patsy's utterances that might be seen as some sort of "confession" or fatal "slip." To me that's just nonsense. There is no real evidence of her involvement whatsoever.
Delete@Inq, It's pretty clear (to me anyway) where PR was going with the statement, "I mean, I knew -- I -- I --"
DeleteWhen TH is discussing the issue of prior sexual abuse, PR asks him two different times if he means prior to the night JB was killed.
Reading the interview in it's entirety, it seems pretty obvious that what PR was about to say she "knew," was that JB was sexually assaulted the night she was murdered.
@Ms. D., I found that statement made by PR troubling too. She doesn't say she has nightmares of hearing JB scream, she says she has flashbacks of hearing her scream. Like you said, it could just be unfortunate wording, but it did strike me as odd.
DeleteLooks like the statement was made during her 1998 BPD interview.
"Reading the interview in it's entirety, it seems pretty obvious that what PR was about to say she "knew," was that JB was sexually assaulted the night she was murdered."
DeleteThat is exactly what I was going to say in response to Inq's question, HKH. That particular comment of Patsy's didn't raise a red flag for me at all, I thought it was obvious that Patsy was going to say "I knew.....she'd been sexually abused *that night*", or something to that effect.
Yes Doc, I think it's likely that Patsy meant she hears JB scream in her dreams, rather than having a "flashback" or actual memory of her screaming. Or, as you said, she may be referring to her neighbour's claim of having heard JB scream. I'm a firm JDI, Doc, but of course, there's always a comment or two that make you wonder.....but every time these "slip ups" can be very easily explained away and so far there is nothing that Patsy has said or done that makes me think she was involved in the murder of her daughter. But, every now and then I come across a comment that has me speculating if Patsy did begin to have some serious doubts *after* the fact. One of these times is when she is shown what appears to be an inappropriate photo taken of Jonbenet that is on the same roll of film as the xmas morning pics, (and that suspicious photo of the spiral staircase) and she wonders out loud who would take such a photo and why. As we don't know the contents of the photo, we can only speculate what it contained, but if it is of a sexual nature - as appears to be the case - there's only one person who would have taken that photo using John's camera. Burke isn't going to take an inappropriate photo of his sister using his father's camera, and neither is Patsy - she has her own camera. John, on the other hand, probably expected he'd be the one to pick up the roll of film after it was developed and no one would be any the wiser. Perhaps he'd done it several times before, after all, the investigators keep going back to those photos of JB that were found in the basement the day she was found murdered. I'd love to know what those photos contained and if any of them were actually shot down in the basement (at one time the detective says they weren't, at another time he says they were, so it's anyone's guess) because that would certainly change things. If someone is snapping inappropriate pics of Jonbenet in the very place she was murdered using a Ramsey camera, along with hiding them in there, well it's pretty damn obvious who that person would be. Was Daddy taking some erotic photos of JB xmas night when something went drastically wrong?
What exactly are you referring to, Ms. D? I don't recall anything about any "inappropriate" photo of JonBenet ever having been taken, by anyone. If such a photo had been found on a roll of film from John's camera that would have been huge and John would certainly have been questioned about it.
DeleteThere WERE some very odd shots on that roll of film. According to John they were taken aimlessly simply to complete the roll before extracting it from the camera. I've done that many times myself. I've never heard of anything inappropriate, however. Can you identify a source for that statement?
on the Forum LE was questioning Patsy regarding what he termed "cutesy" photos found in the basement, photos we haven't nor will be ever be allowed to see. Also Patsy, in regard to the roll of film shot Christmas day, is asking if they are interested in the film is it because she isn't in the pictures - and if they are wondering if she shot the film.
DeleteCan anyone tell me what page of the forum the questioning was regarding the prior sexual abuse, where Patsy stammers? I've looked over page 14-18 and can't find it again and don't have time right now to keep looking. To me that question was set up specifically to ask not only if she knew about a sexual attack that night, but if she knew about any prior abuse. But I have to read it again to be sure. Thanks
Delete@Inq, it's on page 5 of the forum. Here's a link to the transcript on acandyrose as well: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-sexual-abuse.htm
DeleteDoc, I'm STILL searching for the transcripts that pertain to what could be deemed as inappropriate photos of Jonbenet and the photos of her found in the basement! It is contained in the link diamondlil posted and I have to scour through the previous nineteen pages I've read....though I think it was somewhere between pages 3 and 7, though, for the life of me, I can't find it!
DeleteStill here, Doc. There have been some interesting things on the forum site Lil gave us, so alot of reading. For one, complete and full transcripts of interviews. And the notion that that house, in particular the basement area, could have been staged, re staged, unstaged, and staged again throughout the morning. We all have agreed that the crime scene pictures show things having been moved around. Fleet was in that basement several times as well. Also there is the suggestion that (and Beckner mentions this as well) what the public knows is false - a lot of it. That's disturbing.
ReplyDeleteActually all the police transcripts were published years ago by our friends at the National Enquirer. And yes, there are probably some things that have never been made public. I certainly hope they kept some details to themselves.
DeleteInqui, I have to say there was a moment when I thought, omg, did someone, (JBR) use that Santa suit that night and the "cotton" found was some of the stuffing for the belly that fell out. Because the "looks like cotton" was taken into evidence and Patsy was questioned quite a bit about it. And the family Santa suit was also taken into evidence. So indeed, lots of evidence photos yet to be seen.
DeleteAnd it was like The House of Ropes, all over the dang place. They have one photo I forgot about, rope on top of the toilet tank lid in the basement.
~still here Doc, have outdoor painting projects I'm doing and made the mistake of going with my hub to the Verizon store earlier, where of course they acted like they had no clue what their webpage deals were. grrr
Thanks Mike and Inq. I think the thin drip of comments today means we're all kind of running out of steam -- which may be a good thing. I'm sure we'll all be back at it when the CBS response is released -- hopefully soon.
ReplyDeleteAnd the DNA results -
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet's start a new discussion. John must be the unluckiest man alive - he claims 3 different homes were broken in to so far in his lifetime. Two of them resulted in assaults to him or his family. First, it was 15th Street, where JonBenet was murdered. Then in DOI, he puts forth the story that an intruder left a pair of boots and a suitcase with neatly folded male clothing in it in the house in Michigan circa 1998 - and the intruder conveniently slept in or otherwise disturbed JonBenet's bed. Then once he relocated to Atlanta, John again experiences an intrusion complete this time wth bodily injuries. During this incident, he states he went to home depot to buy some door hinges, then arrives back at the house only to find a burglar has randsacked the upstairs bedroom, and is starting to make off with two bags of personal affects. After struggling with the intruder, John states he decides to let the intruder shut him up in a bathroom while subsequently, the intruder makes off with the loot. Yeah, extremely unlucky he is...
ReplyDeleteAh right, good recall R-Fed! I wonder if he had his investigators run DNA on that stuff left at the Michigan home? And by the time he got to Atlanta, why not get ADT installed?
Delete(however my dad did get ADT installed and deadbolts after thieves got into his spare house. A few months later they hit the home he lives in, with 3 dogs inside and the alarm going off).
With John's homes - a Killer, a Squatter, and a Thief. I'd want trail cams, home security cams, some big bad dogs, alarms, maybe some attack copperheads...
Circa 1998, JBR was dead. That the Ramsey's still had a "bed" or "bedroom" they identified as hers sounds suspicious. This so-called intruder sure had labyrinthine knowledge of Ramsey home belongings and architecture.
DeleteMike G
Here is a online chat with Detective Steve Thomas from 2000 if anyone wants a refresher on this.
ReplyDeletehttp://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html
He mentions that 'both sides' read the online crime case forums
(link was posted this week on a topix thread)
Thanks Lil - I got to this Steve Thomas interview just now. I had harsh things to say about him months ago but I think he did the best he could, now. He has sure stuck by his convictions. I don't exactly remember what his small "bit part" was on the CBS special, do you? Is he still of the PDI mindset?
DeleteI don't recall his part, but I seem to recall he is a nice looking man, lol. I think he still believes in Patsy being the perp.
DeleteRegarding the ransom note, something I have noticed, but have not seen any mention of, is that a number of the letters are very squiggly. In particular, the "W" in "We are a group of individuals" and the "D" in "adequate", and the "Ls" in "you will withdraw" To me, this seems like the author could have been extremely nervous or upset. I still feel as if Patsy wrote the note with input from John to cover up something that happened.
ReplyDeleteLil, there are an enormous amount of "oddities" on that forum site. Ropes, yes, boots and cowboy/girl themes, some "cutesy" pictures in the basement that were found that the investigators bring up, over and over, plus the roll of film Fleet took at his party, pictures taken on the 23rd and the rest of the film from Ramsey's camera on Christmas day. There is of course all of the "confusion" over objects in the house - Patsy staying this looks out of place, that looks out of place, etc., just in an attempt I think to confuse and change the subject. To think that so much of what we all "know" is not really how it is - or was. It's such a mess now it won't get solved. As the contributors to that forum said there seemed to be multiple crimes within crimes, also factoring in prior abuse.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said many times, if you approach this case by attempting to make sense of all the evidence, you will wind up in a huge morass from which there is no escape. On the other hand, if you pay attention to the logic, it's relatively simple.
DeleteIf you go by the evidence, there is no way to ever be sure if an intruder was present or not, but once you realize that no intruder scenario makes sense, then the "evidence" becomes irrelevant.
Same with all the "evidence" pointing to either Patsy, John or Burke. You can always find some pieces of "evidence" that appear to implicate any one of them -- or all of them. Pick your favorite and go hunting and you can be sure to find "evidence" pointing to that person. It's called cherry picking.
On the other hand, when you consider the logic -- well you all know what I'm about to say, no need to repeat myself.
Doc, what did you think of Woodward's book?
DeleteNo need to answer this Doc, I read pages of this book on "nook" and it's very pro-Ramsey and pro-perfect little family. I suppose that's how she got her interviews and information.
DeleteI've written a review of that book on this blog, Inq. Look it up.
DeleteInq - I'm almost finished with the thread. I do think the BPD that worked the crime scene, took pics and vids and processed items taken onto evidence did a good job, since the house had so much stuff thru out. We have yet to see the garage videos/pics.
DeleteTake a look at this crime pic of Jonbenet's bathroom. From the shakedown site which we have linked to a few times.
https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/jonbenet-bathroom.jpg
While some have commented on the crown near the basin,look under the little makeup bag, to the lower right of the basin. That thing looks like a clear vinyl/latex glove. Nothing a kid would typically use, but could be for hair coloring, housekeeping- for cleaning or painting, etc. It's not a dishwashing glove, but could be used for that. It could be for medical use. Or used to change soiled sheets or to pick up soiled clothes.
I wonder if the parents were asked about the glove?
I read Doc's opinion of "evidence".
I'm aware that many items found at a crime scene may not have any connection to the actual crime, but I'm glad that our law enforcement does try to gather what they do, as it doesn't always happen at times and is a let down for some.
Posting to include the first responding officer French's report. I'm assuming when he got the clothing description of what Patsy said sje last saw her daughter wearing was *before* the pediatrician gave her heavy meds.
DeleteOfficer French notes that Ms Ramsey tells him the clothing is the longjohns and *red turtleneck*.
Police Report link
https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/file-nov-23-6-43-34-pm.jpeg
Thanks for that very useful link, lil. And yes, Patsy's statements regarding JBR's outfit were inconsistent. However, like all the other bits of "evidence" in this case, that observation is no help at all. Unless one can come up with a reason why Patsy would have deliberately lied about that outfit, it's impossible to relate the discrepancy to the crime. Same with her confusing statements regarding the oversize panties.
DeleteThe most reasonable explanation is that either Patsy got confused or the policeman misunderstood -- or mis-quoted what she told him. Unless someone can come up with some reason why Patsy would have wanted to lie about either of those items, I see no reason to take such reports seriously.
I finished the long forum last night - unless there is more past page 21, doesn't appear to be. I like the way they discussed everything - they just said what about this or that and then talked about it. I don't see how anyone after reading all of this thinks Patsy isn't involved. How, we don't know. Even if all she did was try and keep LE from getting at the truth that's being involved. When she's asked if it could have been some accident later that night and then a cover up for someone she goes from confused to aggressive. I think someone hit close to home there. It's a wonder though either one of them can sit for a police interview, looked at dozens of pictures and say something looks out of place in that chaos of a house - or think an intruder would have had any success navigating around all of the stuff left on the floors and draped over furniture or tiny little objects that would have made a noise under a foot, or wouldn't have been surprised by someone being up or getting up. It's just preposterous to think that either parent would be up all night murdering and staging and the other one wouldn't notice - wouldn't hear, wouldn't see anything. Just not believable. Another thing - how is it that your child's pediatrician is allowed to prescribe heavy tranquilizer's for the mother? Wouldn't her own doctor have been called?
Delete"Wouldn't her own doctor have been called?"
DeleteIt was Christmas time, perhaps it is simply that he wasn't available and Dr Beuf was. He has the authority to be able to prescribe medication, Patsy was in immediate need of some, so why not? I don't see how his writing her a prescription is either here nor there, honestly.
You are right in other ways too Retired Fed - John does seem to like to "spin a yarn." He not only had to break into the house and used the basement window - but he had to remove his clothes all but underwear and shoes the summer before the murder. It's just bizarre to think about this. You have to take your shoes off to remove your trousers, then he risks being seen standing outside in his underwear by putting his shoes back on to go through the window? He did have a good cover for that though by saying there is so much junk on the basement floor he could have stepped on some of it. He thinks of everything! wow! It's just pure embellishment. Same instance where you have brought up his other story struggling with an intruder, and getting shut up in the bathroom for all of his efforts. Can we maybe find another passage in John Douglas's "Mindhunter" that may have given him an idea for this yarn? But he's not alone. Patsy also would fudge the lines of believability in her statements. Burke seems to be the only one in the 1998 interview who is honest, straightforward, clear. And Gumshoe, did a cooler mind prevail in authoring the note? It's both quirky, and dispassionate.
ReplyDeleteSwitching topics . . .
ReplyDeleteI watched Dateline's show on the Steven Avery case the other night. I have been following that case also, albeit off and on, ever since Netflix launched the case into the public eye with its show "Making a Murderer." There really wasn't anything new reported in Dateline's show, other than an interesting interview with Tom Fassbender, the detective who interrogated Brandan Dassey. Fassbender defended his technique and style of that interrogation, which I believe he received unfair criticism for. I agree with Fassbender that Brandan Dassey did give an honest confession of his part in the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach. It was also interesting to hear what he had to say about both the blood evidence found in Halbach's car (Avery's blood) and the key to Halbach's car which was found in Avery's trailer.
But there are still a lot of people out there who feel Avery was framed and that the confession given by his nephew was a false confession. There are those who believe the Manitowoc police planted all that evidence as revenge against Avery who was suing them. For those people out there I have just one question: do you really believe the police - even if corrupt - would actually kill an innocent young woman, burn her body and then plant her bone fragments in a burn pile on Avery's property, plant Avery's blood, plant the shell casing found in the garage which had Halbach's blood on it, plant Halbach's car keys, and try to hide her vehicle in Avery's junk yard? Even if they were capable of doing all that, wouldn't you think Avery would have seen some of this going on on is property? After all, he did say he saw some headlights going down the road that night or the night before. Certainly he would have seen some of all this planting going on.
Emma
Emma- I watched the series with several folks. We all came to the same conclusion independently. Avery did the murder, Dassey was likely present and abetted Steven; but Dassey was underage, uneducated and not responsible for the murder nor responsible for the other crimes.
DeleteJust the thoughts of a few mid-American folks.
Hello Emma,
ReplyDeleteI also watched Dateline and Making of a Murderer on Netflix. I don't think the police would have done all of that. However, if I recall correctly, didn't he have an issue with his brother in law? Someone hated him and perhaps they were trying to frame him. The interview of the nephew, from what I saw on MOAM was coerced and a stretch. They fed him the information, and gave him the answers they wanted him to give them. That was my opinion after I watched it.
I thought they were coming out with a Part II of MOAM, or perhaps that was going to continue if the DNA evidence came back in his favor. This should be interesting, in any case.
EG
I found the Dateline show disappointing. There was very little in it that was new to anyone who's been following the case in any detail. The interview with Fassbender was especially disappointing because he never really defended his interviews with Dassey, he simply asserted that he'd followed standard procedure. I have a feeling a lot of what he had to say was probably cut.
DeleteI found the police interviews with Dassey quite disturbing because these guys were very heavy handed and yes, they did at times feed him some leading questions. They could have done a much more convincing job. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself why, if they'd been setting Avery up, they'd have depended on their ability to manipulate such an unreliable and unpredictable witness, who could have totally denied everything and provided Avery with an alibi instead.
What the Dateline show never mentioned was Dassey's prior confession to his young cousin, who reported it to her school counselor -- in writing. It was on this basis that Dassey was interrogated in the first place. When they told him they knew what happened, that was essentially the truth, because much of it was spelled out in his cousin's report. And when they told him they were trying to help him that was also the truth, because the initial plan was for him to serve as a witness to what Avery had done in return for a reduced sentence. To me it was obvious that Brendan was under tremendous pressure from both Avery and the family to not cooperate with the police and the conflict between what he knew and what the family expected explains the inconsistencies in his responses, as well as the long silences. The police "got into his head" all right, but their intention was to extract the truth, not manipulate him.
We keep hearing about how Dassey was easily manipulated because he was so young and slow witted. Yes -- manipulated by Avery, not the police, who were only trying to pry the truth out of a confused and reluctant witness. Because he was manipulated, and also no doubt threatened, by Avery, I think he should have gotten a much lighter sentence. His first lawyer saw the handwriting on the wall and was trying to get him to cut a deal. But he was replaced by lawyers hired by the family whose primary allegiance was to his uncle, not him. Those lawyers imo have a lot to answer for, because this kid did not deserve a life sentence or anything close.
And yes, Emma, the notion that the police would go to such great lengths to set Avery up is not only unbelievable but laughable. No need to burn the body, no need to smuggle the remains onto Avery's property. If they wanted to frame him all they needed to do was plant some blood in his bedroom and bury the body on his property, where it could conveniently be "discovered" a day or so later. Why go to all the trouble to burn it? What would be the point?
DeleteAvery's high powered, publicity conscious, lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, is on a fishing expedition which looks like it's about to backfire. NO tweets from this lady on the results of the new tests she ordered. Strange for someone who prior to 2017 was tweeting practically on a daily basis. I think she's hoping to pull off a Hail Mary and when the dust clears she'll probably still be insisting on his innocence. But I very much doubt that any of those tests will turn out as she'd hoped. No doubt due to the great "conspiracy" against him.
IMO I feel that John started molesting Jonbenet when Patsy was ill and in the hospital. It became their secret, it was on going for years. Jonbenet wasn't a shy girl, it's been said that she would ask any grown up close by to wipe her after using the toliet. December 23rd Christmas party there was a 911 call made by Mr. White, but when police arrived the Stines assured them everything was fine, the call was made by accident. I don't believe that. I think that Mr. Stine heard jonbenet ask for help in the bathroom and took advantage of the situation, Mr. White must have witnessed something and that was why he called police. The Stines and Ramsey both left for Atlanta, all the other friends got dropped. Why only the Stines remain? Because they're also guilty of abusing Jonbenet. It makes sense. If Jonbenet had been molested by her father since she was very little the abuse could have felt normal to her so she wouldn't even think to tell anyone, however when Mr. White caught her and Mr. Stine and made a big deal of how wrong it was, that could have opened up Jonbenet's eyes. On Christmas night Jonbenet woke up to find her Father touching her, she didn't want him doing this anymore so she screamed and John hit her hard to shut her up. He then took her down in the basement where he strangled her to death. He had to kill her because she was going to tell and she had rejected him which ultimately pushed him over the edge. Patsy and Burke slept through the whole thing. John did all the staging but purposely used Patsy things to tie her to the crime. She needed to stand by her husband it was them against the world.
ReplyDeleteSo...one adult catches another adult abusing a child, cares enough to call the police, but then allows the abuser to turn the police away? That makes no sense.
Deleteokay, tell me a theory that makes complete sense to you. A brother killing a sister over pineapple? A mother killing her pride and joy because she wet the bed for the 100th time?? That is all complete nonsense!! JonBenet was killed by her father and he will eventually pay for what he has done in this life or the next!
DeleteI can't offer a theory that makes COMPLETE sense to me. However, the two you just mentioned are among those that make the least sense to me.
DeleteMy problem with your theory is the White/Stine scenario. I do not disagree that JR was involved.
Anonymous, while I agree with you that every theory has some major flaws and/or hurdles to get over, the BDI theory doesn't necessarily mean that Burke killed her over the pineapple. The pineapple just indicates that Burke and/or JBR did not go directly to bed as the parents have stated.
Delete"Okay, tell me a theory that makes complete sense to you."
DeleteDoc already has. Hence this blog. A theory you've essentially agreed with, so why over complicate matters by involving so many others?
In the words of Ptolemy: "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." Or the words of Thomas Aquinas: "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several".
IF, Ms D, everyone in here embraced Doc's theory as you have, there would be nothing to discuss would there? We would all just be agreeing with each other. I would like nothing more than to just say okay, I'm absolutely sure John did it and shame on the detectives and Alex Hunter and the whole lot of them for not arresting him when it is so obvious he did it - that would be very nice. Eventually I may get there, but I'm not there now. It does not make sense to me and I won't enumerate why again. But they had to have had more of a reason to rule him out other than the note. Because they can't use the note to pin it on Patsy either. Her handwriting comparisons were "inconclusive." Yet she has been the prime suspect up until Kolar's book.
DeleteI don't believe that's true. I quoted Mark Beckner a few days ago saying John was a suspect in 1997 and apparently remains one. Doc just finished posting a lengthy exchange between members of the BPD and Patsy about prior sexual abuse that surely suggested John. The GJ, we learned in 2013, indicted both as accessories. Stan Garnett is actively looking for evidence to indict today . . . and Patsy and Burke are beyond his reach. Where do you get that Patsy was anyone's prime suspect other than the slightly overwrought and hysterical Steve Thomas?
Delete"IF, Ms D, everyone in here embraced Doc's theory as you have, there would be nothing to discuss would there?"
DeleteIndeed there wouldn't, Inquisitive.
However, my point is that if one is going to essentially go with the JDI theory - as Anonymous above admits to believing - then why the need to insert The Stines and The Whites into the scenario? To accept Anon's theory, one has to believe that MANY people were aware of John's abuse of JB, so I find it difficult to accept they all simply swept it under the rug.
"There was a 911 call made by Mr. White, but when police arrived the Stines assured them everything was fine, the call was made by accident."
So, even Patsy just let it slide? Why did Fleet not talk to the police if he was the one who made the call?
"Why only the Stines remain? Because they're also guilty of abusing Jonbenet. It makes sense."
How does it make sense that Patsy would move her family - including her nine year old son - in to The Stine's home if she was aware they were child abusers?!
Nothing about this theory makes sense on any level.
Actually, CC, I believe what Haney was getting at was the possibility of Patsy as the abuser. Which is why he immediately goes on to ask if she'd been abused in the past and never asks about John. If you read Thomas's book that's certainly his take on the prior abuse issue. He too never even considers that John might have been the abuser. And yes, this WAS the mindset after John had been "ruled out." All eyes were then on Patsy and John was given a "pass," to use Thomas's term.
DeleteDarnay Hoffman appeared on one of the forums many years ago, as "New York Lawyer." And at one point he addressed me personally to inform me that my theory was indeed the prevailing theory among the investigation team -- until the handwriting experts ruled John out. He said he got that from one of the assistant DA's with whom he'd become friendly. I do believe that finding to have been THE turning point in the case, the point at which the whole investigation got seriously sidetracked.
While John has been and remains under suspicion as having aided and abetted, my impression is that no one connected with the investigation suspects him of either murdering his daughter or writing the note. We often use the word "mindset" without really understanding how powerful a given mindset can be. Once people start thinking along a certain channel it becomes almost impossible for them to see beyond those borders.
I might find that easier to believe if the judge hadn't sealed the remaining ten pages of the GJ findings, protecting the investigation, if the BPD didn't still have officers assigned to the case, and if the DA wasn't pursuing new, more sophisticated DNA testing and gone on record as saying if he gets the evidence, he'll indict. There's no one available to him but John, Doc. He's the last man standing.
DeleteYes, I recall Hoffman having told you that, and while I know you give it great credence, I do not find him at all reliable and do not for a minute think anyone in Boulder would have shared information with a self-promoting crackpot who continually tried to insert himself into the case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSteve Avery is guilty without a doubt. The show portrayed him as this hapless, pitiful victim. He comes off like a nice guy, which coupled with all the stuff excluded from the show, convinces everyone he's innocent. The show failed to mention so many things because it wouldn’t fit their narrative. Also, why would law enforcement frame him for murder? If my company or department is about to suffer because of a major lawsuit, the last thing I'm going to do is commit murder and frame someone to prevent that from happening. This kind of thing would get leaked within weeks or months.
ReplyDeleteThe Dateline show did mention the alleged rape by the teenage girl; even showed the police report. I don't think this was ever mentioned in the series. Avery is clearly a psychopath.
Regarding the issue of prior sexual abuse, here's the relevant portion of the 1998 transcript of Patsy's interview:
ReplyDelete25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
continued on following comment:
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
Delete25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about
21 this?
22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay
23 out of the making of the record and inserting
24 myself into the tape-recording of this
25 interview. The newspapers have talked about
0584
1 this. Whether or not--
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk
3 about a lot of things that are not true.
4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has
5 been a debate among the people who talked about
6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether
7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So
8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or
9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a
10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know
12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.
13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done
14 such a thing?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I
16 don't have any idea.
17 TOM HANEY: What is your best
18 guess?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to
20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
22 this.
23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge
24 change your answer to any question that you have
25 been asked?
0585
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have
2 answered every question you or anyone else has
3 asked me to the best of my ability.
4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or
5 would that statement, that information, would
6 that lead you in any particular direction?
7 Would you think about a particular person being
8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I
10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
12 just want to see where it says that.
13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had
14 you heard or read or seen anything about--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that
16 the night she was killed that she may have
17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not
18 prior to that. Absolutely.
19 TOM HANEY: Have you ever suffered
20 any physical abuse?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Absolutely not.
Is there a way to see this interview on video? I'm curious to see whether or not her responses seem genuine. Although she may have thought the detective was trying to get something out of her like the interview in 1997. I forget who conducted it.
DeleteHere's what Inquisitive said, above, about this dialogue:
Delete"There is also a very interesting passage in this article where Patsy is questioned by investigators regarding them finding evidence of prior abuse. She doesn't act shocked at all. He then presses her "wouldn't that information be shocking to you?" (my own italics) and she then seems to feign shock. She then stammers and says "I...I..knew" but her attorney is present and the interviewer isn't good at pressing at all so she is able to take control of the interview and divert attention once again."
Now here's the passage to which Inq. referred:
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
Now how do we get from this that Patsy wasn't shocked, or was feigning shock? When later she stammers, "I mean, I knew -- I -- I --" we have no way of knowing what she was about to say next because she is (foolishly) interrupted -- NOT by her lawyer, but by her interrogator. It's pretty obvious, however, from everything else she says, that she was not about to confess prior knowledge of sexual abuse, immediately after denying any such knowledge. I'd imagine she was about to mention JonBenet's vaginal complaints, but we have no way of knowing because she was cut off at that moment by Haney.
I see nowhere in the above where Patsy tries to divert attention from the topic. In fact it's Haney who diverts attention by asking her if she herself had ever been abused. The obvious follow through would have been to ask Patsy if she ever suspected John of abusing his daughter, but strangely Haney never asks that question. As we see so often with this case, no one seems interested in pursuing the possibility that John Ramsey did anything more than cover for his wife and/or son.
By the time this interview occurred, John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, so Patsy would have had no reason to suspect him. She seems genuinely shocked by the allegation of sexual abuse and asks Armistead if he knew anything about it.
Naturally Patsy is reluctant to even suggest that John could have been abusing JonBenet, so I don't find it surprising that she doesn't mention his name. What I DO find surprising is that Haney doesn't either. Part of the confusion over this case is due to the ineptness of the investigators, that's for sure.
Doc, can't remember if I asked you this already but what is your take on Burke being the third voice in the 911 call? If it was Burke, it seems like it could refute the JDI theory but maybe there is another explanation for it that I'm overlooking.
DeleteI don't see how Burke's voice on that recording could refute the JDI theory. I've already alluded to the problems with the Ramsey's official version of what happened during that time and I see no reason to believe what any of them have said regarding any aspect of that story. We do know that there are two contradictory versions of what happened prior to the 911 call and that alone should be enough to tell us that both Patsy and John were not being completely trughful. As I see it, Patsy was manipulated by John into going along with his version, and Burke may also have been manipulated in a similar manner -- or simply threatened.
DeleteMy take on the allegations that Burke's voice can be heard in that recording has nothing to do with my theory, therefore, but with my skepticism regarding how those sounds have been interpreted. If we learn anything at all from this case (as with so many others) it's that people tend to see -- or hear -- what they expect, or want, to see or hear. What I hear is a series of garbled noises that sound like crosstalk. If I really try I can hear something vaguely resembling "Help me Jesus," but that's it. And I'm certainly not the only one who's had the same problem with that portion of the tape.
It's very easy to fool oneself into hearing what one has been primed to hear. So if you are told in advance that Burke's voice can be heard saying something like "what did you find?" then if you try hard enough you'll hear it. Just as it's possible to hear meaningful statements when listening to a song played backward.
First of all thank you for posting the entire interview. On the Forum I read I only saw part of it - in particular where Haney tells her that there is a report that says she suffered prior vaginal intrusion. He then asks her what does that tell her? She then answers I knew I...I. Certainly one could infer that she knew there was sexual intrusion the night of, but the passage is regarding whether she knew of a report about prior vaginal intrusion and it sounds to me like she is answering that question. Passages #2-18. I can see how it could be taken either way. But her answer follows Haney's regarding prior vaginal intrusion. And yes, all of the interviewer's in this case seem to have dropped the ball. Once they are on to something they let it go.
DeleteI also see the general trend of thought of this whole investigation, including the Forum I spent days reading. No one did much connecting of John to anything. This is why I was attracted to your book and your blog Doc. Because John was not suspected - but you did suspect him. It's very possible Patsy knew something was going on right under her roof and her instincts told her to take JB to the doctor for just about anything and everything in hopes that the Pediatrician would confirm it. It would be too horrible for her to accept it. And I'm now leaning a bit more toward a major blow up that night that inadvertently caused the death of JB having to do with prior molestation but I'm not ready to rule Patsy or Burke out as knowing nothing, hearing nothing, or eliminate those two from the equation all together and infer it had to be all John. As Gumshoe said days ago, he/she isn't there yet.
Inq - I posted this link the other day, so if you'd like to read the complete interview with Patsy, Haney, Trip DeMuth, Armisted, Patrick Burke on June 1998 it's here
Delete(it's not on the black background)
http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
By the way for those interested, Dr. Spitz "motion for summary disposition" will be Friday Feb. 24. This won't mean all that much, will it CC? However perhaps we will be able to read somewhere what the judge says.
ReplyDeleteSpitz's motion is a standard defense move. They are not usually granted; judicial inclination is almost always to let a case proceed and be heard on its merits. It's doubtful the judge will have much to say beyond "Denied".
ReplyDeleteokay, thanks. That means more to come.
ReplyDeleteAs in Spitz will have his day in court and so will Burke.
DeleteMs D I tried finding the reference to the "cutesy" photos in the basement again as well - so I at least started trying to organize some of this Forum. I did a search about "cutesy" photos and found this - an interview with Haney/DeMuth/Patsy where she's quizzed about photos being taken in the basement with the laundryroom in the background. It's here:
ReplyDeletewww.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42386-photographs-of-JonBenet-in-the-Basement
Not as complete as the one on the Forum.
Here's a little more organizing efforts as well, if interested:
p. 7 - Patsy mentioning having "flashbacks" of JB lying on the livingroom floor and hearing her scream. She did say flashbacks.
p.8 - evidence seized
p. 15 - interview with Burke regarding his baseball bats, his two knives, pineapple as snack food and sleeping in JB's room when his room got too cold. He seems very candid.
Thank you, Inq. All I remember is reading that at one point Patsy asks the detective if the photos were shot in the basement, to which the detectives says "no". If they weren't, then whilst it's a little disconcerting that photos of Jonbenet were recovered at the crime scene, it isn't alarming. But later on in the interview, the detective alludes to the fact that the photos might have been shot in the basement, so I really don't know what is going on there, and the difference between the two scenarios is HUGE! If someone was taking JB down to the very place she was killed to take photos of her using the Ramsey's camera, then we can pretty much rule out an intruder. We can also conclude almost certainly that the same person who took these photos is her killer, and might have been doing just that very thing in the moments before her murder. Going by the questions the detective asks in the transcript, I'm presuming these photos were found in the *other* cigar box - the one that John feigns ignorance of.
DeleteJohn is a mess of contradictions, isn't he? Oh there are a hundred ways from Sunday to rule out an intruder. I really am wondering what the interviewer meant by cutesy pictures? We've seen her competition pageant videos and multiple stills, but what would constitute "cutesy" I wonder, with the basement laundryroom as a backdrop. Surely they must have had a timestamp on the photos? It's really doubtful Patsy would have taken pictures of JB in the basement - now it could have been John Andrew you know. Certainly not Burke. But things aren't looking so good for John, are they. He keeps embellishing on his stories. More than one bicycle, more than one melatonin, he read to the kids, no he didn't, that was another time. He doesn't recognize the flashlight but wait, he did handle it. He took his clothes off to climb in the window. No one pressed him on his inconsistencies. At least that I have read. Lou Smit helped him answer some questions. Plus provided him with an intruder theory.
DeleteWe don't know if JAR smoked do we? (yes, I know he was cleared). But trying to think of others in the home that might have a cheaper brand of cigars. Due to statements made by Patsy as well as CSI photos, the rooms Patsy were in that night were kind of a mess, basement and JARs room.
DeleteWe know certain items in the basement were JAR's but still seemed to puzzle the parents.
Both parents were away from the home at times others stayed in the home so may not know what was brought in and left (ie, possibly the other cigar box, the photos).
John may be a pathological liar, but he certain hasn't mastered the art of keeping those lies consistent, has he Inquisitive?! He's all over the place, but is never called on it.
DeleteWhat bothers me the most is that there appears to be at least one photo - perhaps more - of Jonbenet taken in the location where her death would later occur. Major red flag, yet - like everything else that might indicate sexual abuse - the issue doesn't seem to be pressed. Certainly not with John. If photos of Jonbenet were taken in the laundry room, we know that JB had been taken down to the basement in the past to pose for photos, which suggests she might have willingly went down there xmas night for the same reason. As there were photos stored in the basement, one can only assume they were being hidden from prying eyes, and who would take photos of JB that were of such a nature they would require a hiding spot? Burke? I highly doubt it. He'd need his father to get the film processed for him, so he'd be exposed immediately - that scenario can't work. Patsy? She had her own camera, why would she use John's if she was trying to keep these photos a secret? JAR? Again, he obviously wouldn't use a camera belonging to his father, and I'm sure he'd not have left the damning photos in his parents home, he'd take them with him. I think it is blindingly obvious who took these photos and hid them in the basement to view at his own leisure - perhaps whilst partaking in one of his Cuban cigars - and considering JB was found in that very basement, I think it's almost comical just how obvious the identity of JB's killer is. I cannot believe that all of the overwhelming evidence was ignored due to nothing more than a bogus hand writing analysis. I wonder how Cina Wong, et al, sleep at night.....thanks to their gross ineptitude, the killer of a six year old child walks free and probably laughs every day when he thinks of just how lucky he got.
I think it was actually Chet Ubowski of the CBI, Ms D, you Aussie Pit Bull you. . . love it when you get wound up! Wasn't Cina Wong Darnay Hoffman's creature?
DeleteWhat is it about the multiplying bicycles??? During John's June 98 interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane, he's asked about Christmas Eve, and tells of getting JonBenet's new bike from the Barnhill's and Patsy's bike from the garage. He states "we were giving Burke a bike but not that year." They then break at 11:00. Upon returning, John is asked about Christmas morning and the gifts that the kids got. "Well, JonBenet got a bike. I think Burke got a bike too. It seems like we had three bikes there."
ReplyDeleteThe interviewers say nothing about it, as usual. I've since read somewhere(sorry don't know where) that John thinks he may have bought himself a bike that Christmas, as well. So what is it John, 2,3...4 ??? K
I thought the same thing, Anon. What the hell is John up to with those damn bicycles?! Why does he keep changing the number of bicycles and who received one for xmas and who didn't?
DeleteYes, this is just another instance of many, where the statements change. I think it was John's Dr Phil interview 2016 where John said that *he* got a bike for Christmas. There are crime scene photos that do show a small bike in the basement, it looked a bit dusty to me. But there are Christmas day photos plus neighborhood children that came by that day, and if questioned shortly after, may recall the true number.
DeleteTo cause confusion. If he can't remember who got a bicycle that Christmas, how is he going to be able to remember actual facts of that day (related to the murder) when asked.
DeleteI also thought it interesting during that same interview, John told the story about Patsy making up lies to tell his crazy ex-girlfriend while he hid behind the door. It seemed like an odd way to show support for your wife who was "under the umbrella of suspicion". Of all the possible scenarios Patsy was always my least likely. K
DeleteHe talks about the two cigar boxes in the wine cellar room page 5 of the Forum, one of them seems unusual to him, it's upended, should be sitting on a paint can or something doubt it has relevance. But it must have some relevance or they wouldn't ask him to comment on it.
DeleteYes, Anon - John trying to cast suspicion on Patsy again. He's making sure LE know just how good she is at lying. This man is deplorable - a duplicitous, murderous, incestuous, pedophile who is content to see his wife go down for a crime he committed. And now he's allowing the world to believe his nine year old son killed his sister. Almost every, single, word that comes out of that man's mouth in the transcripts is a bold faced lie, and the interrogators just let it all slide.....unbelievable. It is maddening.
DeleteSometimes we read about this case and get resigned and saddened, other times angry. When I saw John talking to Dr. Phil he just seemed so overly calm, in his "country gentleman" attire with matching shoes. But in the beginning he seemed to me to not have known what happened. That was my impression of him then. She runs upstairs to get him, he suggests calling the police (or did he?), he spreads the note out on the stairs so he could read it (did he?)he finds the body, but as CC says he really is the last one standing now. We can't get Patsy for it, John is going to have to take responsibility for some aspects of this or all of it, hopefully in my lifetime. I'm kind of curious what his former wife would have to say about what kind of husband and father he was. Not too good since he was cheating. When he learns she will be questioned 20 years ago he buys her legal council.
DeleteI don't know. PR is a woman who has no problems speaking like this to detectives and police "PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.". This not a weak, shrinking violet of a woman. I have a difficult time believing she would stand by a husband who she knowingly molested their daughter (after the autopsy report proves prior abuse - prior to the night she was found dead).
ReplyDeleteI also don't believe the "I--I knew" means she was admitting to knowing about prior sexual abuse. I suspect this could be something along the lines of her admitting she knew that she knew JBR had a habit of fondling herself (which is actually an indicator of sexual abuse or at the very least someone touching her privates, but it does not necessarily mean she was being sexually abused) OR that she knew that JBR and BR had a habit of "exploring" OR that she knew that JBR had vaginal issues and that she might have done things to herself to perhaps stop itching or irritation.
What IS odd is this is a mother who is talking to people about the fact that the autopsy report shows prior vaginal intrusion and she doesn't seem to say too much about it except that she is shocked. Finding out that there was prior vaginal intrusion opens up a WHOLE cans of worms for a mother to consider. I would think that she would be replaying a lot in her mind and considering other factors (such as was there REALLY an intruder? could her husband staged everything to make it appear that there was an intruder to cover up for himself?). I just don't buy the whole she was in shock or she was under the control of JR. The shock wore off eventually. She continued to be married to JR and could have picked up on anything that was out of place or contradictory from him since the murder that would have given her ammo to leave or turn law enforcement onto him. She doesn't even seem to WANT to get to the bottom of why there was prior vaginal intrusion.
Everyone in that family was very meh about trying to solve the case. Even JR and BR to this very day.
Haney just completely blew a golden opportunity to press her and he basically took her off course. If he had said "what about your husband?" at the very least he could have gauged a reaction. But no, John wasn't even on their radar. Really really unfortunate.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing happened with the social worker who interviewed BR. BR basically told her he knew what happened and she didn't follow up. This was a different interview than the time he went on and on about the knife and his sister being hit in the head.
DeleteWhich interview did Burke "go on and on about the knife"? I mustn't have seen that one.
DeletePosted this upthread a bit but with repost if you missed it. It's the *entire transcript* of Patsy's June 1998 interview that has been in discussion.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
Wow, this is very telling. Lots of little wordage in there at is very detached. PR frantically describing what happened that morning after she found the note. Does she not remember who checked on Burke? How can she not remember that moment to see if her other child was alive in his bed and not taken too? Completely disregarding that whole situation. She does not describe talking to BR or asking if he saw or heard anything. Describing the moment she tells her husband that she found a ransom note and that their daughter has been kidnapped, she afterward says the word "whatever". Stating she "got the message across" referring to the 911 call. She remember that her husband was sitting on the floor in his underwear but she does not remember who checked on Burke?
DeleteShe completely dismisses the ransom note by saying "blah blah blah" (she doesn't seem too worried about someone killing her daughter!)
She repeatedly states she woke up between 5:30 and 6 yet says she didn't set the alarm nor did she look at the clock when she woke up.
I have spent the past three hours reading sections of the complete transcript of JR's 1998 interview with the boulder police. That I just got around to discovering they were accessible online, I'm embarrassed to admit. Be that as it may, for those interested, here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm
About half-way through the transcript, an investigator by the name of Mike Kane takes over. As I read his questions and John's answers, three things dawned on me:
a) that Lou Smit as interviewer/interrogator was (RIP) his own worst enemy.
b) that Mike Kane as interviewer/interrogator is absolutely brilliant and
c) that John's lies, narcissism, dissemblings, and contradictions were literally making me feel nauseous.
I'm still just halfway or so through the transcript, but as I needed a break to process what I'd read so far, I thought I'd share my initial reactions with you my fellow sleuths!
Mike G.
P.S. The name Mike Kane is new to me. Is it to you? Doc?
Mike Kane was a highly respected attorney and former prosecutor known as a "grand jury specialist" who was brought in by Alex Hunter when he knew public pressure was forcing him to go to a grand jury, a process with which Hunter was largely unfamiliar.
DeleteLou Smit, a retired Colorado Springs homicide detective, was hired by the DA as well, and the interviews you're referring to were conducted under the auspices of that office rather than the BPD, and were negotiated by Hunter in lieu of grand jury appearances by the Ramseys.
DeleteIn regards to the previous talk about the basement photos and an inappropriate photo of JB found on the R's roll of film...
ReplyDeleteAll of this came from PR's 1998 BPD interview. Here's the link:
http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
@Inq, you said, "on the Forum LE was questioning Patsy regarding what he termed "cutesy" photos found in the basement..."
This is what TH said when he used the word, "cutesy."
0188
1 THOMAS HANEY: So you don't recall
2 taking a photo of her down there?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.)
4 THOMAS HANEY: If she was doing
5 something really cutesy or something, would you
6 maybe run and get the camera, take one of her?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Of her in the
8 laundry room?
9 THOMAS HANEY: Uh-hum.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
@Ms. D., you are correct that TH goes back and forth about those basement photos. He first asks PR if she took any photos of JB in the laundry room. Then he asks if she remembers any photos of JB being (located) in the laundry room. She asks if he means taken in the laundry room. He says, no, located in the laundry room. Then, he switches back again (as seen in the snippet above) and asks if she recalls taking a photo of JB down there. Confusing.
The questions about the picture, that was found on the R's roll of film, come later in the interview (closer towards then end.) PR does seem disturbed by the photo, as she says, "Oh, God" when it's shown to her. However, I'm not so sure it's an inappropriate pic of JB, since they seem to go on to discuss that photo in respect to one taken by police. If you lick "Ctrl" and "F" and type in "0527" it will take you to this part of the interview. I'm curious to hear what others' think might be in the photo. It sounds like maybe the notepad can be seen, but I'm not sure why that alone would elicit such a response from PR?
Speculating of course, she is shown a picture of her children on Christmas morning, which would be the last one forever celebrated with both her kids at home. Also the items on home camera are similar to items taken by the police camera, that may have appeared to be moved - the scarf, the notepads. I think the 'oh God' is to the kids in the pic.
ReplyDeleteOh, OK, @lil...you're probably right that the "Oh, God" was in response to seeing the photo of the kids on Christmas morning. I confused which picture she was reacting to. Thank you.
DeleteStill, she says this about another photo that came from that same roll of film:
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't have a clue why
10 anybody would take a picture like that. I don't
11 know (inaudible). Who took the picture?
Maybe she just means why would anyone would bother taking a picture such as that?
@Ms. D., is this the part of the transcript that you were referring to when you said, "One of these times is when she is shown what appears to be an inappropriate photo taken of Jonbenet that is on the same roll of film as the xmas morning pics..."?
Perhaps the pic is at an odd angle or would be non-Christmasy, or of an area that is a bit cluttered or junk mail, or...wait for it, the pineapple bowl? lol
DeleteThat might be the comment I was referring to, HKH, though I think there were a couple of comments regarding the photos that bothered me. (Not the "Oh God" comment. I posted earlier that I think Patsy's reaction was probably due to seeing a previously unseen photo of the two kids on xmas morning). What bothers me more than the possible content of the photos is where they were located. Photos of the murder victim were recovered near the scene her murder took place, and that is very telling. It suggests to me that her murder was of a sexual nature and not merely staging as some believe - namely BDIs/PDIs.
DeleteI don't know what the photo was, but back in that time photographs were produced at photo centers where people looked though the photos to see if they all came out that way. I doubt JR would risk everything by taking a questionable photo of his daughter which could very likely be viewed by the people at the photo center.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it seems more like a kid would take that kind of photo, not thinking about the consequences of what could happen when that photo was found by others. Kids don't think much of repercussions nor how photos are produced.
Of course, it's very possible the photos recovered in the basement were taken using a Polaroid camera, Anon, in which case no one else other than the photographer would need to see the photos.....I wonder if anyone in the family owned a Polaroid camera?
DeleteThe word "cutesy" now seems innocuous, doesn't it. Like DOING something cute, the way he uses it. But having them be in the basement with the laundryroom in the background doesn't sound like at least Patsy would be taking the pictures. The pictures she had done were professional photo shoots. It's possible in all of the junk in the house they just got moved to the basement but for some reason they have some relevance, enough to be asking Patsy about them. No where have I seen John asked about them. Why is it he gets a pass on everything? And no where have I read that he was asked about prior abuse. If I'm wrong about that, please show where he was questioned about it the way Patsy was.
DeleteI can't believe the way the interrogators handled John. It makes me sick. Was it because he was "ruled out"? Or were LE really just that inept?
DeleteI'm with you on this. Alot of those transcripts from interviews I remember re reading them in full now, from the National Enquirer. So much of the way I felt about John not being involved comes from there. He just seemed to me like "support" for Patsy. But I think Doc is right, there was a mindset then that Patsy was the one they needed to scrutinize, not John. Could it all have boiled down to ruling him out from writing the note? That just seems like such a lame way to conduct an investigation, to base everything on that note but I think that's what they did. And yet they couldn't be 100 percent sure she wrote the note either. Results were "inconclusive." And really you have to wonder with all of the trips he made to the basement, what was he doing. He told Officer French he searched the house (in the four minutes it took French to arrive at the door). He goes back down there with Fleet. He goes back down again for an hour or so. Then one final time at 1.
DeleteIn otherwords, LE never seemed to be leaning on him in those interviews. He had an answer for everything, he expounds on his stories, he embellishes them, when he wants to contradict something he said earlier he does so by adding more details. I read a few free pages from the "Listen Carefully" book and apparently it was John Andrew who said in an interview that the killer should be forgiven. I thought it was John Ramsey, but of course he could have "expanded" on that theme as well. I don't think this crime was in anyway anything that should be forgiven.
Delete~off/topic~ for any science fans, later today, Wednesday NASA will be having a press conference https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-host-news-conference-on-discovery-beyond-our-solar-system
ReplyDeleteAwesome Lil:
DeleteI love this stuff! I'll be watching. For people who love layman physics books, may I recommend Time Reborn by Lee Smolin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATxi0_-7HqQ
Mike G.
Cool, thanks. I'll check the link out later. Using free wifi at the moment. Presser is 1pm eastern time.
DeleteHere's a fun exercise for those who'd like to participate. Assume you are the prosecutor trying John Ramsey for first or second degree murder of JonBenet.
ReplyDeleteStep One: Jury Selection
You have up to ten questions to impanel a jury. What questions would you ask and why? When answering "why", do it not for each question asked, but for all of them taken together. In other words, what juror "profile" would you be seeking to impanel---those with or without certain straits, or some combination of both? Let's assume the entire pool of people from which you'll be selecting has minimum knowledge of the case. They perhaps know the general cast of characters involved, but they haven't followed it through the years, haven't read books on it, have never read the ransom note, and harbor no suspicions as to who might have committed the crime.
Step Two:
With the jury selected, now present your opening argument. Let's keep it to 500 words or less, beginning with "Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury".
Step Three (optional):
Analyze in 200 words or less what you wrote. Did you have a specific goal in mind? What factors did you consider when crafting your argument?
Naturally, we all hope CC and Doc participate (hint,hint), but anyone can go first. It just won't be me!
Mike G
That's a large exercise but if I'm prosecuting John, I want as many women on that jury as humanly possible. I would investigate potential jurors and try to focus on women that may have a history of being abused themselves as they would likely be partial against John. They would also need to have or have had children. Those with a recent loss of a child would likely be extremely partial against someone even potentially harming their child.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWon't work, Gumshoe. Potential jurors such as you describe would be ferreted out through questionnaire and dismissed for cause even before voir dire began.
DeleteCC, for the most part you're right. Those would be the absolute perfect profiles of a prospective juror though if you're prosecuting John. That said, you would be able to get women on the jury.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell of course you could "get women on the jury". But that doesn't guarantee they won't sympathize with John and think he's being railroaded, as there's no evidence it was he who committed the prior abuse.
DeleteJurors are fickle, unpredictable creatures, and every jury trial is a crapshoot.
CC, I think you missed the point of Mike's hypothetical question. It was all in good fun.
DeleteMike has a lively interest in the law. He's asked Doc and me to participate in a moot court, and invited audience participation several times in similar legal conversations in the past. It may have been couched in playful terms, but he was in earnest.
DeleteCC, just how personal can the questions get and does a potential juror have the right not to answer? I have been called to jury duty twice, served once, and even got booted for a mock jury (but still got paid). Both times I wasn't picked had nothing to do with me, but what my family members did for a living. (One was in engineering, the other retired from working on medical machines at the hospital.) I really have no idea why I did get picked for the capital murder trial. (I was one of two token people seated). This was all before social media hit big. Now I'm sure the attorneys check into the web footprint of jurors.
DeleteAnother question, does the defendant ever get to weigh in on the juror list as well, or is that strictly left up to the attorneys?
DeleteSure, the defendant can be as involved as s/he wants, though some attorneys prefer to follow their gut, and to do it solo.
DeleteQuestions can get very personal, especially in sex-related cases. A potential juror can always refuse to answer, but if not dismissed on the spot for cause, s/he will probably be booted on a premptory challenge.
An attorney is not supposed to know the identity of jurors or to investigate them, but hey, I go to the movies, too. I'm sure in high stakes cases it happens.
Peremptory. . .I always have trouble with that word; it never looks right to me. You'd think after 30 some years I could keep it straight.
DeleteThank you CC. Interesting that the defendant is able to weigh in on that. In my city we had to state our name and where we lived. We used to have to give our addresses out loud in court. Many years ago my local newspaper did a piece on which zip codes tend to get selected and rejected for potential jurors.
DeleteI didn't offer extra info when questioned. One poor guy didn't know when to stop. Think the question was belonging to any organization or club and there he went and said AA.
For an attorney and your client, do you prefer a trial by judge, or one by jury?
That's interesting, Lil, that you had to identify yourself. You're in...Louisiana or Alabama? In my state - and most states - potential jurors check in with the clerk in a special private room and are assigned a button with a number, and are thereafter referred to as "Juror 118" or whatever, precisely to prevent identification and any hint of taint or corruption.
DeleteWere I John Ramsey or his attorney I believe I'd select a bench trial as the evidence stands now, particularly in Boulder County.
For myself, in my three whole years as an Assistant State's Attorney, and that many years ago, I loved jury trials. And grand juries. And being present during police investigations and writing search warrants. I started out in Miami-Dade County, Florida at the beginning of The Cocaine Wars, if you remember that piece of ancient history, and went to trial almost every day. I don't try many cases any more, having a very narrow, specialized civil practice, though I've served as a Special Prosecutor a few times.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Gets the blood pumping like nothing else, doesn't it?
CC, if I were prosecuting this case I must say I'd very much prefer a bench trial, because from my experience it's almost impossible to get any group of 12 people (or less) to agree on this particular case. Even people almost totally new to the case tend to decide they know who did it after learning little more than the basics. And once someone decides it's almost impossible to get them to change their mind.
DeleteNot sure what would be best for the defense, but a jury trial would in my opinion almost certainly wind up as a mistrial. So if John wanted to go the bench route I'd have no problem with that.
Does this make sense to you, or am I missing something?
Makes perfect sense, Doc, and I see your point. I've never played for that side, so your opinion is as good as mine.
DeleteWhere do the members of this blog stand on the sequence of events between the blow to the head and strangulation? There seems to be some debate over this among experts. Those that think the head blow came first point to the swelling of the brain, stating that it would not be able to swell that much if she were dead. Those that think the strangulation came first state that there was not enough blood in her skull (forget technical term) for the blow to the head to have happened first.
ReplyDeleteThe head blow first is consistent with the evidence, as tufts of her hair were entwined with the knotting of the "garotte," no scratch marks were seen on her neck and no skin cells were found under her nails.
DeleteWhy do the tufts of hair being interwined with the knot indicate that the head blow came first? Also, any opinion on the marks under the ligature that seem to indicate there was an initial strangulation attempt?
DeleteMsD (Feb 21,2017,@10:22 am. .... it is the best comment I have read on this blog , you nailed it!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Anon.
DeleteJohn Ramsey is treated with kid gloves in every "interrogation" (though I tend to think of it more as "gentle prodding") and it disturbs me to the point where I actually begin to feel quite nauseous whenever I read the transcripts of his interviews with LE. Lie after lie, and they NEVER call him on it! And as Inq says, not only does he lie, he later embellishes those lies.....and the investigators STILL sit there "duhhhhing". His lying and chronic attempts to misdirect are very transparent - we can all see it here - so why can't they? Two possibilities, either they really are just that woefully stupid, or they're corrupt. Maybe both.
Because Gumshoe, a rather large quantity of hair strands pulled out of your head while conscious would surely have caused her to scream and fight her attacker. There were no little nail marks clutching at her skin around the cord. She was likely unconscious from the head blow.
ReplyDeleteThe strangulation does appear to have started further down on her neck, I'm thinking that maybe the large inverted triangular red bruise may have been caused by starting the cord in a lower position and pulling up, and it could be that by using the garrotte a better position for it and where the cord ended up embedded in her skin was re positioned higher up.
I do not think the flashlight (Maglite) was used for the head blow however. There are different models of Maglite but most all of them are anodized steel inside and out. They have a rubber seal, but that's just a thin ring inside. Cheaper flashlights do have a rubber head but not Maglite, and not indicative of the one sitting on the kitchen counter. Whatever it was it did not cause bleeding, it was of course sufficient to crack the skull from top right back where the wound originated to front. The shape of head wound was described more as rectangular, which would have been more consistent with a golf club. Golf clubs - both John's and Burke's, were kept in the basement.
ReplyDeleteFor starts, the Maglite on the counter appears to have a rubber coated grip and a metal head, like those used by LE.
DeleteSecondly, you're assuming the assailant held the flashlight by the grip and struck with the head, which likely would have broken the bulb and her skin. Makes more sense that he gripped it just below the metal head and struck with the rubberized grip, which would indeed have created the somewhat rectangular fracture we've all seen in the autopsy photos.
Either Thomas or Kolar described the flashlight as identical to those used by LE. In fact, it was largely ignored at first, as they all assumed one of their early arriving brothers in blue left it there.
DeleteI don't think one could do much damage with the grip. Looks to me like she'd been struck with the head. And the Maglite has been used by LE as a club, which means it's most likely strong enough not to come apart after a head blow.
DeleteWhile the head is indeed metal, it's made of aluminum, which is relatively soft, which would explain the absence of scalp abrasion or bleeding.
Both good points you make CC and Doc. I went to an actual Maglite website where they are manufactured to see what they were made of. There are different models of course. But I've never thought the head was rubber. Yes, since that Maglite was "left in plain site" I have thought that it's too obvious as murder weapon. Granted, there was no blood, so wiping the flashlight down was not an attempt to remove trace evidence of blood, but there are other things in the house that could be considered as well. And it is very possible CC, that LE left THEIR Maglite there as John says he thought all of the flashlights in the house were dead - needing batteries.
DeleteI watched a clip from Dr. Phil from the Forum website some of us were reading avidly a few days ago, and Burke does not say he handled a flashlight that night. In fact, he says he did not. He may have said he doesn't remember but he does not say that he did. I cannot find any reference (in writing) where John admits to handling it later either. Where do we get some of our assumptions? Somewhere. On that Forum page 3 evidence listed they removed from the house included two red clay bricks.
You have to consider too that if the head of the flashlight was soft wouldn't it be dented from a blow to the head sufficient enough to crack her skull?
DeleteExcuse me, evidence taken page 8, not 3.
DeleteI believe it was Patsy in one of the LE interviews who eventually identified the Maglite as a gift to the family from John Andrew. John stated during the Dr Phil interview that he used the Maglite to take Burke to bed, after 20 years of claiming not to recognize the damned thing.
DeleteMaglites of that particular model have very long handles. It would be easy to wield from the wrong end, and the rubber grip seems a better choice to cause the merciful unconsciousness I believe John intended to deliver.
I am trying to come around to John as the lone perpetrator. Identifying the murder weapon (the blunt force trauma head blow) would help for me. There are a few things that lately have caused me to think a little differently about this case. But I am not there yet agreeing that John was the only one involved. IF he was I think he likely did pre plan it and IF he did I think it likely he wrote the note in advance because it's so disconnected from the reality of what was found. There is no one left to finger for this other than Burke and what a sad sorry situation for the son if the father did do it.
DeleteOK, first of all it wasn't John himself but Dr. Phil who mentioned John's use of that flashlight while helping Burke with his new toy. I think he said something like "according to your dad . . . "
DeleteSecondly if the batteries had been dead then what would have been the point of John using the flashlight on the night of the murder, as mentioned by Dr. Phil?
Aluminum is flexible so I don't see any reason why it would have been dented. If it dented that easily it would not be much use to LE as a club.
Finally, it would be extremely awkward for anyone to strike a blow with the back end of that device. The center of gravity is in the front, not the back so the blow would hardly be sufficient to do much damage. I'm not sure, CC, why you're so reluctant to see the maglite used on JonBenet in the same manner that it's been used by police for all these years. As I say, the front end would have to be sufficiently strong and flexible to withstand a number of such blows or it wouldn't be much use for that purpose.
It certainly wasn't left in the kitchen by police, and as Patsy testified, it did belong to the Ramseys despite some initial denials on John's part. It's the only thing in the house that could strike such a heavy blow without abrading the scalp. A golf club would certainly have produced heavy bleeding and would also have been extremely awkward to wield.
Because I'm devoted to my theory that John struck the blow as an act of mercy to them both: his daughter would be spared the pain of strangulation, and he wouldn't have to struggle with a six year old. To my way of thinking the rubber grip would be the better choice. Kids' heads are soft - no need for a heavy blow with the business end of a Maglite as shown in the CBS show. I've seen autopsy photos of the damage cops can do with 'em, it's gory and can cause grave damage, even death.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDoc:
DeleteJohn DID mention the flashlight to Dr. Phil, saying "I might have used it to take Burke to bed that night..." You can search high and low on the internet for his complete interview with Dr. Phil: you won't find it. It's been taken off. I wrote Dr. Phil and his staff asking for a transcript, which you can get for any other of his shows. I received no response.
Mike G
Your sentence there Doc "secondly if the batteries had been dead then what would have been the point of John using the flashlight on the night of the murder, as mentioned by Dr. Phil.?" Did he forget he said 20 years ago that he thought all of the flashlights were dead? Was he trying to help Burke by suggesting he too handled the flashlight? So yeah, to put it simply another attempt by John to misdirect. Possible that 20 years ago he wanted to distance himself from the flashlight by implying an intruder left it there because all of the flashlights in his home were "dead." Now that CBS was going to do a piece on Burke killing his sister by striking her with the flashlight John revises his story by saying he too handled the flashlight. We can't believe anything he says can we.
DeleteThanks, Mikey. That's what I remember, too, but I confess I'm running out of RAM these days.
DeleteWell then, Mike, I guess it's settled then. It is very telling that all mention of said flashlight has been removed from the Dr Phil interview. I thought I was going mad when I couldn't find it - I knew what I'd read, and yet that statement by Dr Phil/John didn't seem to exist.
DeleteWas it Lin Wood's doing? Or is there something those working on the investigation know that we don't?
There are two brief clips of Dr Phil talking to John on youtube but that's all I've found so far. Also Lin Wood commenting about what does sound like a shake down of Mary Lacy pressuring her to exonerate the Ramsey's from their touch DNA testing. Wood says they sat on their information for seven months and didn't tell the Ramsey's. He said he threatened to sue the BPD and the entire city of Boulder if she didn't clear them. Which led to what Dr. Phil terms a "secret meeting" with Lacy and Lin Wood and next thing you know she agrees to exonerate them. So that little clip is there. So now I will make a hopeful prediction that the longer it takes for us to know about the new testing results the better. Because if it points anywhere near a Ramsey they should keep quiet in order to build a case. And not likely Lin can pressure the new D.A. this time.
DeleteI read yesterday that it takes 21-72 days for results on forensic DNA testing. Much shorter for paternity tests. The new facility that will be doing the testing in Colorado will also be testing on other cold cases so it's not just the Ramsey case. Now, whether the results will be released to the public is a different story.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to expand briefly on my merciful flashlight notion. I think he brought her downstairs on some pretext, sat her down in front of Burke's bowl of pineapple, left out since breakfast, then hit her over the head with the rubber grip of the Maglite, which was kept in a nearby drawer. Then he carried her down to the basement and locked her in the wine cellar while he retrieved the RN and the materials for the garrote, as far from her mother as he could get. Then he finished his staging with the paintbrush, wiped her down, possibly changed her panties, got his guts up. This explains the 45 minutes plus for the pineapple to pass through to her small intestine. Then he strangled her from behind with the garrote, intended to underline the "foreign faction" alluded to in the RN.
ReplyDeleteIt's the only thing I can come up with that explains the pineapple and the interval between the blow to the head and death, and I think it has a certain elegant simplicity, but go ahead guys, whale away.
. . . the 45 minutes plus for the pineapple to pass through to her small intestine AND for her brain to swell.
DeleteEven if you don't agree, ya' gotta' admit it covers all the bases.
Not gonna whale. I think it's nice and simple. And it goes along with your belief that he wrote the note in advance, pre planning it all so none of this would take any time, and he could get back in bed. He also wouldn't need to care if there were dead batteries in the flashlight or ones that were working since he did not use the flashlight for illumination, just simply as a weapon. The next day he dotted his i's and crossed his t's by multiple trips to and fro the basement adjusting and moving things around. And it's the first I've heard anyone say locked her in the wine cellar but that makes sense, for safe keeping until he could do whatever else he needed to do. Accounting for the time between blow and strangulation.
DeleteAlso explains the tape on her mouth and the strange, loose binding of her wrists - I think he hogtied her and covered her mouth in case she came to while he did what he needed to do elsewhere, but I admit that's a little lurid.
DeleteIf the murder was indeed premeditated (which I go back and forth on), I agree with most of your theory, CC. However, I don't think John garroted JB, as the plan was to dump her body and let decomposition do it's job (and, ideally, her body would never be found to begin with. I believe that when he disappeared on xmas day under the premise of going to the airplane hangar, he may actually have been scouting dumping locations), so making it appear to be a murder committed by a "foreign faction" wasn't necessary at that point in time. I think he strangled her with a scarf - the one captured in the photograph near the stairs, and the one LE seem to be quite focused on, perhaps fibres of said scarf were found on her body. He fashioned the garrote in the 90 minutes he was staging the crime scene, because the way things stood, it didn't look as though her murder had been committed by a "foreign faction". This would explain the (possible) two different points of strangulation on her neck, it would also explain why he used the tools he did to fashion the garrote - he had to make do with what was close by in the basement. My reasoning for this belief is because if it was his plan to garrote her from the start, I don't think he would have fashioned such a crude device using art supplies. It looked as though it was improvised rather than thought out. As I've noted before, I also think there is a good possibility John intentionally used items that belonged to Patsy during the staging, as he knew his goose was probably cooked by that point. No doubt his reasoning was something along the lines of "This is obviously going to look like an inside job and I'm not going down for it, let's cast a bit of suspicion on everyone else who lives in this house".
Deletehe could then sit there in his armchair and pontificate how she shouldn't have put her in the pageants as it might have attracted the wrong element.
DeleteThe sad thing is, I believe it *was* ultimately Patsy's decision to put JB in the pageants that led to her demise.
DeleteUnfortunately for Jonbenet, John had a fetish for beauty queens.
Sorry, D, doesn't fly. The garrote cord was deeply imbedded in her neck - have another look at the autopsy photos. The multiple lines are hesitation marks - he tightened, freaked, tightened again.
DeleteIt was INTENDED to look improvised. His intention was that this be blamed on an intruder.
Of course he used items belonging to Patsy. Anyone but me, is that narcissist's rationale.
The "lines" of the cord are also consistent, in that the lower mark is, at least appears to be, the same width as the line that the cord made that was embedded in her skin, so starting with a scarf Ms D, wouldn't look the same.
DeleteO.K. Fair enough. But.....that scarf seems to be important to LE. It is mentioned several times in the transcripts, as are Patsy's shoes - strangely enough - if I recall correctly.
DeleteAre they "hesitation marks", CC, or possible indications that the rope was tightened/loosened several times due to bringing JB almost to the point of unconsciousness as would fit if it were an act of erotic asphyxiation? Isn't that the way it works - pulling the cord tightly, relax, then repeat?
I don't buy into Wecht's erotic asphyxiation crap, Ms D. There was nothing sexual about this child's murder, and I don't believe her father abused her that night. His intention was to cover up prior abuse by damaging her vaginal vault with the paintbrush, hopefully to the point that prior abuse was obscured.
DeleteAnd I'm sorry, but I don't believe a neophyte, first-time killer who premeditated this to save his own ass was much focused on his own gratification on this particular night.
Do you think he was hoping the hand binding would restrict her further or was it a staging effect?
ReplyDeleteIt's sick he used Patsy's materials there, not caring if the association would be made she had something to do with it. And I can get that wrapping her in the blanket and not knowing the Barbie nightgown was clinging to it would be something he wouldn't notice, whereas Patsy would.
I also think Fleet suspected John. He felt for her feet when he saw her wondering how long she had been dead. Was she cold to the touch or slightly cool. He didn't buy John's reaction upon finding her.
I may be getting a little carried away here but I think John had to find her himself. It's "nobler" that way. He could be the one who was in control of every aspect of this from start to finish. I bet he about had a cow when Fleet was poking around down in the basement before John had a chance to make the big discovery.
ReplyDeleteWhile we're on weird and wild theories.....would it have been at all possible for John, in the time it took for police to arrive, to have added those little hooks to some of those "a"s in the ransom note in order to implicate Patsy, now that all arrows would point to it being a murder committed by a family member? It would explain why the hooks were added as an apparent afterthought, and why not all of the "a"s were in manuscript form - no time to scan the note precisely. Or is this possibility really way out there?!
ReplyDeleteI can't answer that one. Someone else can. But I was comparing (funny you should mention it) the w's in the one little scrap of paper we have from John's office and his writing to the ransom note w's and to me they are very very close. Also I was observing the kind of "tight" way he writes and the tight way the ransom note is written. It seems as though since he slants to the left, he would take pains to make this note "upright." Just something I noticed. Patsy's printing - she looks to blend cursive letters in with printing, something the note did not have.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to run out of some of your RAM, CC. Every good idea on here in the last 2 yrs has come from you.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing before I give it a rest. If it was conclusive that the shirt fibers found in her pelvic area came from John's black shirt, then he didn't go to bed when he said he did and the murder happened early, which runs the risk of Patsy hearing and knowing.
ReplyDeleteThey were unusual fibers, and were without a doubt from his Israeli-made shirt. JBR was in full rigor, stiff as the proverbial board at 1:00 PM, which takes about twelve hours, less for a child with minimal body fat, so around 1:00 - 3:00 AM, four to five hours after Patsy went to bed. The basement was no accident; it was as far from her mother as John could get, and he'd overbooked her deliberately and knew she was exhausted.
ReplyDeleteHe may be "no Jason Bourne " as J said some weeks ago, and no criminal mastermind, but this is the smartest guy in most rooms.
No, I see that. I was just wondering if he stayed dressed and didn't get ready for bed as he said that would account for his shirt fibers there and whatever he was doing he was away from Patsy for a certain amount of time where she might have noticed. Also his story was he went to bed around 10:15, read for a while, then went to sleep. She knows that's his story and if he didn't actually do that it would be a red flag for her and she wouldn't be able to back up that story. I don't think he got his pajamas on and then changed back into the shirt. That was my point. Consequently if he was still wearing the shirt then he did not go to bed first. Is there no way at all that the fibers could have been transferred from what he was wearing to whatever he used to do a wipe down? Or if the fibers were from his dark bathrobe?
ReplyDeleteArgghh. Come to think about it were Patsy and John interrogated separately and asked the same questions about when the other went to bed? Because I don't recall Patsy being asked if she knew what time John got in bed and if they went to bed around the same time. She would have to answer this without him being in the room of course. She could have taken something before bed too, to assist her in sleeping.
ReplyDeleteLots of good thinking in the above comments, ladies. I have some ideas of my own regarding when and why the "garotte" was applied, but realistically we have no way of knowing what was on his mind and we'll probably never know.
DeleteIncidentally, Patsy never reported actually seeing John in bed that night. She either said or implied that she was asleep by the time he supposedly came to bed. And when she awoke he was in the shower. Is it possible he was up all night and never came to bed?
Regardless, it's not hard to see that both the head blow and the strangulation (for whatever reason) were John's doing. And there's no need to assume that everything he did was part of a carefully thought out plan. I feel sure he'd have been in a pretty crazy state of mind at that time and some things he did might have been purely irrational, possibly even part of a fantasy. Who knows what thoughts could have been racing through his head at that time?