Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
In 2000 when Steve Thomas published his book he complained that the BPD never got the phone records. Kolar didn't mention them, iirc, and I've never heard Beckner refer to them either.
A good prosecutor would have subpoenaed them in 1997-98 as part of the GJ'S investigative process, and though Hunter was inept, Mike Kane would have known better. Possibly, then, they're under seal, along with the rest of the GJ'S findings.
As long as it's an open case and an ongoing investigation, don't expect to see them released.
Hey Anonymous - what would you like to see regarding the phone records? That is, what would be of particular interest to you (given that we're all sleuths in here). I'd like to know if Dr. Beuf's office called Patsy back when she called him three times in rapid succession, and how long the call lasted. She claims to not remember making he calls.
Because there's still an open case and an active investigation. Releasing the remainder of the GJ findings and whatever they subpoenaed might jeopardize that investigation, so they've been sealed by judicial decree.
Patsy called Dr Beuf's office three times between five and six p.m. on December 17, 1986, eight days before the murder. CC
And those three rapid calls are indicative of some kind of panic it seems. Casey Anthony did the same thing at the time she was home, Caylee's last day, on her computer at the same time, and using her phone to call her mother one call after another and couldn't reach her.
I know the doctor said he had nothing to report but Patsy doesn't remember (in an interview on acandyrose)making those three calls. If her incoming call records showed his office called her back and they talked for any length of time, why doesn't she remember would be the question.
Posted before about this, but there was chatter that Patsy made oher calls that morning, one to the lady mayor. They had had formed a bond earlier with being cancer patients. There was John's cell phone that he claimed he lost in December. It would be interesting to see if there had been any flurry of calls incoming or outgoing to any number of people, in state and out of state.
If you Google kitchen crime scene photos jonbenet and go on images, there's one particular photo that looks to me like a cell phone on charge on the worktop.?
I did a search on this site for 'stun gun' hoping to find an article where that was discussed, but didn't see one specifically devoted to it.
Given that many of you refute the stun gun theory, what is your response to the marks on her body; in particular, the large circular abrasion near her ear/jaw bone?
Gumshoe, doubtful it was Burke's train tracks - as there is only one circular abrasion that you are talking about. Thomas thought it might be from one of Patsy's rings if she had grabbed JB by the shirt collar and somehow dug her curled up fingers into her face/ear/jaw line. He was guessing though.
Look, she was assaulted, OK? A sexual assault, OK? All sorts of things could have been done to her by an attacker who was clearly out of control during that time. The notion that we have to account for every mark on her body is absurd.
Doc, I don't think it's absurd at all. Those marks are very distinct and not the type of marks inflicted during an attack without some sort of object. Something caused those marks and I'm just curious as to what people think was the cause.
I see your frustration Doc. But I also see Gumshoe's point. Scrapes on the back of her leg (wherever they were) may easily be explained by drag marks but distinct round abrasions, if explained, could make the difference between whether a family member caused them or an intruder. I think maybe, correct me if I'm wrong, Gumshoe wants to completely eliminate an intruder but still has doubts.
Inquisitive, yes, you are correct. That being said, I don't know that the cause of those marks necessarily dictates if it was an intruder or the Ramseys. To be honest, even if it was a stungun, I don't necessarily think that automatically points towards an intruder. John could have owned one, used it, and gotten rid of it. They obviously got rid of the cord and tape. I also found it odd that Patsy told investigators she didn't know what stungun was. That's BS.
Mike G, hard to say. I don't really have any reason to truly believe John owned one. But any reasonably educated person in 1996 knew what a stungun was. Either she is lying or both she and John were coached by their attorneys to play aloof when asked about stunguns.
Honestly, Gumshoe, you'd be surprised at how many people don't know what a stun gun is. I didn't know what it was until I read that one may have been used in the JB crime, so I asked my father about it.....I was only in my early twenties at the time, but I find it feasible that a privileged socialite would never have heard of a stun gun.
In regard to a stun gun though there is no reason John would have NEEDED to use one. One can quiet someone by placing their hand over the mouth of another, especially adult to child. So in that respect, if a stun gun was used I think it would point to an intruder. But to go back to your other question, the bigger round abrasion on the cheek is not consistent with a stun gun mark as there aren't two marks. One other thing but I have to look at the crime photos again -
I know nobody thinks that. But everyone refutes John using a stungun because they're be no reason to silence her with it. I'm just suggesting he could have used it as part of staging.
Right - no one thinks that. There has been so much gossip surrounding this case - things the Globe and National Enquirer put out there long ago that the only way to separate fact from fiction is do your own reading - and think for yourself.
Gumshoe, I can't tell how high up the other two marks on the shoulder area are. Whatever caused those "burns" it seems to me her shoulder area would need to be exposed. So that's something else to consider. If she was rolling around on the floor then how could anything on the floor penetrate her sweater.
I think the burn marks were made by a (GlueGun) which is used for crafts and other things , have you noticed all the crafts in basement and throughout the house ? was Patsy into crafts? and have you every touched the tip of a HOT glue-gun? Ouch!!
That's a good theory. Didn't the CBS special indicate that it was evident she was already dead when the marks we inflicted given the way it didn't bleed out; or something like that?
Anonymous: I'm just curious. How soon after you spotted the GlueGun in the picture did it occur to you it may have caused the burn marks? Also, how long have you held this theory?
Mike G, I did not see glue gun IN PICTURE....I do not know how to explain this more clearly , I am 74 years old and had been following this case for many years.\in my opinion, there are many ways that may have caused the burn marks . had Jon Benet been burned with anything while alive, the marks would have been (Reddish) ? they seem dark in color usually burn marks begin to discolor while healing , in the autopsy photo looking closely size of a dime, they may have been caused by a ""CIGAR"" burn , didn't John Ramsey say he kept "His" Cigars in basement ?wondering if there was a stale "smell" of cigar smoke) apparently not . OR is this why the basement window was left open to allow smell of smoke to escape? Look. I have no Idea what may have caused these "burn "marks" the parents must have known whether she had bruises or burns to her body before bed time. And.. the M.E. could not determine what caused these burn marks?whether it was a stun Gun , train tracks , glue gun , cigarette or Cigar. Actually they looks like old burns which are beginning to heal and in days sometime changes to a (dark color) ,BTW.. this is my English and I do not want any correction thank you..this is not a grammar class,lol. all I can say is according to what I have read , this child was tortured , beaten , smashed skull , strangled . Whoever has committed this crime made damn sure she was dead , (God Bless you JB)
sorry , I am not a doctor I have not worked in (Burn units at Hospitals , I only know with experience how my past "accidently burns have healed. I pray the killer will be captured or confess to this horrific crime ~~Rest In Peace sweet little Angel~
Mike G...my last comment, if you will, Goggle "A Candy Rose"june 1998, John Ramsey's interrogation with Lou Smit and Mike Kane (Cigars and Cigar Box) interesting and I suggest you read much of the questions and answers.
I would like to see evidence of what a stun gun used on a child JBR's size would do. I can image that if it has a certain impact on an adult, that it would have a MUCH worse impact on a child. (Well, I wouldn't want to see a child tasered just for evidence, but I'd like to hear what a doctor had to say about the effects of a taser on a child). Also, would a stun gun used on a child cause some kind of internal damage from the shock? Would that turn up on an autopsy report? Would the location where the stun gun was used cause any kind of marking on the inside of the body for forensic pathologists to make note? None of this is discussed. We see two markings that LOOK like they are from a stun gun but there is no more evidence than that. Let's think here.
Also, I'd like to see the phone records to see who the Ramseys called that morning prior to the 911 call.
I'd also like to know the reason for the three calls to the dr's office a week before JBR's murder. It might be unrelated, but it might not be. Wouldn't they be able to find that information out from the dr's office since PR could not remember?
Great question on the stun gun effects on a child. The CBS show showed the effects on a fairly large man. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you have a 200+ pound male versus a tiny 6 year old.
We're not going to see the phone records, even if they were produced to the BPD, which is open to debate, even if subpoenaed by the GJ, BECAUSE IT'S AN OPEN INVESTIGATION.
HIPPA, a piece of Federal legislation enacted in mid-1996, provides for absolute privacy for a child's medical records, barring an agreement for their release by the parents. No way they were subject to GJ subpoena, so we're not going to see those either.
Endless wishing and hoping is not going to change the law, or the facts. Let's move on.
Government over-regulation is not my cup of tea, but HIPPA was a much needed and great piece of legislation. It protects EVERYONE's medical records, not just childrens', from public consumption.
Having said that, if a physician testifying under oath, on behalf of the defendant, in a criminal case, makes a claim about a patient under his or her care--a claim only the patient's medical records can corroborate, can the prosecutor request appertaining sections of those records be produced as evidence? If so, and the claim is discovered to be false, what then? Can a judge then order a patient's entire medical record be released, if the one claim established as false calls into question the credibility of the physician's entire and final "medical expert opinion"?
I'm sure, more often than not, these types of potential pratfalls to a smooth and orderly trial are ferreted out ahead of time during the discovery phase. But for the purpose of my question, let's assume the particular "claim" to which I refer was overlooked during discovery.
HIPPA is an all-encompassing, comprehensive act, and you're right, Mike, a uniform policy was much-needed. Doctor/patient confidentiality is now guaranteed, and cannot be superseded by court authority under any circumstances, even those you describe.
"HIPPA, a piece of Federal legislation enacted in mid-1996, provides for absolute privacy for a child's medical records, barring an agreement for their release by the parents."
Of course. My question should have stipulated John's agreement to have them released, but then he wouldn't be allowed to cherry pick what sections to release, would he? It would be all or nothing at all...?
Same goes for Burke's psychiatrist record as well - however wasn't there some kind of snafu in the law that allowed the Menedez brother's psychologist to reveal what they talked about in court? Was that because his receptionist heard something and talked about it?
So, we are not going to access any records, at least, for the time being. I believe they would shed some light to the case but they would not solve it as any isolated piece of the puzzle has more relevance, it's all together than when considered makes sense (or not). Let's talk about what we know as certain in this case. I would like to hear more about possible scenarios and how the evidence best fit them. I believe JDI without a shadow of a doubt in my mind. But I would like to hear a possible scenario for BDI and the psycology behind both theories.
OK, thanks for the clarification Marcela. I mentioned that because of your use of the word "to" in your phrase "I believe they would shed some light to the case . . ." I've noticed that for some reason people with a British background have begun using the word "to" as a kind of all-purpose preposition. The traditional usage would be "shed some light ON the case," and that's how most Americans would put it. Brits also tend to use "to" instead of "from," as in "that shoe is very different to the other one." And more and more I'm noticing "to" used as a substitute for other prepositions as well.
To me this is not only incorrect grammar, but also a kind of verbal laziness and it's always bothered me. Nothing personal of course, since your usage is consistent with that of a great many established British authors and journalists. I'm wondering, though, how this very odd usage got started and whether anyone with a British background, or as in your case British-oriented schooling, is ever bothered by it.
it was a mistake I made. The idiom is "shed grammar on". My background is very much British but that was only an error, a typo I wouod say since I am not the type of person who edits... Thank you for the correction.
A BDI scenario has been offered up here, but who wants to get slammed again for not jumping on the JDI bandwagon? Instead people just choose to go away from here for a while - maybe for good. Or a few stay on for years serving as the guard dogs. When Kolar's book came out people re considered whether Burke could have done it or not, then the CBS special which picked up speed and converts in the court of public opinion. There are still a few in here that firmly believe in it, they have said their peace and realize no one is going to change their minds - at least not in here. Nothing new with this case
Well, I have read Doc's possible scenario for JDI and it really covers all bases. It explains pretty much whatever we know about the case. And it makes sense. I was wondering if anyone could offer a possible scenario for BDI in the same manner Doc describes it for JDI.
Here is this odd theory from 1998 that is BDI but there are lots of unfounded claims made in it as well. The blogger is also an author. https://burkedidit.blogspot.com/p/the-burke-did-it-theory.html?m=1
He does say that two dolls were placed in the room with Jonbenet.
Another example of how bizarre and complicated these theories can get. It starts out with the story of Nancy Krebs, implicating Fleet White as part of a criminal pedophile ring that abuses her. An offshoot of this same group is apparently associated with Lockheed Martin and they are responsible for getting JonBenet addicted to erotic strangulation.
The author then goes on to formulate a totally unrelated theory implicating Burke of all people, using a scenario in which none of the above incidents play any role whatsoever. The only link is a supposed interest in "erotic strangulation" on the part of JonBenet, for which there is no evidence at all.
Inquisitive, you say: "A BDI scenario has been offered up here, but who wants to get slammed again for not jumping on the JDI bandwagon? Instead people just choose to go away from here for a while - maybe for good."
Firstly, let's be honest here - *all* theories get "slammed" by those who oppose it. This is not exclusive to BDIs. No one has insisted anyone here jump on any "bandwagon", that is ridiculous. If BDIs choose to leave the forums because JDIs don't agree with their assertions, what do you expect the other posters should do about that? Entertain a scenario that has no basis in fact in order to placate the more sensitive BDIs? Come on now.....it's a crime blog, not a love fest. Marcela's comment sums up my thoughts: "Well, I have read Doc's possible scenario for JDI and it really covers all bases. It explains pretty much whatever we know about the case. And it makes sense. I was wondering if anyone could offer a possible scenario for BDI in the same manner Doc describes it for JDI."
If/when a BDI theory is proposed that makes sense of all the evidence, as Doc's JDI theory does, then we might start taking the possibility seriously. So far, no BDI scenario has come close to making sense of the cover up: amongst the other implausible elements already covered here ad nauseam, one does not stage a crime to cover for an accident, it just doesn't happen. Unless the parents actually wanted to instigate a massive, homicidal investigation for what was otherwise an accident......which is what one would have to believe in order to go with BDI.
Oh no, I get you Ms D. It's just that some get stuck in old theories, that have no merit - like Lou Smit saying an intruder climbed through the basement window, then used the suitcase to boost himself back out the window. Much later we find out the Ramsey's gave out many keys. Or we think in our minds how tough it would be to stand on a suitcase. Old theory was an intruder came in and hid, took his time, but then did he write the note there - or did he bring it in. Then that doesn't jive with a murder. Then there's the old theory that Burke accidentally killed his sister but a parent did all the rest. Not really realistic. An ambulance would be called. But if she was hit and strangled and dead we can see that there would be no need to call an ambulance - or call a police officer to report a murder by your son. So no, one would not stage a crime to cover for an accident as you said, but one might stage a crime to cover for a murder, if someone in your family murdered. And if i were to go to BDI then I would have to believe that she was dead when he told a parent, or near death, or presumed dead.
Well, that's the only way BDI could work for me, but it's not a theory many BDIs go with, and the scenario they present makes it impossible to even consider BDI. Because parents would not, under any circumstances, "finish off" their child who had merely been the victim of an unfortunate accident. Not even in the Twilight Zone.....
I don't understand how the phone records could not be released. You hear about police/detectives getting text message reports for cases and looking at who a certain person called. It DOES happen.
Marcela - I think there are so many scenarios that fit.
With JDI, I don't think he would have been acting alone. The whole "visit from Santa" thing creeps me out and makes me think it could have been someone else that she knew that tried to hurt her. I don't think JR would have killed his daughter just to keep her quiet. A dad would have more power over a child than to need to beat her over the head. Plus, he lost one daughter. I think it would make him look suspicious if his kids were dying left and right...so that would have made him be careful.
PDI - also likely if she was stressed and JBR wet her bed. JBR could have fallen and hit her head but no blood was found so she most likely didn't fall from somewhere high and I don't think PR would hit her over the head with a flashlight. The pineapple also doesn't factor in well here.
BDI - very likely with the flashlight and pineapple. Burke had previous issues and instances where he hit JBR. The feces on the wall. The lack of attention. A child would not know his own strength whereas an adult would...even in a fit of rage. JR and PR were not the alcohol/drug induced anger rage type of people. A child would be most likely to lash out in rage and cause harm.
Thank you, Anony... I understand Burke was in some way an apparent violent child, at least that episode with the golf club seems to show us that he didnt like JonBenet so to speak. But, Im interested to hear how a possible unintentional act from a jealous or angry child ended up with sexual assault and strangulation. I agree the BDI theory is possible. He hit her once, he could have hit her twice but the assault? Thanks again...
"I understand Burke was in some way an apparent violent child, at least that episode with the golf club seems to show us that he didnt like JonBenet so to speak."
The incident you refer to was an accident. He was swinging a golf club and JB came up behind him. There are no known incidents involving Burke being intentionally violent towards JB, so there is nothing whatsoever that points towards Burke not liking his sister. Friends of the family stated the contrary, in fact - that the two of them got along quite well and loved each other.
Thank you Anonymous. Here I didn't think anyone would brave it again and you did.
I agree with you. Also with Burke there were inconsistencies with what he told the social worker, versus what he told Dr. Phil. So since you were brave, I'll say mine -
BDI - he was admittedly up late, then snuck downstairs later. Yes, why would he volunteer that - because when people lie they admit certain things that are truthful in order to sound like they are going to be truthful everywhere else. He may have been in the basement, tearing open some of those presents that may have been for his birthday in January, and she surprised him. He could have suggested they play a game where he ties her up, using the cord available to him, fashioning a garrote using his cub scout/boy scout or boating knot skills, and begun tightening the noose. He may have tied her wrists too, not tightly, but loosely as part of the game. He also pulled down her panties and assaulted her with Patsy's paint brush handle. She likely was molested before - maybe by him. When she struggled or was able to get up she began running for the stairs. Not wanting her to tell his parents he struck her with the flashlight. ME couldn't say which came first, the strangulation or the headblow so said the headblow would have killed her, and the strangulation did. In that lag time between headblow and death he could have thought she was going to get up, prodded her with traintrack or something else then gone for help.
The bowl of pineapple stayed on diningroom table, unfinished. Mom or dad sent Burke to bed either not knowing he had killed his sister, or knowing that he did. He exhibited dis-associative behavior with the social worker acting rather nonchalant for someone who's sister had been murdered, and later on was sent to a therapist - not for just a few sessions, but for two years. Thanks for breaking the ice Anonymous. And, it's just a scenario, as requested by Marcela.
Thank you, Inq.:) To be honest, I never read something like this before. In summary Burke acted pretty much alone. So, in this scenario, who do you think wrote the RN? And when? Thank you, again.
Actually thank you - for your questions. Sorry I was snarky regarding the narcissist/sociopath stuff. That was your hypothesis, right? Anyway so who wrote the RN. Patsy. Burke would have gone and gotten Patsy - although if she was truly in bed asleep it would be hard not to wake John as well who was sleeping right next to her. So they could have put their heads together over what to do, so I doubt he continued to sleep through Burke's frantic recounting of what happened. So he likely participated in the rest of the night's events as well. Sounds crazy doesn't it? But no crazier than anything else.
No worries, Inq. Thank you for taking the time to address all the questions or doubts that are presented. We may not agree on fundamental issues but all opinions are welcome and I respect everyone here. That, I believe, is the spirit of the author of this blog and I respect that as well.
I would like to see the autopsy report of JBR compared to doctor reports of molestation from other girls JBR's age to see how they compare. Because the medical records are sealed, we do not have any knowledge of anything other than what they found at the time of her death. The autopsy report does NOT state that JBR abuse to her vaginal area indicates an adult male abused her. Does it?
We can't assume she was chronically sexually molested by an adult male. It could have been an adult female! It could have been another child (maybe BR - not with the intent to harm but to experiment), it could have been JBR herself.
I also do not think BR staged the death scene. I do not think a child would use a garrote nor do I think a child would know how to make such an intricate knot. That is the concerning part...FW was an expert sailor and taught JR a lot of skills. Given that the Ramseys were over at the White's that night, I really think that FW should have been looked into more carefully. His past in CA. I'd also like the phone records for the very verification of what time FW was called over to the Ramsey's that morning because I know many on here LIKE to think whatever the Ramseys say is factual ("oh, I found the ransom note on the bottom step in the kitchen!"), but you can't take their word for anything given this is an unsolved crime.
It wasn't all that intricate according to Beckner. In his Q&A he said his department sent the knot out and the consensus was it was not complicated. Poor Fleet - I don't think he had any means, motive, or opportunity.
I do no think that BR would even know what a garrote looks like let alone that be his go-to form of staging a strangulation. Also, JBR's fingernails imprints were found around the cord so it had to be someone much stronger than her.
Inq - how can you rule out anyone, let alone FW, when this case is not solved. He lived close by, he was a close family friend, he was an expert sailor and the knot found around JBR's neck was a typical sailor's knot. Plus, he knew the layout of the house, it had been documented by others that FW knew where the wine cellar was and yet that morning he claims he didn't go in there fully because he couldn't find the light switch. So, a grown adult male would just ignore a room where a child might be because he couldn't find a light switch? I think any kid would be more inclined to go into the wine cellar to look for someone if they were missing - lights or no lights. On TOP of that...he and JR were missing for a portion of that morning while looking through the house for JBR. All that - to me - is hugely concerning. I know he was investigated and deemed not a suspect, but I do not think he can be completely ruled out if none of the Ramseys have been found to be guilty.
BOULDER — Fleet and Priscilla White, the Boulder couple who were in John and Patsy Ramsey’s home the day JonBenét Ramsey’s body was discovered on Dec. 26, 1996, have gone to court once again seeking records of a police investigation into a California woman’s allegations that cast suspicions on the Whites.
The motion, filed in Boulder District Court on Monday, asks a judge to order Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner to show cause as to why the records should not be released to the Whites.
If a judge grants the order, Beckner would have to present his case to a judge or release the records to the Whites. The law requires the court to conduct a hearing “at the earliest practical time.”
The Camera in February 2000 reported that a 38-year-old woman told then-District Attorney Alex Hunter that, when she was young, she had been ritually and sexually abused in a manner similar to the way JonBenét Ramsey may have been before she was killed. She said she knew the Ramseys through Fleet White.
I must say I couldn't ignore my daughter's bathroom since I really had to go. As I shut the door thinking the light switch would be just inside the bathroom door there I was, engulfed in darkness until I gave up in defeat, opened the door and found out the light switch was outside the bathroom on an opposite wall. S happens.
The Whites were thoroughly investigated, Anon. They also both had iron clad alibis for the night of the murder. Fleet and his wife have been very forthcoming with information relating to the crime - hardly the actions of a guilty party (as opposed to John Ramsey, who has not been nearly as forthcoming as the Whites. It would seem these two want Jonbenet's killer to be found, unlike Mr Ramsey.....why do you think that might be?)
Does anyone think that the friendship between FW and JR was/is odd? How they were so close but then things fell apart after JBR's death?
I know stress can cause issues between people, but it is all very odd. Lots of inconsistences between them and it seems JR might have used FW as a scapegoat. But then again, FW seemed highly overzealous in the aftermath...telling JR what to do, having issues with the Ramsey family, stating he wants the "truth to come out" but then does not speak about what happened that morning. If he is doing things that indicate he might believe The Ramseys were involved in the death of JBR, why doesn't he just say it?
It leads one to speculate if the JDI theory is true, if he (FW) was involved or if JR is using FW as a scapegoat.
"Does anyone think that the friendship between FW and JR was/is odd? How they were so close but then things fell apart after JBR's death?"
It depends on how you define "odd". They went sailing together, the families shared some vacations.....is this an unusual thing for friends to do together? You'll have to be more specific in regards to what makes you feel their friendship was "odd".
"But then again, FW seemed highly overzealous in the aftermath...telling JR what to do, having issues with the Ramsey family, stating he wants the "truth to come out" but then does not speak about what happened that morning. If he is doing things that indicate he might believe The Ramseys were involved in the death of JBR, why doesn't he just say it?"
Was he "telling JR what to do"? Was he "overzealous"? I don't see this being the case. I only see someone who cared about Jonbenet, therefore wanted to see justice served. And I do believe Fleet and Priscilla told LE about their suspicions, and no doubt they were heard by the Grand Jury. Just because they are not speaking to the press, it doesn't mean they are withholding information from LE. But I do believe you're right about one thing. I'm almost certain that JR was using his good buddy as a scapegoat, something that didn't escape Fleet's attention, and was probably a major factor as to why they stopped talking to one another.
Ms D you are being a good soul here and trying to answer a question for someone as best you can but don't you notice when someone has gone away from here, then come back under a different name if you will? Because the topic you are addressing for Anonymous has been discussed before, regarding Fleet with a particular blogger. And so, I see that there are always similarities in how a person writes, the topic they seem preoccupied with, and a style. These are things I notice, you can almost "see" a personality in how someone writes. It is for this reason I believe whoever wrote the ransom note was known soon after the note was read, and who wrote it. There were little tells in the note. To those that were outside the close inner family circle and to say, us, we would not recognize those tells. LE would not know those tells either. So they were stuck trying to match individual letters, or words used other places. They had to stumble around asking Patsy questions about what she liked to watch on television (the movie quotes). But I can tell up above who Anonymous is. I can also see that there are two other Anonymous's in here, each are different. One is philosophical, the other abrupt. I can tell who has had a bad day and is on a short fuse, I can hear bias in how they write not bias regarding this case but bias from life experiences and the things that have happened to them which formed their attitudes, opinions and beliefs. The ransom note really doesn't sound like Patsy, does it? And honestly, it doesn't sound like John either - because we don't know them. But if John wrote the note I am sure Patsy knew soon enough who wrote it, and if Patsy wrote it I'm sure John recognized it, but if they were both in on "the events" of that night then no one outside of those two will be able to pin the note on either one of them.
I have two favorite authors who sometimes collaborate on a book together. The book flows seamlessly between chapter to chapter, the story holds together, they are both well known published story tellers. But I can tell who has written which passages - or chapters. Patsy and John may have written the note together, but there would be little need to - they would not think LE could pick one particular style apart from the other. John could have dictated a few sentences to Patsy but there really was no need to - there would be other ways to confuse LE by writing backslanted, or wavy lines, or throwing in things that the two of them knew and only those two. More likely one took charge of the note. There would be no need for a two person note. Families are unbelievably tight. Outside of my family I doubt anyone could pick an individual member's writing style from a stranger's. Of course this is just my opinion - but here we are, not much closer to who wrote the note other than our theories.
Yes, Inq, I have noticed the particular "Anonymous" I responded to seems to be unreasonably focused on Fleet White, much like a poster who was causing a bit of drama here until very recently, and who also shares a very similar writing style to said person (we all know who we're both referring to, no need to call anyone out). I agree that writing styles are usually distinct, and most of us could name the author of any of the comments posted here, even if none of them were signed by name. However, the ransom note's purpose was to deceive, so it was littered with red herrings, "Mcguffins", and a writing style that was very different from the tone that would normally be used by the author in day to day conversation. The writer made sure not to insert any of "himself" into the note, and for the most part, I don't think he did....but, certainly, there are a couple of "tells" that point to John having penned the note, and he was sure to throw in a couple of Patsy's phrases (let's not forget, it was John himself who told Linda Arndt it was an "inside job" before he'd even laid down his dead daughter's body. So clearly, his plan was to implicate someone - anyone - that knew him personally, and he wasn't wasting any time with that). I honestly don't believe Patsy would have been foolish enough to include her own, oft used, adages, especially when she's planning on using her own paper, pen and paintbrush in the staging.....so, if anything, all I see is someone trying to imitate Patsy, but not Patsy herself in the note.
I truly would have loved to discuss this case with my father who sadly is no longer here. He had a great sense of logic and getting to the bottom of things, not saying he could have solved it though. Incidentally inq, on my father's side there are two very well known authors within the family, one from the usa and the other with ties to the family from the UK. ( shame my writing skills are so limited :(. I also have noticed some posters here posting on other sites under different names that you can tell who they are from how and what they write. MS D, If I were patsy writing the note, I would actually throw in a couple of things that would point to myself to show an intruder knew me. Not so sure about handing over my pen and pad with it though
My late father and I used to discuss this case often, evej. He would buy the books and loan them to me afterwards, and we'd discuss it for hours. We both shared a love of true crime. My father was a brilliant man, and very logical.....yet, he firmly believed it was an intruder that committed this crime for one reason only - the garrote. He agreed that the ransom note and the crime scene were all elaborate staging, but he couldn't accept that a parent would garrote their child. I agreed with him. We would have many arguments with my mother, who believed John or both John and Patsy committed the crime. I have since shown my mother this blog and she is a firm JDI now.....I often wonder if my dad would have changed his mind had he have read Doc's analysis of the ransom note. I would so love to discuss this case with him with my "new" perspective.
It's great you and Ms D had a family member with an interest in mysteries that you could discuss with. I have my grandson. He's 15, but he's interested. His mother got fed up with my O.J. obsession in the 90's so I can't discuss with her! It was he who dispelled my intruder theory, with two short comments.
Ha! Two comments? They must have been some powerful words.....none of us could convince you it wasn't an intruder! Of course, you've piqued my interest now.....what did he say?
1. The note was too familiar. Even accounting for a close acquaintance - Someone who knew that much would have been immediately suspected. Even leaving the area is suspicious for one so familiar.
2. No noises. He did quite a bit of work. He turned a key in a lock and opened a door. He lured a little girl from her bedroom on the second floor. He took her down the stairs into the kitchen, then down to the basement all the while not making one sound. He spread a note out on the stairs - either afterward or before. He then went back upstairs and out the door he came in - and locked it behind him. He was sure there was no dog there and wouldn't be there, he was sure no one would wake up, and for someone that knowledgeable and self assured and intimate to the family he was not found. Even disappearing from town would raise suspicion.
So pretty simple. Note was too familiar. No noise.
We toyed with the idea that the note, the whole note, was a McGuffin. With the sole point of getting back at John, but then the intruder would have been known. Found, captured. Otherwise one could indulge in a conspiracy theory, which I'm not a fan of - I'll leave that to Oliver Stone.
Yes, Inquisitive, your nephew is correct, of course.....but we'd been telling you the exact, same thing for weeks, with no success. So I'm thinking that perhaps your discussion with your nephew just came at a time when you more inclined to throw away the intruder theory at that point anyway?
grandson, Ms D, grandson. I think I needed to discuss it from point to point, get the feedback, convince him, then refute it all. He allows that. He revels in it. So I ask him what's wrong with that theory. Just like when I complete an art design I say where is the flaw. Where did I mess up. He finds it. But - you know there are so many what ifs surrounding this particular case. For me, something has to make sense. If there are enough parts to it that don't make sense then I can't support it. I'm still on the Patsy wagon but I think she couldn't have dealt with it all night on her own. I just don't see John as a cold calculated murderer, so that's where it stands for me for now.
Sorry, Inq, I don't know where I got it into my head that he was your nephew! Though I disagree that Patsy had any knowledge of the crime that night, I am happy you let go of the intruder theory.
No problem. It's because I'm such a young looking beautiful granny people often are astounding that I could have a grandson :):) Anyway, if these DNA results point to someone known then we'll all go running to an intruder, ha
Have a question for you Ms D. If John sat and wrote that note, took the time it must have taken to "get it right", surely he must have known he started the note on a separate page, then re started the note. He must have known that he only tore out the note from the pad and then put the pad and pen back where Patsy had it. Why was he so willing to hand that very pad over to LE? Please don't say he was hoping to frame his own wife.
Lol, Inq, well I did think you were around my age. :) I don't think it was initially John's plan to frame anyone - he was hoping it would appear as a kidnapping, his daughter's body would never be discovered, and his family would never be suspects. But, after his plan went awry and he realized it was unlikely LE would buy that a kidnapper entered the home without actually taking JB, I think he was happy to point the finger at anybody.....Patsy, Fleet, work colleagues, it didn't matter, as long as it pointed away from him. I do think he knew exactly what he was doing though when he so willingly handed over the note pad to LE and made the claim it was an "inside job".
Then again, those very Patsy-esque, manuscript "a"s which initially began as regular "a"s, along with the fact her writing materials were used, and her art supplies in the basement, tell me that perhaps it was John's intention all along. Either that, or Patsy made no attempt to draw attention away from herself - quite the contrary, in fact, she did everything to draw attention to herself, making her a complete idiot - and nothing suggests that the latter is true. I think Patsy was naive, and in denial, but an idiot she wasn't.
Why do you YOU believe John so willingly handed over the evidence, Inquisitive? Are you suggesting that, at that point, John had absolutely no knowledge Patsy had committed the crime? Meaning, the garrote, the vaginal penetration, the note - all of it - was Patsy's work alone? Because that is the only scenario, aside from IDI, that has John handing over the notepad being completely unaware it was used for the RN.
First I shall give you the benefit of the doubt John wrote the note in listing two theories. There is a possible reason he was so helpful in regard to handing over the pad. It goes back to a discussion about lying. As my former attorney once said, everyone lies. How we do it varies from person to person. If
A. John suspected his wife wrote the note (and he would have to have that suspicion rather rapidly given LE was on it's way over) he may not have known she wrote it on that particular pad - and so was truly being helpful by handing it over, not knowing she had started the note on previous pages or B. He wrote the note and was "being helpful" so that he could appear cooperative. One who is so cooperative in trying to find out who did this couldn't "possibly have done it" quotes are for purposes of showing his story).
But I did like the idea Doc had that John, if he wrote it, could have copied the new courier font "a" from a word processor - but then so could Patsy. Either one of them though forgot they were going to try and disguise their writing by starting with wavy lines as that is not as pronounced as the note bounces along.
Didn't John go and get his own white lined pad as well? He said they both had one and he turned that over as well. So he may not have known she had started the note on the one in the kitchen.
If John indeed suspected his wife as you suggest, wouldn't he try to cover for her, therefore not be so eager to hand any of Patsy's note pads over to LE? Also, if he suspected his wife after finding JB's body at eleven a.m (rather than the official time of just after one p.m), and did a little bit of quick staging in order to cover for Patsy, as you have proposed, why then was he so quick to inform LE that it must have been "an inside job"? Those words indicate he was pointing the finger directly at someone in the home. Either scenario certainly doesn't sound like the actions of a man trying to protect his wife.....
Is it documented anywhere what time the Ramsey's flight to Michigan was on 12/27? Were they taking a private jet? How far was that airport from their home?
I believe Pam Archuleta said around 7, 7:30 in her book, or possibly in an interview - I no longer recall specifically, but an early ETD, as they were to meet Melissa and John Andrew in Minnesota and go on to Charlevoix together.
I don't think I am causing problems by discussing FW. This case is not solved. There are actually strange accusations of abuse from a woman who knew the family in CA. Yes, those accusations were deemed to be unfounded, but still...it was a woman who DID know the White family.
The things I find odd are not their friendship (please, can we be more mature), but their attitudes towards each other after the day JBR was found dead. I'm not going to rewrite it all, but I think to automatically dismiss FW and to call me a troublemaker because I question his role in the whole thing, is disturbing. Family friends have been known to molest and murder the children of family friends. I am NOT saying FW had involvement, but I am questioning it based on the behaviors of both FW and JR towards each other after JBR was found dead. It seems to point to JR not liking how FW is too close to the matter and wants him to back off so he and Patsy can do their damage control OR it points to FW and JR being involved in the events of December 26, either maliciously or non maliciously. Maliciously meaning FW and JR were the ones who killed JBR or non maliciously meaning JR found JBR dead and asked FW to help stage the death. Perhaps if the latter, FW did not like being drawn into the whole situation and wanted JR to come clean but at that point JR had already surrounded himself with PR and lawyers.
It just seems like FW has his hands tied and can only say/do so much. And I think there is a reason for that. It is possible he knows more than he is willing to say and outing JR will be outing himself, so his hands are tied until JR admits something/anything.
One thing is for sure, the wine cellar is causing a lot of issues.
PR : You know, it wasn't a full blown wine celler, but we kept boxes of wine in there. And I want to say that, I don't remember whether it was the night of the 23rd, that party or some party that we had, i remember somebody saying we are out of red wine. And I said, please go to the basement to get some more red wine..
TD: Okay, In the months prior the Christmas of ''96, Fleet would have gone in there?
PR : I would say Fleet, the cleaning lady and [ maybe the hunband ].
06/24/98.
Then there is this: Within minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home, Fleet decided to look around the house. His own daughter had been missing a few months ago, and after the police were called they found her hiding under her bed. Fleet was hoping that JonBenet too was just hiding somewhere in the house. Since everyone had been told by the police officers not to go upstairs, Fleet went down to the basement. He noticed that the lights were on. He found a small piece of glass from a broken window in a room used for model trains. In checking the latch for the window he discovered that it was unlocked, but closed. Fleet also noticed a blue suitcase was sitting underneath the window. He continued with his search by opening every cupboard and door. He opened the door to the wine cellar, reached inside, but could not find the light switch and could not see inside the room. The wind cellar is completely formed by cement and has no windows. Finding no evidence of anyone entering or leaving from the basement area and no trace of JonBenet, Fleet went back upstairs."
This makes no sense: "In order to give John something to do to keep him from pacing the floor, Det. Arndt told Fleet, “I need your help in keeping John’s mind occupied. Could you ask him to recheck the house top to bottom to see if anything belonging to JonBenet had been taken or left behind?" Fleet, hesitating, responded, “I think it would be better coming from you.” Arndt located John and asked him to assist Fleet on this search.
John went to the basement door with Fleet following. Fleet first took John to the train room to show him the unlatched broken window that he had discovered on his first excursion into the basement. John explained to Fleet, "I broke that window last summer when I misplaced my house key and had to break in." They searched for broken glass on the floor and found one small splinter. John and Fleet then looked in a broom closet and another small room. While Fleet was still checking other closets, John walked to the wine cellar and tried to pull open the door. Because the top latch was secured, the door would not open. John reached up, undid the latch, and opened the door. Fleet, who was about 20 feet away, heard John exclaim, "Oh my God, oh my God," and went running to the room where John was standing. As Fleet approached the door, John flipped on the wine cellar light switch. Fleet saw the body of JonBenet laying on the floor.
John said he saw the white blanket on the floor as soon as he opened the door, and when the lights came on he saw his daughter laying on the blanket. Fleet ran up the basement stairs to the main floor. Appearing extremely distraught, he grabbed a phone, dialed two or three numbers, but then hung up. He turned to go back to the basement door, but then stopped and yelled for someone to call for an ambulance."
There were TWO light switches in the wine cellar.:
The team now concentrated on the wine cellar. Two light switches were located for this room one on the inside east wall 5 feet above the floor level, and the other on the west wall 2 feet above the floor level and 2 feet inside the doorway. Polaroid photos were taken before any of the investigators entered the room. Unfortunately, other officers had tromped through the room immediately after discovery of the body in making their own inspection of the crime scene."
So....FW's role in all of this the day JBR was found is not curious?
This is all based on what FW and JR state. Are we to believe their every word - that what they said happened downstairs is actual fact? No detectives or police were with them. Who know what went on in the basement but their stories do NOT match up. Then throw into the mix that their friendship deteriorated shortly after that day, or rather after JBR's funeral.
Well, as for me, you are within your rights to suspect Fleet, I just don't see anything particularly suspicious about his behavior. John, yes. Patsy, yes. Fleet also traveled to help clear John Andrew. Fleet had an alibi for that night, he had a house guest who knew Fleet had gone to sleep that night in his own home. I don't think it's unusual to not know where a light switch is, even if there are two of them - as I said in my daughter's own house I had no clue where her light switch was and shut myself in a dark room assuming it was inside the room. I wasn't even close - it was on an opposite wall adjacent to the bathroom. It's also possible John moved the body when he found it earlier. Then we have John suggesting Fleet may have had something to do with it. That would of course piss me off no end. Fleet also thought John should stick around town and answer questions, not flee to Atlanta. Fleet also wanted the GJ findings released which at the time they weren't releasing them. So anyway, Fleet doesn't come under my own particular radar of suspicious involvement but you are within your rights to believe that, I don't think anyone is disputing that. And the Krebs woman was off her nut. Sometimes people want to insinuate themselves into a case in order to gain a little fame for themselves. Like John Mark Karr.
I find this interesting, look at Patsy's reaction when questioned about the family dog and her reaction in the 911 transcript.
LINDA WILCOX: "Well, first of all, Patsy didn't want a dog. This particular dog didn't get the potty training thing down very well, he tended to leave puddles. He was pretty much relegated to the wood floor at the bottom of the spiral staircase and out the side door off the patio. However, they had, John told Patsy to get JonBenet a dog. It was John's decision to get a dog and Patsy chose a Bichon. She got it from a pet store, and I came there one day, his name was Jacques, a little guy, cute little furball. Well, one day the dog went to the vet and came back. But the dog that went to the vet was smaller than the dog that left. I had said something to Patsy, the next week I walked in and I asked Patsy what happened to Jacques. She's like, "What?" And I said, this isn't Jacques. And she's like, SHHHH, don't tell anyone, no one else knows. Turns out the first dog had something wrong like some kind of liver disease or something and it was dying. It was a bad dog, so she called the pet store and made a switch before anyone knew."
911 call:
Patsy: “I don’t know I just got the note, and my daughter’s gone.”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “What?”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”
911: “It’s a ransom note?”
Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”
_________
Seems the Ramseys are not above staging. Also, PR did not like to be questioned.
Yanno, if I were BPD, I would've questioned the vet. I don't think there is patient/doctor confidentiality when it comes to animal care, right?
If true what Linda said, that John wanted Jonbenet to have a dog, geez! Why not the family's dog? Burke seemed to get short shrift in some areas.
I don't know when the dog idea came about with Patsy's treatment. Puppies are high maintenance, and I've said before the children had issues with potty training and bed wetting and then add a pup that no one cared to house train. Lazy. But then John should have been home more to take on dog responsibilities too.
Wonder if John ever got a dog for Burke in the years after Jonbenet's murder? I know Jacques version 2 stayed on to live with the elderly neighbors.
What does the dog have to do with anything at all? Patsy "switched" a dog for another dog because it was ill? O.k, not terribly ethical, but not an act to indicate she was capable of murdering her own child. Sorry.....I'm lost with this whole "Jacques" thing. "Wonder if John ever got a dog for Burke in the years after Jonbenet's murder? I know Jacques version 2 stayed on to live with the elderly neighbors." I don't know about a dog, but there is a photo of the Ramseys, with Burke in the middle, who is cuddling a Himalayan or Rag Doll cat, so I'd say they had no problem with adopting more pets down the track, which would suggest they weren't concerned with Burke inflicting abuse on animals, if that is what you're getting at.
You tend to always go on the defense about certain stuff and that something is dark in their posts. Where is the Proof the first dog was sick? The vet would know. The poster is showing that Patsy could lie and did lie about replacing a dog. This family has touted themselves as Christians, one of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith is "Thou shalt not lie". I find it odd that a parent chooses which child deserves a pet rather than it be the entire family's pet. But people do play favorites. I don't know what pics are a photo op or the animal is owned by someone else. Anyone can stand in front of anything and not own it. Or hold anything and not own it. It could be Burke had no interest in a dog, and Jonbenet did. It seems like Patsy wasn't a dog person from what little we know. But if Patsy's health wasn't the best at the time of John's great idea of getting a pet, then he was an ass for adding to more daily work and home obligations. For someone extra work, as it was said Patsy did have the hired help clean out her purses. None of us know if any animal was abused or not. If an animal was, then anyone in the house may have been culpable. I had a step niece who was around 4 when she tied a dog leash around her baby sister's neck to choke her and was also physically mean to our family dog and she was lit into when caught and I never trusted that child again to be alone with either one.
A witness told the CBS investigators that they had seen Burke lose his temper and act similarly in the past, hitting JonBenét with a golf club.
This witness had no reason to lie. The only known person in that house to strike JBR in the past was Burke. There is no proof that John ever sexually assualted his daughter which is why the JDI theory lacks any real substance. Until someone can provide evidence on John than Burke was the most likely person to have knocked out/killed JB. And then his parents covered up...to say they wouldnt cover up for their son is just hogwash.
A parent does not defile their dead daughter's genitalia because their son accidentally killed her, Zed. Especially if they're staging a kidnapping.....and the ransom note tells us that is exactly what they/he/she wanted LE to believe it was.
Had she been found dead of the head blow I could give BDI more credence Zed. It's the elaborate staging and ultimate cause of death that stop me short. Why not arrange her body at the foot of the stairs, claim it was an accidental fall and call 911? Why choose foreign factions, a garrote and murder?
She was unconscious, profoundly so, but there was no blood and no way to know how badly hurt she actually was, making a call for help the far likelier choice.
Ms D, ever consider that maybe the defiling wasn't part of the staging and that it was Burke's doing?
I can more easily buy into the BDI theory if the family knew of some molestation from Burke. If they thought he had killed her and knew of previous sexual abuse, that could be their motive for cover up.
Yes Gumshoe, and that is the only BDI scenario I can accept. If anyone acts somewhat sociopathic it looks like Burke. His lack of affect during the social worker interview, someone just took her quietly from her room and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her, yep that must be it - he's even got that same smile on his face at JB's funeral when he's hugging his dad, that he had on Dr. Phil. I know it's a stretch, we don't know Burke, or John, nor did we know Patsy, but they have all put themselves on television and Burke doesn't seem completely there.
At the end of the day, in my opinion, every theory is a stretch, whether it be BDI, JDI, IDI, etc. Each one requires some sort of leap of faith or assumption not based on facts or statistics.
right - you have to "get up and over" some of the obstacles to completely buy into any particular scenario. We still have some DNA results that will come to light this year - from two different pieces of cloth. What I read is that they are going to only test for male mitochondrial DNA - nuclear would be too far degraded now anyway, and then let's see what they get. And of course CBS hasn't answered the lawsuit yet - Spitz has, but not CBS as far as I know.
"Ms D, ever consider that maybe the defiling wasn't part of the staging and that it was Burke's doing?"
If I were to subscribe to the BDI theory, Gumshoe, that is the *only* scenario that would make sense. Along with JB already being dead when her parents found her.....but the general consensus amongst BDIs is that it was an accident committed by Burke, her parents found her unconscious and unresponsive, so ultimately chose to end her life and - inexplicably - decided to make it look like a botched kidnapping. I can never go along with this because, as CC said, the extent of JB's injuries couldn't have been known, thus her parents would have called for help, telling paramedics she fell down the stairs if they were concerned with protecting Burke.
Folks- So, I'm on vacation and decided to read PMPT again. We know that John got a criminal lawyer right away because his business attorney (Mike Bynum) told him that it would be a good idea. John then gets his criminal attorney from (from Morgan & Haddon/Haddon, Morgan & Forman...cited both ways in book). Here's what is odd to me: they then get Patsy her own attorney from ANOTHER firm!?!? Lawyer Patrick Burke? If you're securing legal counsel as a "matter of course" since you know that you're going to be under the microscope - but you DIDN'T kill your daughter - why isn't one lawyer enough? Or even separate lawyers from the same firm? For John and Patsy to pretty much immediately secure separate lawyers from separate firms...does this behavior/choice strike anyone else as odd? I know down the road they all went with Lin Wood, but the aforementioned is what J & P did within a couple of days after Christmas. I couldn't find any mention of this separate, somewhat temporary Patrick Burke fella on this site, thus my lobbing it out there ;) Attorney CC? Anyone? Bueller?
Hal Haddon, John's attorney, and Brian Morgan, Patsy's, are both criminal lawyers. Lin Wood does not practice criminal law, his is strictly a defamation and civil practice.
Sorry to be so disjointed in my reply, Candy - I'm pre-coffee.
Nope, I'm wrong. You and Schiller got it right, Candy - John apparently went with Hal Haddon and Bryan Morgan, Patsy with Pat Burke, who had his own firm, and that makes more sense. Two attorneys from the same firm can represent parties with a potential conflict by doing what we call "building a Chinese wall" to keep their interests strictly separate, but it's difficult and complicated. Who represented Burke, anyone remember?
Thanks CC! I figured as much, but wanted to confirm. Guess I'm still surprised at the speed and thoroughness (e.g. we all need separate criminal attorneys) literally a day or two after the murder. I get the need for counsel immediately...know why John did that, but boy, there certainly was a lot of thought put into representation for each of them so quickly.
I think it was actually less than 24 hours, Candy. Mike Bynum would have recognized the need for criminal defense lawyers - criminal work is a very specialized area of law - as well as the ethical considerations for separate counsel. He was on the scene at the Fernies' the night of the 26th, and suggested the best, most reputable firm in Colorado; likely it was Haddon who then brought in Pat Burke.
I've never spent a lot of time comparing Ramsey handwriting exemplars with the handwriting in the ransom note, but I have read the note so many times, there is one very small "correction" the writer made that always gives me pause. My suspicion that it points to John as its author is possibly just confirmation bias; in fact, an innocent explanation recently dawned on me which I will share too.
The "correction", while subtle, occurs at a point in the letter I would characterize as its climax...somewhat at a point of no return, especially for a perpetrator whose plan was to buy time to dispose of a dead body lying in the basement. It occurs in the first of five consecutive sentences threatening John with the murder of his daughter if he (John) takes certain actions.
"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."
Looking very very closely at the "o" in Police, it looks to me like the author originally wrote Pa, "x"ed out the a, then blotted out the circular portion of the letter all together using the tip of the sharpie. The "a" crossed out looks just like the "a" in the word "anyone" just above and to the left of "Police"--an "a" altered by the author to conform, albeit poorly, with the font consistently used throughout the letter. John's "a"'s don't have the the upward and left bending hook on them (see the check he wrote at http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html--), as I'm sure Doc pointed out in his book. Neither did the "a" in P(a)loice before it was crossed out and blotted.
The innocent explanation is, many people, pronounce the "o" in Police as a "short" a. (Puh-lease)
I'm thinking John was at that point in the letter where he had to be thinking P"a"tsy was a) not someone HE wanted to "speak" to about HIS situation! and b) not someone he wanted "speaking" to the Police the next morning. The "a" as I see it, was a freudian slip. "Police" was not preceded by the article "the"...his mind was moving ahead quickly to "Patsy". But then the uh-oh fear-driven mistake, followed by the "correction", followed by the 'pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-drape' "others" not-to-contact (e.g. FBI) "etc" (emphases mine). Such classic John Ramsey misdirection!
So take your vote:
a) plausible evidence b) convincing evidence c) innocent spelling mistake d) sheer confirmation bias
Mike- there's definitely something wonky going on with that "o." More compelling to me is the initial capped "P." And, to throw gas on the fire, realized that the initial capped "P" might be a giveaway of initial intent to write Patsy (which is where you're going with your whole scenario, I know). The author also initial capped "Law enforcement" further down the page, perhaps to deflect from the earlier Pa/Police blunder! Ok, I'm going off into nuttyville now, but Mike, your question got me back on the darn note. My answer...a) plausible evidence.
Good analysis, Mike. Never noticed, but think you may be right, John was concerned with LE'S take on the note, but his first and most important audience was Patsy.
Let's not forget the "hats" added to the A's, obviously, as Doc has pointed out, added after the fact, and imo a deliberate attempt to implicate his wife. She was once "his Jackie O", as a friend in Atlanta pointed out, but cancer and a hysterectomy left her sexually disinterested and expendable in his eyes.
Once again I feel the need to intervene regarding the manuscript a's as somehow part of an effort to implicate Patsy. First, of all, manuscript a was not a hallmark of Patsy's writing style. She used cursive a at least as often and probably more often than the manuscript form. Secondly, there is NOTHING in the note that resembles Patsy's writing style.
Too many have been brainwashed by the absurd attempts of Cina Wong to cherry pick "matching" letters. As I've demonstrated, the "matches" she found are either not really matches at all, or else the result of poring over thousands of characters to find just one that resembles a match and then treat that as proof positive that Patsy had to have written the note.
Finally, there is no reason why John would have wanted to implicate Patsy. His plan would clearly have been to stage a kidnapping by an intruder. Why on earth would he then try to make the note look like Patsy wrote it (which it doesn't anyhow)? Makes no sense.
As I say, too many have been overly influenced by the "experts" Darnay Hoffman dredged up, bolstered by a few others, such as "Cherokee," who got on the bandwagon and saw what they wanted to see. So we are now living with the myth that the writing on the note somehow looks like Patsy's writing when it most certainly does NOT. I've gone to some trouble to demonstrate this and would urge anyone reading here to read what I've written on this topic.
If anyone's writing looks like the writing in the note, it is John's, NOT Patsy's.
To be very clear, I was NOT suggesting that Patsy wrote the note. I'm JDI all of the way. Only suggesting that John may have made those missteps of which Mike speaks in the note...started to write Patsy, then possibly changed it to Police. When I stated a) plausible evidence, I was referring to it being plausible that the writer started writing Patsy then switched to Police. Reason why, I don't know.
Ms. D - "What does the dog have to do with anything at all? Patsy "switched" a dog for another dog because it was ill? O.k, not terribly ethical, but not an act to indicate she was capable of murdering her own child. Sorry.....I'm lost with this whole "Jacques" thing."
-----> the point is that, if this actually happened, it means that the Ramseys, or at least Patsy, were experienced with creating an image. Patsy worked for many years in marketing, which requires skill in knowing how to sell a product. She tried to sell the idea that one dog was really the other, hoping no one would notice. Instead of telling the truth right away. I could see doing this for the kids, if they were really attached to the dog (even that is questionable), but trying to pass one dog off as another dog to adults? That seems bizarre. Even when questioned outright, Patsy didn't want to admit it right way. She then lulled the housekeeper into her secret "please don't tell anyone else, no one else knows" world.
So my point is, if it isn't clear already, is that Patsy has been known to try to stage things - even to adults. Anyone would understand if the dog had an illness and she had to get a new dog. Not a big deal. But Patsy couldn't even deal with that. Maybe she didn't want people to think she was callous with the non-potty trained dog, but who actually knows why she didn't just tell people the original dog was ill. The bottom line is, what makes you think she could deal with the world knowing her daughter died in the home if she couldn't stand people knowing she sent away the original dog?
I think I have always been so concerned with the evidence of the case and did not look too much into other areas. The evidence leads nowhere directly, but doing a lot of reading, especially about accounts of people who know the Ramseys, many things come to light. For instance, the bottom of the spiral staircase was pretty prominent in the Ramsey home. It is where they kept the original non-potty trained dog, where PR would leave her purses for the housekeeper to clean out, etc. To leave a ransom note there signified that someone had to know the family very well, or it was someone in the family. That location is too daily-life Ramsey. Imagine if there was a spot in your home where you would always leave things, maybe important documents or a place where you or someone in the home would always sit and read/watch tv. A certain, routine spot. Then a ransom note was left there...you would automatically know that it was someone who knows the home well. I know stairs are used in homes but you don't know if those particular stairs are used. If not, then the note would not be found easily.
Little things like this come to light, particularly by people who were in the home regularly, like the housekeepers.
Well for one we don't know that the note was "left there." We only have Patsy's say so that she found it there. It's possible that John laid the note there specifically for LE to see, saying he spread it out so that he could read it. We have no reason to believe any of those two.
Very good point and I was also going to touch on this but forgot.
We can't assume anything anyone said in connection to this case is actually true. No one else was there at the time the RN was "found". No one else was there except FW when JR "found" JBR in the basement. What they said could have all been part of the staging. For all we know, PR and JR had just finished writing the note then called 911. It might have never been "found". For all we know, JBR was in some other room and not actually "found" in the wine cellar (given the difference in stories of the wine cellar from FW - who said he opened the door with no problem but just couldn't find the light vs. JR who said the latch was on the door and he had to undo the latch first before opening it).
The author of the note was trying to create the illusion of an intruder but the illusion he/or she created was also one that couldn't spell (but only two words were misspelled), and didn't know you use "an" before words that start with a vowel sound, and "a" before words that start with a consonant. ' "A" earlier delivery' I don't think was an intentional mistake. Which to me is a tell that the note writer wasn't all that intelligent. A journalism major or an engineer would know this. So was it an honest mistake, something a dumb intruder would do or more the sign of a scrambled distracted individual.
Also why cross out "We 'don' (the word don't) respect your bussiness" - Did this particular intruder have a change of heart - they really DO respect John's business?
Also "delivery" was crossed out in favor of "pick-up." Did the author of the note realize that delivering JB back to her parents might cause LE to catch them more easily than a "pick-up" from some other location?
But to answer your question Mike, I think the use of an "a" in Police was an innocent, if we have to go with that word, mistake.
I think using an "A" prior to a word with a vowel could have been intentional, just like mispelling "business".
Look at the "A"s in the sentence "If we catch you talking to a stray dog,". There are at least three different A's in that sentence alone. To me, this looks like someone trying to deceive. This tells me the note was written at the scene by someone who didn't have all the time in the world, and not by an intruder who wrote the note beforehand.
I think you answered your own question, Inq. The manuscript "a"s are Patsy's signature style, which at a glance would imply she wrote the note, but we know they didn't start out that way. So, it begs the question: Who is more likely to - very deliberately - compose certain letters in a way that point to Patsy? John, or Patsy herself?
But Doc just answered that earlier Ms D at 5:05 p.m. that there is no reason John would have wanted to implicate Patsy in the note, he was trying to implicate an intruder. So....dunno. The a's are scrambled - in that there are several styles of a, why not do that with t's or e's? It's probably a moot point but just something I noticed. If we want to cherry pick I think the "t's" look like John's. And he slants to the left so the note looks like someone is making a real effort to have the letters be "upright" or straight so that could definitely be camouflaging.
So what I'm getting at is maybe using different "a's" is just how the person writes and that it wasn't an intentional act to deceive. When I print my first and last name I use an upper case letter at the end of my first name and in the last name the same letter is lowercase. It's a quirk.
I agree. The hats on most of the a's look as though they were tacked on later. The problem is: since we know the writer was being deceptive we have to ask whether the a's are: 1. his or her natural way of writing; 2. a crude attempt at disguising his/her hand; or 3. a deliberate attempt to make it look like an attempt at disguise by someone who naturally used manuscript a after all.
Since the note is clearly intended to deceive it's all but impossible to analyze meaningfully, since we have no way of knowing what strategy the writer was using to disguise his/her hand.
I know others have mentioned gender text analysis before. The tools I list here are amateur tools. These days with Big Data, much better tools are available (but I don't have access to them). However, before you poo-poo the idea of text-based gender analysis, I want to emphasize that with sufficiently large sample populations, "predictions" take on great weight. Just ask Facebook/Google etc. For a bit of PURE FUN, here are a couple. I'd be interested in knowing the outcome of the Ransom text using real tools. If the outcome was heavily (90%+) weighted one way or another, this would be extremely suggestive.
http://hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php Results Total words: 353 Genre: Formal Female = 926 Male = 428 Difference = -498; 31.61% Verdict: FEMALE https://uclassify.com/browse/uclassify/genderanalyzer_v5?input=Text Success female 67% male 33%
These results obviously do not suggest strongly one way or another. Although, obviously, Patsy wrote the note as all sensible people realize :-) - GuruJosh
"Although, obviously, Patsy wrote the note as all sensible people realize".
Is there really any need to attack the author of the blog's intelligence, along with CC's, Mike's and my own (along with several JDIs here who don't immediately come to mind)? Surely it's possible to disagree with our premise without resorting to cheap shots? Out of the numerous theories I've read regarding the ransom note, Doc's is the ONLY one that makes sense of all the facets that PDIs/RDIs/BDIs can't make sense of.
For the JDIs out there, do you completely disregard Donald Foster's analysis where he definitely thought Patsy Ramsey wrote the note? Do you completely disregard Steve Thomas's theories that Patsy was involved? Do you completely disregard Werner Spitz's statements that there was no sexual assault? Just curious.
Donald Foster was thoroughly discredited as a questioned documents examiner some years ago and now teaches English Renaissance Literature at Vassar.
Steve Thomas offered no empirical evidence. He was suspicious of Patsy because she was wearing the same clothes she'd worn to the Whites' the night before and because she "peeked through her fingers" at him.
Werner Spitz was not among the forensic pathologists shown slides and tissue samples from the autopsy, all of whom concurred in finding evidence of abuse.
It's not as though we dismiss anything out of hand, Gumshoe, in a blind effort to defend our theory.
These feeble attempts were not disregarded -- not by me, in any case. They were debunked. Foster initially wrote to Patsy, claiming he would "stake his reputation" on her innocence. The Ramseys ignored him, so then he went to Hunter claiming he could prove she wrote the note. When his duplicity was revealed it became clear he was a charlatan and Hunter dropped him. As for Thomas, his Patsy-did-it theory is based on a fantasy, with no evidence whatever to back it up. And Spitz is simply wrong, as a reading of the autopsy will reveal.
Good points. Although I do feel you're selling Steve Thomas short a bit. I don't know that anyone was as close to the case as he was. Would the fibers from Patsy's jacket being consistent with the those found on the duct tape from JBR's mouth not constitute empirical evidence?
Trace evidence is a problem in a shared home because of transference and would therefore be inadmissible, so I think we must discount all of it, including the fibers from John's unusualIsraeli-made shirt . . .and you know how that pains me.
I'd love to know more about the analysis in Listen Carefully - I've been trying to find excerpts online, but to no avail, can you maybe post a brief summary here? :)
It has been observed Patsy Ramsey liked to invent and sign off letters with acronyms. One Christmas note to a friend was signed P.P.R.B.S.J., which she said stood for “Patsy Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.” It is interesting to note Patsy felt the need to place punctuating periods between the letters of her closing acronym just as the ransom note writer did in their closing acronym.
Decided to ask my dad if he remembers having anyone come into the funeral home where abrasions could look like burn marks. From what he recalls burn marks looked like burn marks. I knew the funeral home handled a lot of mob funerals but it didn't seem like any that were done while he worked there, from the Catholics, to the Greeks, to a few Mexicans, none seemed to have much to relate to Jonbenet's injuries.
"I could see doing this for the kids, if they were really attached to the dog (even that is questionable), but trying to pass one dog off as another dog to adults?"
I agree this is an extreme behaviour, but if Doc, CC et al. are right about John then Patsy had to disguise the change of dogs from one adult in her household because he couldn't be trusted not to take great delight in telling JBR what had happened.
I think John's narcissism forms a strong part of JDI theory, and this story is evidence consistent with that (I'm not going to say evidence /for/ because it's still very speculative).
I have several questions about the Grand Jury findings that I'd be very grateful if anyone with relevant knowledge could answer.
Firstly, I'm wondering about the process - would the jury members be presented with one theory from the prosecution (if it's called the prosecution in a GJ) of what they think happened? Or do they get presented with a number of possible scenarios? Or even just presented with various bits of evidence, and they have to put possible scenarios together themselves?
Secondly, I have a few questions about the indictments themselves. I know you've explained, CC, that BR could not be "suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree" (so therefore can't be the person JR and PR are accused of assisting) - does the same apply to "Child Abuse Resulting in Death"? Is "Child Abuse" a crime that can only be committed by a guardian (parent or teacher or similar) - or is that just a coloquial use of the term?
The first half of the indictment confuses me - "JR / PR did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."
This suggests to me that the GJ believed that JR &/or PR knew JBR was in danger /before/ she was attacked on the 25th? Could this then refer to chronic sexual abuse? (Which would certainly pose a threat to JBR's mental health). Or are they referring to a failure to seek medical attention for the head injury? (With the second half of the indictment referring to the garotting). I suppose this might be consistent with either PR or JR (or even BR) causing the head injury by accident.
Thanks for patience - I have very little legal knowledge, and we don't have Grand Juries in Australia.
"I could see doing this for the kids, if they were really attached to the dog (even that is questionable), but trying to pass one dog off as another dog to adults?"
I think one of my replies disappeared into the ether.
I just wanted to point out, if JR really is the person Doc's theory suggests, PR would have every reason to hide the dog's death from the only other adult in their household - because he may have taken great delight in telling JBR.
PR trying to manage JR's narcissism is consistent with this story.
Yes, the term "child abuse" usually refers to acts committed by a parent or caregiver.
I've always believed Count II refers to the sexual abuse, but you make an excellent point, and one I've never considered, about the head blow and the failure to seek medical attention; I'll have to think about that for a while and get back to you. Interesting.
Grand Juries are, admittedly, strange beasts. Prosecutors love 'em because they operate in secrecy, there is no defense counsel present, and the threshold for indictment is lower - probable cause. Used properly, however, they can be great investigative tools as we saw with the Ramsey GJ, subpoenaing witnesses and evidence.
All three of the scenarios you outlined in your second paragraph are possible.
Forgive me if I seem short, b&b; I hate to drone on about the law.
You left something out, Anonymous. From the "Gender Guesser": Genre: Informal Female = 321 Male = 713 Difference = 392; 68.95% Verdict: MALE
In other words, if the text is informal, the verdict is male. The Guesser guesses female only if the text is understood as formal, i.e., a carefully edited fiction or non-fiction text.
As for the Gender Analyzer, here's the result I got when I entered the first post in this blog:
Success female 58% male 42%
Now last time I checked I was a male. And I have no plans to switch, I'm very happy with my privileged male status. Also, I like women, so sue me.
1. I find your reasoning for JDI to be sound and logical. How come others so close to the case have not presented John as a primary suspect? Seems like everyone involved with the case is either PDI, BDI, or IDI.
2. Now, to get into some difficult conversations, when the results of the autopsy lead experts to conclude that there was prior sexual abuse, just what exactly does that mean? Intercourse, fondling?
I will admit that the only aspect of the JDI theory that is preventing me from going all in is that nothing seems to be point to John as a sexual abuser of his own 6 year old daughter.
1. John was THE leading suspect, as I understand it, until the handwriting "experts" decided that he could not have written the note. Since no intruder theory made sense, most following the case then assumed Patsy must have written it. And since it seemed doubtful she'd have written that note to help John get away with murdering her daughter, it was assumed she herself must have killed her -- or else that she was covering for Burke.
2. Prior sexual abuse was indicated by the condition of JonBenet's vagina, which showed signs of chronic inflammation. According to a team of pediatric specialists that could only have been caused by "prior abuse," but the precise nature of that abuse was never indicated. Penile intercourse is extremely unlikely as her vagina would have been too small to accommodate an erect male penis. Most likely is digital penetration.
What points to John as sexual abuser is the fact that he is the one who murdered her, and the need to prevent her from exposing him is the only motive for murder that makes any sense in this case. As I see it, it's possible to prove John was the killer but not that he was the abuser. But if we put two and two together it's not that hard to see that one goes quite naturally with the other.
To put it another way, it's not necessary to prove that John was the abuser in order to prove he was the killer. But once we understand that no one else could have killed her, then it's not difficult to conclude that he must have been the one who was abusing her.
I know that the whole question of the note is something you have spent time analyzing Doc, and it's near and dear to you as it's the whole premise of your blog and kindle book that John was ruled out as having written the note, that had he even been considered or thought to have written it then the outcome of this case would have been different.
Actually the basic premise of my blog and book is that the only logical suspect in this case is John Ramsey. We can rule out an intruder, we can rule out Patsy and we can certainly rule out Burke -- leaving only John.
I've spent a lot of time on the note because it's necessary to understand that 1. John should never have been ruled out as writer of that note, and 2. the conclusion on the part of so many that Patsy must have written it is based on confirmation bias rather than sound analysis.
For quite some people, it is hard to see John as the abuser/killer but once we understand that beneath the victim's facade there's a narcissistic sociopath, (as brilliantly described by Suzc) all makes sense regarding why and how he has gotten away with murder so far.
Ok, I'll ask here. Are there any legal barrios to the phone records being released? The phone records would solve the case.
ReplyDeleteIf they can't be released now, are they able to be released once JR is deceased? I just do not understand why they were not released.
In 2000 when Steve Thomas published his book he complained that the BPD never got the phone records. Kolar didn't mention them, iirc, and I've never heard Beckner refer to them either.
DeleteA good prosecutor would have subpoenaed them in 1997-98 as part of the GJ'S investigative process, and though Hunter was inept, Mike Kane would have known better. Possibly, then, they're under seal, along with the rest of the GJ'S findings.
As long as it's an open case and an ongoing investigation, don't expect to see them released.
And if it's still open when JR dies, as it will be if they never develop enough evidence to charge someone, they'll stay sealed.
DeleteHey Anonymous - what would you like to see regarding the phone records? That is, what would be of particular interest to you (given that we're all sleuths in here). I'd like to know if Dr. Beuf's office called Patsy back when she called him three times in rapid succession, and how long the call lasted. She claims to not remember making he calls.
ReplyDeleteWhy are the phone records allowed to be under lock and key in such a case?
ReplyDeleteInquisitive - when did Patsy call Dr. Beuf three times in a row?
Because there's still an open case and an active investigation. Releasing the remainder of the GJ findings and whatever they subpoenaed might jeopardize that investigation, so they've been sealed by judicial decree.
DeletePatsy called Dr Beuf's office three times between five and six p.m. on December 17, 1986, eight days before the murder.
CC
And those three rapid calls are indicative of some kind of panic it seems. Casey Anthony did the same thing at the time she was home, Caylee's last day, on her computer at the same time, and using her phone to call her mother one call after another and couldn't reach her.
DeleteI doubt there is much to find in the phone records and JBRs doctor has already said he had nothing to report.
ReplyDeleteI know the doctor said he had nothing to report but Patsy doesn't remember (in an interview on acandyrose)making those three calls. If her incoming call records showed his office called her back and they talked for any length of time, why doesn't she remember would be the question.
DeleteInq - is there any possibility that someone else was at the home during that time and he or she placed the calls to the pediatrician's office?
DeleteI didn't think of that Lil. Interesting
DeletePosted before about this, but there was chatter that Patsy made oher calls that morning, one to the lady mayor. They had had formed a bond earlier with being cancer patients.
ReplyDeleteThere was John's cell phone that he claimed he lost in December.
It would be interesting to see if there had been any flurry of calls incoming or outgoing to any number of people, in state and out of state.
If you Google kitchen crime scene photos jonbenet and go on images, there's one particular photo that looks to me like a cell phone on charge on the worktop.?
ReplyDeleteMay not be a true crime scene photo though
ReplyDeleteI did a search on this site for 'stun gun' hoping to find an article where that was discussed, but didn't see one specifically devoted to it.
ReplyDeleteGiven that many of you refute the stun gun theory, what is your response to the marks on her body; in particular, the large circular abrasion near her ear/jaw bone?
Gumshoe, doubtful it was Burke's train tracks - as there is only one circular abrasion that you are talking about. Thomas thought it might be from one of Patsy's rings if she had grabbed JB by the shirt collar and somehow dug her curled up fingers into her face/ear/jaw line. He was guessing though.
ReplyDeleteMeant to include doubtful it was a stun gun either as there is only one round abrasion on the jaw line/cheek.
DeleteSo if not the train tracks (which seems unlikely anyway) what caused the two marks on her lower back?
DeleteThose could have been the train tracks. Just not the one on her cheek.
DeleteSo do people on this site think John used the tracks to give the appearance of a stun gun?
DeleteNO, that's a huge stretch and makes no sense.
DeleteLook, she was assaulted, OK? A sexual assault, OK? All sorts of things could have been done to her by an attacker who was clearly out of control during that time. The notion that we have to account for every mark on her body is absurd.
Doc, I don't think it's absurd at all. Those marks are very distinct and not the type of marks inflicted during an attack without some sort of object. Something caused those marks and I'm just curious as to what people think was the cause.
DeleteI see your frustration Doc. But I also see Gumshoe's point. Scrapes on the back of her leg (wherever they were) may easily be explained by drag marks but distinct round abrasions, if explained, could make the difference between whether a family member caused them or an intruder. I think maybe, correct me if I'm wrong, Gumshoe wants to completely eliminate an intruder but still has doubts.
ReplyDeleteInquisitive, yes, you are correct. That being said, I don't know that the cause of those marks necessarily dictates if it was an intruder or the Ramseys. To be honest, even if it was a stungun, I don't necessarily think that automatically points towards an intruder. John could have owned one, used it, and gotten rid of it. They obviously got rid of the cord and tape. I also found it odd that Patsy told investigators she didn't know what stungun was. That's BS.
DeleteGumshoe:
DeleteDo you think Patsy lying about not knowing what a stun gun is, is a greater lie than John telling police he never owned one?
Mike G.
Mike G, hard to say. I don't really have any reason to truly believe John owned one. But any reasonably educated person in 1996 knew what a stungun was. Either she is lying or both she and John were coached by their attorneys to
Deleteplay aloof when asked about stunguns.
Honestly, Gumshoe, you'd be surprised at how many people don't know what a stun gun is. I didn't know what it was until I read that one may have been used in the JB crime, so I asked my father about it.....I was only in my early twenties at the time, but I find it feasible that a privileged socialite would never have heard of a stun gun.
DeleteIn regard to a stun gun though there is no reason John would have NEEDED to use one. One can quiet someone by placing their hand over the mouth of another, especially adult to child. So in that respect, if a stun gun was used I think it would point to an intruder. But to go back to your other question, the bigger round abrasion on the cheek is not consistent with a stun gun mark as there aren't two marks. One other thing but I have to look at the crime photos again -
ReplyDeleteEvery seems to assume John used the stungun to silence her as opposed to staging.
DeleteWhat? Nobody thinks that.
DeleteI know nobody thinks that. But everyone refutes John using a stungun because they're be no reason to silence her with it. I'm just suggesting he could have used it as part of staging.
DeleteRight - no one thinks that. There has been so much gossip surrounding this case - things the Globe and National Enquirer put out there long ago that the only way to separate fact from fiction is do your own reading - and think for yourself.
DeleteBeware the pitfall of intentionally confusing yourself and being in the morass as Doc calls it.
DeleteYes....I'm confused also!
Delete"Everyone thinks that (John used a stun gun)...."
"Nobody thinks that (John used a stun gun)...."
Huh?
Gumshoe, I can't tell how high up the other two marks on the shoulder area are. Whatever caused those "burns" it seems to me her shoulder area would need to be exposed. So that's something else to consider. If she was rolling around on the floor then how could anything on the floor penetrate her sweater.
ReplyDeleteI think the burn marks were made by a (GlueGun) which is used for crafts and other things , have you noticed all the crafts in basement and throughout the house ? was Patsy into crafts? and have you every touched the tip of a HOT glue-gun? Ouch!!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good theory. Didn't the CBS special indicate that it was evident she was already dead when the marks we inflicted given the way it didn't bleed out; or something like that?
DeleteAnonymous:
DeleteI'm just curious. How soon after you spotted the GlueGun in the picture did it occur to you it may have caused the burn marks? Also, how long have you held this theory?
Mike G
Mike G, I did not see glue gun IN PICTURE....I do not know how to explain this more clearly , I am 74 years old and had been following this case for many years.\in my opinion, there are many ways that may have caused the burn marks . had Jon Benet been burned with anything while alive, the marks would have been (Reddish) ? they seem dark in color usually burn marks begin to discolor while healing , in the autopsy photo looking closely size of a dime, they may have been caused by a ""CIGAR"" burn , didn't John Ramsey say he kept "His" Cigars in basement ?wondering if there was a stale "smell" of cigar smoke) apparently not . OR is this why the basement window was left open to allow smell of smoke to escape? Look. I have no Idea what may have caused these "burn "marks" the parents must have known whether she had bruises or burns to her body before bed time. And.. the M.E. could not determine what caused these burn marks?whether it was a stun Gun , train tracks , glue gun , cigarette or Cigar. Actually they looks like old burns which are beginning to heal and in days sometime changes to a (dark color) ,BTW.. this is my English and I do not want any correction thank you..this is not a grammar class,lol. all I can say is according to what I have read , this child was tortured , beaten , smashed skull , strangled . Whoever has committed this crime made damn sure she was dead , (God Bless you JB)
Deletesorry , I am not a doctor I have not worked in (Burn units at Hospitals , I only know with experience how my past "accidently burns have healed.
DeleteI pray the killer will be captured or confess to this horrific crime ~~Rest In Peace sweet little Angel~
Mike G...my last comment, if you will, Goggle "A Candy Rose"june 1998, John Ramsey's interrogation with Lou Smit and Mike Kane (Cigars and Cigar Box) interesting and I suggest you read much of the questions and answers.
DeleteI would like to see evidence of what a stun gun used on a child JBR's size would do. I can image that if it has a certain impact on an adult, that it would have a MUCH worse impact on a child. (Well, I wouldn't want to see a child tasered just for evidence, but I'd like to hear what a doctor had to say about the effects of a taser on a child). Also, would a stun gun used on a child cause some kind of internal damage from the shock? Would that turn up on an autopsy report? Would the location where the stun gun was used cause any kind of marking on the inside of the body for forensic pathologists to make note? None of this is discussed. We see two markings that LOOK like they are from a stun gun but there is no more evidence than that. Let's think here.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'd like to see the phone records to see who the Ramseys called that morning prior to the 911 call.
I'd also like to know the reason for the three calls to the dr's office a week before JBR's murder. It might be unrelated, but it might not be. Wouldn't they be able to find that information out from the dr's office since PR could not remember?
SO much information left out.
Great question on the stun gun effects on a child. The CBS show showed the effects on a fairly large man. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you have a 200+ pound male versus a tiny 6 year old.
DeleteWe're not going to see the phone records, even if they were produced to the BPD, which is open to debate, even if subpoenaed by the GJ, BECAUSE IT'S AN OPEN INVESTIGATION.
DeleteHIPPA, a piece of Federal legislation enacted in mid-1996, provides for absolute privacy for a child's medical records, barring an agreement for their release by the parents. No way they were subject to GJ subpoena, so we're not going to see those either.
Endless wishing and hoping is not going to change the law, or the facts. Let's move on.
CC:
DeleteGovernment over-regulation is not my cup of tea, but HIPPA was a much needed and great piece of legislation. It protects EVERYONE's medical records, not just childrens', from public consumption.
Having said that, if a physician testifying under oath, on behalf of the defendant, in a criminal case, makes a claim about a patient under his or her care--a claim only the patient's medical records can corroborate, can the prosecutor request appertaining sections of those records be produced as evidence? If so, and the claim is discovered to be false, what then? Can a judge then order a patient's entire medical record be released, if the one claim established as false calls into question the credibility of the physician's entire and final "medical expert opinion"?
I'm sure, more often than not, these types of potential pratfalls to a smooth and orderly trial are ferreted out ahead of time during the discovery phase. But for the purpose of my question, let's assume the particular "claim" to which I refer was overlooked during discovery.
Mike G.
HIPPA is an all-encompassing, comprehensive act, and you're right, Mike, a uniform policy was much-needed. Doctor/patient confidentiality is now guaranteed, and cannot be superseded by court authority under any circumstances, even those you describe.
DeleteMike G
Delete"HIPPA, a piece of Federal legislation enacted in mid-1996, provides for absolute privacy for a child's medical records, barring an agreement for their release by the parents."
Of course. My question should have stipulated John's agreement to have them released, but then he wouldn't be allowed to cherry pick what sections to release, would he? It would be all or nothing at all...?
Absolutely right.
DeleteSame goes for Burke's psychiatrist record as well - however wasn't there some kind of snafu in the law that allowed the Menedez brother's psychologist to reveal what they talked about in court? Was that because his receptionist heard something and talked about it?
DeleteI can't spell - Menendez
DeleteAlso no mention has been made of Patsy's medical records - she had some kind of breakdown in 1993?
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA.
DeleteHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Never seen it written, nor it's proper name. Thanks, Gummy.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOziel lost his license for his failure to observe the proprieties, and the law. Try to keep up.
ReplyDeleteBut the damage was done.
DeleteSo, we are not going to access any records, at least, for the time being. I believe they would shed some light to the case but they would not solve it as any isolated piece of the puzzle has more relevance, it's all together than when considered makes sense (or not). Let's talk about what we know as certain in this case. I would like to hear more about possible scenarios and how the evidence best fit them. I believe JDI without a shadow of a doubt in my mind. But I would like to hear a possible scenario for BDI and the psycology behind both theories.
ReplyDeleteMarcela, are you British by chance? Just curious.
DeleteNo, Im not. Im from South America but attended a British Boarding school there. HENCE (Lol) my accent!
DeleteOK, thanks for the clarification Marcela. I mentioned that because of your use of the word "to" in your phrase "I believe they would shed some light to the case . . ." I've noticed that for some reason people with a British background have begun using the word "to" as a kind of all-purpose preposition. The traditional usage would be "shed some light ON the case," and that's how most Americans would put it. Brits also tend to use "to" instead of "from," as in "that shoe is very different to the other one." And more and more I'm noticing "to" used as a substitute for other prepositions as well.
DeleteTo me this is not only incorrect grammar, but also a kind of verbal laziness and it's always bothered me. Nothing personal of course, since your usage is consistent with that of a great many established British authors and journalists. I'm wondering, though, how this very odd usage got started and whether anyone with a British background, or as in your case British-oriented schooling, is ever bothered by it.
Sorry to be so off-topic but I couldn't resist.
it was a mistake I made. The idiom is "shed grammar on". My background is very much British but that was only an error, a typo I wouod say since I am not the type of person who edits...
DeleteThank you for the correction.
Oops, my mistake. I apologize to you and to all Brits everywhere.
DeleteA BDI scenario has been offered up here, but who wants to get slammed again for not jumping on the JDI bandwagon? Instead people just choose to go away from here for a while - maybe for good. Or a few stay on for years serving as the guard dogs. When Kolar's book came out people re considered whether Burke could have done it or not, then the CBS special which picked up speed and converts in the court of public opinion. There are still a few in here that firmly believe in it, they have said their peace and realize no one is going to change their minds - at least not in here. Nothing new with this case
ReplyDeleteWell, I have read Doc's possible scenario for JDI and it really covers all bases. It explains pretty much whatever we know about the case. And it makes sense.
DeleteI was wondering if anyone could offer a possible scenario for BDI in the same manner Doc describes it for JDI.
Here is this odd theory from 1998 that is BDI but there are lots of unfounded claims made in it as well. The blogger is also an author.
Deletehttps://burkedidit.blogspot.com/p/the-burke-did-it-theory.html?m=1
He does say that two dolls were placed in the room with Jonbenet.
Another example of how bizarre and complicated these theories can get. It starts out with the story of Nancy Krebs, implicating Fleet White as part of a criminal pedophile ring that abuses her. An offshoot of this same group is apparently associated with Lockheed Martin and they are responsible for getting JonBenet addicted to erotic strangulation.
DeleteThe author then goes on to formulate a totally unrelated theory implicating Burke of all people, using a scenario in which none of the above incidents play any role whatsoever. The only link is a supposed interest in "erotic strangulation" on the part of JonBenet, for which there is no evidence at all.
Where do people get this stuff????
Thank you, gentlemen! :)
DeleteThe more bizarre the theories, the more sensible yours, Doc, becomes. That, I have noticed.
Inquisitive, you say: "A BDI scenario has been offered up here, but who wants to get slammed again for not jumping on the JDI bandwagon? Instead people just choose to go away from here for a while - maybe for good."
DeleteFirstly, let's be honest here - *all* theories get "slammed" by those who oppose it. This is not exclusive to BDIs. No one has insisted anyone here jump on any "bandwagon", that is ridiculous. If BDIs choose to leave the forums because JDIs don't agree with their assertions, what do you expect the other posters should do about that? Entertain a scenario that has no basis in fact in order to placate the more sensitive BDIs? Come on now.....it's a crime blog, not a love fest.
Marcela's comment sums up my thoughts: "Well, I have read Doc's possible scenario for JDI and it really covers all bases. It explains pretty much whatever we know about the case. And it makes sense.
I was wondering if anyone could offer a possible scenario for BDI in the same manner Doc describes it for JDI."
If/when a BDI theory is proposed that makes sense of all the evidence, as Doc's JDI theory does, then we might start taking the possibility seriously. So far, no BDI scenario has come close to making sense of the cover up: amongst the other implausible elements already covered here ad nauseam, one does not stage a crime to cover for an accident, it just doesn't happen. Unless the parents actually wanted to instigate a massive, homicidal investigation for what was otherwise an accident......which is what one would have to believe in order to go with BDI.
That should read "homicide investigation" above! :P
DeleteOh no, I get you Ms D. It's just that some get stuck in old theories, that have no merit - like Lou Smit saying an intruder climbed through the basement window, then used the suitcase to boost himself back out the window. Much later we find out the Ramsey's gave out many keys. Or we think in our minds how tough it would be to stand on a suitcase. Old theory was an intruder came in and hid, took his time, but then did he write the note there - or did he bring it in. Then that doesn't jive with a murder. Then there's the old theory that Burke accidentally killed his sister but a parent did all the rest. Not really realistic. An ambulance would be called. But if she was hit and strangled and dead we can see that there would be no need to call an ambulance - or call a police officer to report a murder by your son. So no, one would not stage a crime to cover for an accident as you said, but one might stage a crime to cover for a murder, if someone in your family murdered. And if i were to go to BDI then I would have to believe that she was dead when he told a parent, or near death, or presumed dead.
DeleteWell, that's the only way BDI could work for me, but it's not a theory many BDIs go with, and the scenario they present makes it impossible to even consider BDI. Because parents would not, under any circumstances, "finish off" their child who had merely been the victim of an unfortunate accident. Not even in the Twilight Zone.....
DeleteI don't understand how the phone records could not be released. You hear about police/detectives getting text message reports for cases and looking at who a certain person called. It DOES happen.
ReplyDeleteMarcela - I think there are so many scenarios that fit.
With JDI, I don't think he would have been acting alone. The whole "visit from Santa" thing creeps me out and makes me think it could have been someone else that she knew that tried to hurt her. I don't think JR would have killed his daughter just to keep her quiet. A dad would have more power over a child than to need to beat her over the head. Plus, he lost one daughter. I think it would make him look suspicious if his kids were dying left and right...so that would have made him be careful.
PDI - also likely if she was stressed and JBR wet her bed. JBR could have fallen and hit her head but no blood was found so she most likely didn't fall from somewhere high and I don't think PR would hit her over the head with a flashlight. The pineapple also doesn't factor in well here.
BDI - very likely with the flashlight and pineapple. Burke had previous issues and instances where he hit JBR. The feces on the wall. The lack of attention. A child would not know his own strength whereas an adult would...even in a fit of rage. JR and PR were not the alcohol/drug induced anger rage type of people. A child would be most likely to lash out in rage and cause harm.
Thank you, Anony...
DeleteI understand Burke was in some way an apparent violent child, at least that episode with the golf club seems to show us that he didnt like JonBenet so to speak. But, Im interested to hear how a possible unintentional act from a jealous or angry child ended up with sexual assault and strangulation. I agree the BDI theory is possible. He hit her once, he could have hit her twice but the assault?
Thanks again...
"I understand Burke was in some way an apparent violent child, at least that episode with the golf club seems to show us that he didnt like JonBenet so to speak."
DeleteThe incident you refer to was an accident. He was swinging a golf club and JB came up behind him. There are no known incidents involving Burke being intentionally violent towards JB, so there is nothing whatsoever that points towards Burke not liking his sister. Friends of the family stated the contrary, in fact - that the two of them got along quite well and loved each other.
Thank you Anonymous. Here I didn't think anyone would brave it again and you did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Also with Burke there were inconsistencies with what he told the social worker, versus what he told Dr. Phil. So since you were brave, I'll say mine -
BDI - he was admittedly up late, then snuck downstairs later. Yes, why would he volunteer that - because when people lie they admit certain things that are truthful in order to sound like they are going to be truthful everywhere else. He may have been in the basement, tearing open some of those presents that may have been for his birthday in January, and she surprised him. He could have suggested they play a game where he ties her up, using the cord available to him, fashioning a garrote using his cub scout/boy scout or boating knot skills, and begun tightening the noose. He may have tied her wrists too, not tightly, but loosely as part of the game. He also pulled down her panties and assaulted her with Patsy's paint brush handle. She likely was molested before - maybe by him. When she struggled or was able to get up she began running for the stairs. Not wanting her to tell his parents he struck her with the flashlight. ME couldn't say which came first, the strangulation or the headblow so said the headblow would have killed her, and the strangulation did. In that lag time between headblow and death he could have thought she was going to get up, prodded her with traintrack or something else then gone for help.
The bowl of pineapple stayed on diningroom table, unfinished. Mom or dad sent Burke to bed either not knowing he had killed his sister, or knowing that he did. He exhibited dis-associative behavior with the social worker acting rather nonchalant for someone who's sister had been murdered, and later on was sent to a therapist - not for just a few sessions, but for two years. Thanks for breaking the ice Anonymous. And, it's just a scenario, as requested by Marcela.
Thank you, Inq.:)
DeleteTo be honest, I never read something like this before. In summary Burke acted pretty much alone. So, in this scenario, who do you think wrote the RN? And when?
Thank you, again.
Actually thank you - for your questions. Sorry I was snarky regarding the narcissist/sociopath stuff. That was your hypothesis, right? Anyway so who wrote the RN. Patsy. Burke would have gone and gotten Patsy - although if she was truly in bed asleep it would be hard not to wake John as well who was sleeping right next to her. So they could have put their heads together over what to do, so I doubt he continued to sleep through Burke's frantic recounting of what happened. So he likely participated in the rest of the night's events as well. Sounds crazy doesn't it? But no crazier than anything else.
ReplyDeleteNo worries, Inq.
DeleteThank you for taking the time to address all the questions or doubts that are presented. We may not agree on fundamental issues but all opinions are welcome and I respect everyone here. That, I believe, is the spirit of the author of this blog and I respect that as well.
I would like to see the autopsy report of JBR compared to doctor reports of molestation from other girls JBR's age to see how they compare. Because the medical records are sealed, we do not have any knowledge of anything other than what they found at the time of her death. The autopsy report does NOT state that JBR abuse to her vaginal area indicates an adult male abused her. Does it?
ReplyDeleteWe can't assume she was chronically sexually molested by an adult male. It could have been an adult female! It could have been another child (maybe BR - not with the intent to harm but to experiment), it could have been JBR herself.
I also do not think BR staged the death scene. I do not think a child would use a garrote nor do I think a child would know how to make such an intricate knot. That is the concerning part...FW was an expert sailor and taught JR a lot of skills. Given that the Ramseys were over at the White's that night, I really think that FW should have been looked into more carefully. His past in CA. I'd also like the phone records for the very verification of what time FW was called over to the Ramsey's that morning because I know many on here LIKE to think whatever the Ramseys say is factual ("oh, I found the ransom note on the bottom step in the kitchen!"), but you can't take their word for anything given this is an unsolved crime.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't all that intricate according to Beckner. In his Q&A he said his department sent the knot out and the consensus was it was not complicated. Poor Fleet - I don't think he had any means, motive, or opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI do no think that BR would even know what a garrote looks like let alone that be his go-to form of staging a strangulation. Also, JBR's fingernails imprints were found around the cord so it had to be someone much stronger than her.
DeleteInq - how can you rule out anyone, let alone FW, when this case is not solved. He lived close by, he was a close family friend, he was an expert sailor and the knot found around JBR's neck was a typical sailor's knot. Plus, he knew the layout of the house, it had been documented by others that FW knew where the wine cellar was and yet that morning he claims he didn't go in there fully because he couldn't find the light switch. So, a grown adult male would just ignore a room where a child might be because he couldn't find a light switch? I think any kid would be more inclined to go into the wine cellar to look for someone if they were missing - lights or no lights. On TOP of that...he and JR were missing for a portion of that morning while looking through the house for JBR. All that - to me - is hugely concerning. I know he was investigated and deemed not a suspect, but I do not think he can be completely ruled out if none of the Ramseys have been found to be guilty.
What about this from a Denver newspaper in 2014:
DeleteBOULDER — Fleet and Priscilla White, the Boulder couple who were in John and Patsy Ramsey’s home the day JonBenét Ramsey’s body was discovered on Dec. 26, 1996, have gone to court once again seeking records of a police investigation into a California woman’s allegations that cast suspicions on the Whites.
The motion, filed in Boulder District Court on Monday, asks a judge to order Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner to show cause as to why the records should not be released to the Whites.
If a judge grants the order, Beckner would have to present his case to a judge or release the records to the Whites. The law requires the court to conduct a hearing “at the earliest practical time.”
The Camera in February 2000 reported that a 38-year-old woman told then-District Attorney Alex Hunter that, when she was young, she had been ritually and sexually abused in a manner similar to the way JonBenét Ramsey may have been before she was killed. She said she knew the Ramseys through Fleet White.
I must say I couldn't ignore my daughter's bathroom since I really had to go. As I shut the door thinking the light switch would be just inside the bathroom door there I was, engulfed in darkness until I gave up in defeat, opened the door and found out the light switch was outside the bathroom on an opposite wall. S happens.
DeleteOk, but looking for a toilet and searching for a missing child are very different.
DeleteThe Whites were thoroughly investigated, Anon. They also both had iron clad alibis for the night of the murder. Fleet and his wife have been very forthcoming with information relating to the crime - hardly the actions of a guilty party (as opposed to John Ramsey, who has not been nearly as forthcoming as the Whites. It would seem these two want Jonbenet's killer to be found, unlike Mr Ramsey.....why do you think that might be?)
DeleteDoes anyone think that the friendship between FW and JR was/is odd? How they were so close but then things fell apart after JBR's death?
ReplyDeleteI know stress can cause issues between people, but it is all very odd. Lots of inconsistences between them and it seems JR might have used FW as a scapegoat. But then again, FW seemed highly overzealous in the aftermath...telling JR what to do, having issues with the Ramsey family, stating he wants the "truth to come out" but then does not speak about what happened that morning. If he is doing things that indicate he might believe The Ramseys were involved in the death of JBR, why doesn't he just say it?
It leads one to speculate if the JDI theory is true, if he (FW) was involved or if JR is using FW as a scapegoat.
All in all, it is very odd.
"Does anyone think that the friendship between FW and JR was/is odd? How they were so close but then things fell apart after JBR's death?"
DeleteIt depends on how you define "odd". They went sailing together, the families shared some vacations.....is this an unusual thing for friends to do together? You'll have to be more specific in regards to what makes you feel their friendship was "odd".
"But then again, FW seemed highly overzealous in the aftermath...telling JR what to do, having issues with the Ramsey family, stating he wants the "truth to come out" but then does not speak about what happened that morning. If he is doing things that indicate he might believe The Ramseys were involved in the death of JBR, why doesn't he just say it?"
Was he "telling JR what to do"? Was he "overzealous"? I don't see this being the case. I only see someone who cared about Jonbenet, therefore wanted to see justice served. And I do believe Fleet and Priscilla told LE about their suspicions, and no doubt they were heard by the Grand Jury. Just because they are not speaking to the press, it doesn't mean they are withholding information from LE.
But I do believe you're right about one thing. I'm almost certain that JR was using his good buddy as a scapegoat, something that didn't escape Fleet's attention, and was probably a major factor as to why they stopped talking to one another.
Ms D you are being a good soul here and trying to answer a question for someone as best you can but don't you notice when someone has gone away from here, then come back under a different name if you will? Because the topic you are addressing for Anonymous has been discussed before, regarding Fleet with a particular blogger. And so, I see that there are always similarities in how a person writes, the topic they seem preoccupied with, and a style. These are things I notice, you can almost "see" a personality in how someone writes. It is for this reason I believe whoever wrote the ransom note was known soon after the note was read, and who wrote it. There were little tells in the note. To those that were outside the close inner family circle and to say, us, we would not recognize those tells. LE would not know those tells either. So they were stuck trying to match individual letters, or words used other places. They had to stumble around asking Patsy questions about what she liked to watch on television (the movie quotes). But I can tell up above who Anonymous is. I can also see that there are two other Anonymous's in here, each are different. One is philosophical, the other abrupt. I can tell who has had a bad day and is on a short fuse, I can hear bias in how they write not bias regarding this case but bias from life experiences and the things that have happened to them which formed their attitudes, opinions and beliefs. The ransom note really doesn't sound like Patsy, does it? And honestly, it doesn't sound like John either - because we don't know them. But if John wrote the note I am sure Patsy knew soon enough who wrote it, and if Patsy wrote it I'm sure John recognized it, but if they were both in on "the events" of that night then no one outside of those two will be able to pin the note on either one of them.
ReplyDeleteI have two favorite authors who sometimes collaborate on a book together. The book flows seamlessly between chapter to chapter, the story holds together, they are both well known published story tellers. But I can tell who has written which passages - or chapters. Patsy and John may have written the note together, but there would be little need to - they would not think LE could pick one particular style apart from the other. John could have dictated a few sentences to Patsy but there really was no need to - there would be other ways to confuse LE by writing backslanted, or wavy lines, or throwing in things that the two of them knew and only those two. More likely one took charge of the note. There would be no need for a two person note. Families are unbelievably tight. Outside of my family I doubt anyone could pick an individual member's writing style from a stranger's. Of course this is just my opinion - but here we are, not much closer to who wrote the note other than our theories.
Yes, Inq, I have noticed the particular "Anonymous" I responded to seems to be unreasonably focused on Fleet White, much like a poster who was causing a bit of drama here until very recently, and who also shares a very similar writing style to said person (we all know who we're both referring to, no need to call anyone out). I agree that writing styles are usually distinct, and most of us could name the author of any of the comments posted here, even if none of them were signed by name. However, the ransom note's purpose was to deceive, so it was littered with red herrings, "Mcguffins", and a writing style that was very different from the tone that would normally be used by the author in day to day conversation. The writer made sure not to insert any of "himself" into the note, and for the most part, I don't think he did....but, certainly, there are a couple of "tells" that point to John having penned the note, and he was sure to throw in a couple of Patsy's phrases (let's not forget, it was John himself who told Linda Arndt it was an "inside job" before he'd even laid down his dead daughter's body. So clearly, his plan was to implicate someone - anyone - that knew him personally, and he wasn't wasting any time with that). I honestly don't believe Patsy would have been foolish enough to include her own, oft used, adages, especially when she's planning on using her own paper, pen and paintbrush in the staging.....so, if anything, all I see is someone trying to imitate Patsy, but not Patsy herself in the note.
DeleteI truly would have loved to discuss this case with my father who sadly is no longer here. He had a great sense of logic and getting to the bottom of things, not saying he could have solved it though. Incidentally inq, on my father's side there are two very well known authors within the family, one from the usa and the other with ties to the family from the UK. ( shame my writing skills are so limited :(. I also have noticed some posters here posting on other sites under different names that you can tell who they are from how and what they write. MS D, If I were patsy writing the note, I would actually throw in a couple of things that would point to myself to show an intruder knew me. Not so sure about handing over my pen and pad with it though
DeleteMy late father and I used to discuss this case often, evej. He would buy the books and loan them to me afterwards, and we'd discuss it for hours. We both shared a love of true crime. My father was a brilliant man, and very logical.....yet, he firmly believed it was an intruder that committed this crime for one reason only - the garrote. He agreed that the ransom note and the crime scene were all elaborate staging, but he couldn't accept that a parent would garrote their child. I agreed with him. We would have many arguments with my mother, who believed John or both John and Patsy committed the crime. I have since shown my mother this blog and she is a firm JDI now.....I often wonder if my dad would have changed his mind had he have read Doc's analysis of the ransom note. I would so love to discuss this case with him with my "new" perspective.
DeleteThat's a good point Ms D, as usual you are very perceptive.
DeleteIt's great you and Ms D had a family member with an interest in mysteries that you could discuss with. I have my grandson. He's 15, but he's interested. His mother got fed up with my O.J. obsession in the 90's so I can't discuss with her! It was he who dispelled my intruder theory, with two short comments.
DeleteHa! Two comments? They must have been some powerful words.....none of us could convince you it wasn't an intruder! Of course, you've piqued my interest now.....what did he say?
Delete1. The note was too familiar. Even accounting for a close acquaintance - Someone who knew that much would have been immediately suspected. Even leaving the area is suspicious for one so familiar.
Delete2. No noises. He did quite a bit of work. He turned a key in a lock and opened a door. He lured a little girl from her bedroom on the second floor. He took her down the stairs into the kitchen, then down to the basement all the while not making one sound. He spread a note out on the stairs - either afterward or before. He then went back upstairs and out the door he came in - and locked it behind him. He was sure there was no dog there and wouldn't be there, he was sure no one would wake up, and for someone that knowledgeable and self assured and intimate to the family he was not found. Even disappearing from town would raise suspicion.
So pretty simple. Note was too familiar. No noise.
We toyed with the idea that the note, the whole note, was a McGuffin. With the sole point of getting back at John, but then the intruder would have been known. Found, captured. Otherwise one could indulge in a conspiracy theory, which I'm not a fan of - I'll leave that to Oliver Stone.
I definitely agree with you.
DeleteYes, Inquisitive, your nephew is correct, of course.....but we'd been telling you the exact, same thing for weeks, with no success. So I'm thinking that perhaps your discussion with your nephew just came at a time when you more inclined to throw away the intruder theory at that point anyway?
Deletegrandson, Ms D, grandson. I think I needed to discuss it from point to point, get the feedback, convince him, then refute it all. He allows that. He revels in it. So I ask him what's wrong with that theory. Just like when I complete an art design I say where is the flaw. Where did I mess up. He finds it. But - you know there are so many what ifs surrounding this particular case. For me, something has to make sense. If there are enough parts to it that don't make sense then I can't support it. I'm still on the Patsy wagon but I think she couldn't have dealt with it all night on her own. I just don't see John as a cold calculated murderer, so that's where it stands for me for now.
DeleteSorry, Inq, I don't know where I got it into my head that he was your nephew! Though I disagree that Patsy had any knowledge of the crime that night, I am happy you let go of the intruder theory.
DeleteNo problem. It's because I'm such a young looking beautiful granny people often are astounding that I could have a grandson :):) Anyway, if these DNA results point to someone known then we'll all go running to an intruder, ha
Deleteastounded
DeleteHave a question for you Ms D. If John sat and wrote that note, took the time it must have taken to "get it right", surely he must have known he started the note on a separate page, then re started the note. He must have known that he only tore out the note from the pad and then put the pad and pen back where Patsy had it. Why was he so willing to hand that very pad over to LE? Please don't say he was hoping to frame his own wife.
DeleteLol, Inq, well I did think you were around my age. :)
DeleteI don't think it was initially John's plan to frame anyone - he was hoping it would appear as a kidnapping, his daughter's body would never be discovered, and his family would never be suspects. But, after his plan went awry and he realized it was unlikely LE would buy that a kidnapper entered the home without actually taking JB, I think he was happy to point the finger at anybody.....Patsy, Fleet, work colleagues, it didn't matter, as long as it pointed away from him. I do think he knew exactly what he was doing though when he so willingly handed over the note pad to LE and made the claim it was an "inside job".
Then again, those very Patsy-esque, manuscript "a"s which initially began as regular "a"s, along with the fact her writing materials were used, and her art supplies in the basement, tell me that perhaps it was John's intention all along. Either that, or Patsy made no attempt to draw attention away from herself - quite the contrary, in fact, she did everything to draw attention to herself, making her a complete idiot - and nothing suggests that the latter is true. I think Patsy was naive, and in denial, but an idiot she wasn't.
DeleteWhy do you YOU believe John so willingly handed over the evidence, Inquisitive? Are you suggesting that, at that point, John had absolutely no knowledge Patsy had committed the crime? Meaning, the garrote, the vaginal penetration, the note - all of it - was Patsy's work alone? Because that is the only scenario, aside from IDI, that has John handing over the notepad being completely unaware it was used for the RN.
DeleteFirst I shall give you the benefit of the doubt John wrote the note in listing two theories. There is a possible reason he was so helpful in regard to handing over the pad. It goes back to a discussion about lying. As my former attorney once said, everyone lies. How we do it varies from person to person. If
DeleteA. John suspected his wife wrote the note (and he would have to have that suspicion rather rapidly given LE was on it's way over) he may not have known she wrote it on that particular pad - and so was truly being helpful by handing it over, not knowing she had started the note on previous pages
or
B. He wrote the note and was "being helpful" so that he could appear cooperative. One who is so cooperative in trying to find out who did this couldn't "possibly have done it" quotes are for purposes of showing his story).
But I did like the idea Doc had that John, if he wrote it, could have copied the new courier font "a" from a word processor - but then so could Patsy. Either one of them though forgot they were going to try and disguise their writing by starting with wavy lines as that is not as pronounced as the note bounces along.
Didn't John go and get his own white lined pad as well? He said they both had one and he turned that over as well. So he may not have known she had started the note on the one in the kitchen.
DeleteIf John indeed suspected his wife as you suggest, wouldn't he try to cover for her, therefore not be so eager to hand any of Patsy's note pads over to LE? Also, if he suspected his wife after finding JB's body at eleven a.m (rather than the official time of just after one p.m), and did a little bit of quick staging in order to cover for Patsy, as you have proposed, why then was he so quick to inform LE that it must have been "an inside job"? Those words indicate he was pointing the finger directly at someone in the home. Either scenario certainly doesn't sound like the actions of a man trying to protect his wife.....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIs it documented anywhere what time the Ramsey's flight to Michigan was on 12/27? Were they taking a private jet? How far was that airport from their home?
ReplyDeleteThey were to take a private jet from Jefferson County Airport, about 20 minutes from 15th Street.
ReplyDeleteThanks CC. Do we know what time their flight was supposed to leave?
DeleteI believe Pam Archuleta said around 7, 7:30 in her book, or possibly in an interview - I no longer recall specifically, but an early ETD, as they were to meet Melissa and John Andrew in Minnesota and go on to Charlevoix together.
DeleteSorry; Melinda, not Melissa. My smartphone auto-completes stupidly.
DeleteI don't think I am causing problems by discussing FW. This case is not solved. There are actually strange accusations of abuse from a woman who knew the family in CA. Yes, those accusations were deemed to be unfounded, but still...it was a woman who DID know the White family.
ReplyDeleteThe things I find odd are not their friendship (please, can we be more mature), but their attitudes towards each other after the day JBR was found dead. I'm not going to rewrite it all, but I think to automatically dismiss FW and to call me a troublemaker because I question his role in the whole thing, is disturbing. Family friends have been known to molest and murder the children of family friends. I am NOT saying FW had involvement, but I am questioning it based on the behaviors of both FW and JR towards each other after JBR was found dead. It seems to point to JR not liking how FW is too close to the matter and wants him to back off so he and Patsy can do their damage control OR it points to FW and JR being involved in the events of December 26, either maliciously or non maliciously. Maliciously meaning FW and JR were the ones who killed JBR or non maliciously meaning JR found JBR dead and asked FW to help stage the death. Perhaps if the latter, FW did not like being drawn into the whole situation and wanted JR to come clean but at that point JR had already surrounded himself with PR and lawyers.
It just seems like FW has his hands tied and can only say/do so much. And I think there is a reason for that. It is possible he knows more than he is willing to say and outing JR will be outing himself, so his hands are tied until JR admits something/anything.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe woman in question made some ugly accusations. I can't imagine anyone not wanting to "clear his name". How is that somehow sinister?
DeleteWe've answered your questions and discussed FW pretty exhaustively, you are just apparently not satisfied with the replies.
He was cleared of any involvement in the murder, and I believe that woman's accusations were found to be baseless. Got any evidence to the contrary?
One thing is for sure, the wine cellar is causing a lot of issues.
ReplyDeletePR : You know, it wasn't a full blown wine celler, but we kept boxes of wine in there. And I want to say that, I don't remember whether it was the night of the 23rd, that party or some party that we had, i remember somebody saying we are out of red wine. And I said, please go to the basement to get some more red wine..
TD: Okay, In the months prior the Christmas of ''96, Fleet would have gone in there?
PR : I would say Fleet, the cleaning lady and [ maybe the hunband ].
06/24/98.
Then there is this:
Within minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home, Fleet decided to look around the house. His own daughter had been missing a few months ago, and after the police were called they found her hiding under her bed. Fleet was hoping that JonBenet too was just hiding somewhere in the house. Since everyone had been told by the police officers not to go upstairs, Fleet went down to the basement. He noticed that the lights were on. He found a small piece of glass from a broken window in a room used for model trains. In checking the latch for the window he discovered that it was unlocked, but closed. Fleet also noticed a blue suitcase was sitting underneath the window. He continued with his search by opening every cupboard and door. He opened the door to the wine cellar, reached inside, but could not find the light switch and could not see inside the room. The wind cellar is completely formed by cement and has no windows. Finding no evidence of anyone entering or leaving from the basement area and no trace of JonBenet, Fleet went back upstairs."
Continued:
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense:
"In order to give John something to do to keep him from pacing the floor, Det. Arndt told Fleet, “I need your help in keeping John’s mind occupied. Could you ask him to recheck the house top to bottom to see if anything belonging to JonBenet had been taken or left behind?" Fleet, hesitating, responded, “I think it would be better coming from you.” Arndt located John and asked him to assist Fleet on this search.
John went to the basement door with Fleet following. Fleet first took John to the train room to show him the unlatched broken window that he had discovered on his first excursion into the basement. John explained to Fleet, "I broke that window last summer when I misplaced my house key and had to break in." They searched for broken glass on the floor and found one small splinter. John and Fleet then looked in a broom closet and another small room. While Fleet was still checking other closets, John walked to the wine cellar and tried to pull open the door. Because the top latch was secured, the door would not open. John reached up, undid the latch, and opened the door. Fleet, who was about 20 feet away, heard John exclaim, "Oh my God, oh my God," and went running to the room where John was standing. As Fleet approached the door, John flipped on the wine cellar light switch. Fleet saw the body of JonBenet laying on the floor.
John said he saw the white blanket on the floor as soon as he opened the door, and when the lights came on he saw his daughter laying on the blanket. Fleet ran up the basement stairs to the main floor. Appearing extremely distraught, he grabbed a phone, dialed two or three numbers, but then hung up. He turned to go back to the basement door, but then stopped and yelled for someone to call for an ambulance."
There were TWO light switches in the wine cellar.:
The team now concentrated on the wine cellar. Two light switches were located for this room one on the inside east wall 5 feet above the floor level, and the other on the west wall 2 feet above the floor level and 2 feet inside the doorway. Polaroid photos were taken before any of the investigators entered the room. Unfortunately, other officers had tromped through the room immediately after discovery of the body in making their own inspection of the crime scene."
So....FW's role in all of this the day JBR was found is not curious?
This is all based on what FW and JR state. Are we to believe their every word - that what they said happened downstairs is actual fact? No detectives or police were with them. Who know what went on in the basement but their stories do NOT match up. Then throw into the mix that their friendship deteriorated shortly after that day, or rather after JBR's funeral.
ReplyDeleteWell, as for me, you are within your rights to suspect Fleet, I just don't see anything particularly suspicious about his behavior. John, yes. Patsy, yes. Fleet also traveled to help clear John Andrew. Fleet had an alibi for that night, he had a house guest who knew Fleet had gone to sleep that night in his own home. I don't think it's unusual to not know where a light switch is, even if there are two of them - as I said in my daughter's own house I had no clue where her light switch was and shut myself in a dark room assuming it was inside the room. I wasn't even close - it was on an opposite wall adjacent to the bathroom. It's also possible John moved the body when he found it earlier. Then we have John suggesting Fleet may have had something to do with it. That would of course piss me off no end. Fleet also thought John should stick around town and answer questions, not flee to Atlanta. Fleet also wanted the GJ findings released which at the time they weren't releasing them. So anyway, Fleet doesn't come under my own particular radar of suspicious involvement but you are within your rights to believe that, I don't think anyone is disputing that. And the Krebs woman was off her nut. Sometimes people want to insinuate themselves into a case in order to gain a little fame for themselves. Like John Mark Karr.
ReplyDeleteI find this interesting, look at Patsy's reaction when questioned about the family dog and her reaction in the 911 transcript.
ReplyDeleteLINDA WILCOX: "Well, first of all, Patsy didn't want a dog. This particular dog didn't get the potty training thing down very well, he tended to leave puddles. He was pretty much relegated to the wood floor at the bottom of the spiral staircase and out the side door off the patio. However, they had, John told Patsy to get JonBenet a dog. It was John's decision to get a dog and Patsy chose a Bichon. She got it from a pet store, and I came there one day, his name was Jacques, a little guy, cute little furball. Well, one day the dog went to the vet and came back. But the dog that went to the vet was smaller than the dog that left. I had said something to Patsy, the next week I walked in and I asked Patsy what happened to Jacques. She's like, "What?" And I said, this isn't Jacques. And she's like, SHHHH, don't tell anyone, no one else knows. Turns out the first dog had something wrong like some kind of liver disease or something and it was dying. It was a bad dog, so she called the pet store and made a switch before anyone knew."
911 call:
Patsy: “I don’t know I just got the note, and my daughter’s gone.”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “What?”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”
911: “It’s a ransom note?”
Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”
_________
Seems the Ramseys are not above staging. Also, PR did not like to be questioned.
Yanno, if I were BPD, I would've questioned the vet. I don't think there is patient/doctor confidentiality when it comes to animal care, right?
DeleteIf true what Linda said, that John wanted Jonbenet to have a dog, geez! Why not the family's dog? Burke seemed to get short shrift in some areas.
I don't know when the dog idea came about with Patsy's treatment. Puppies are high maintenance, and I've said before the children had issues with potty training and bed wetting and then add a pup that no one cared to house train. Lazy. But then John should have been home more to take on dog responsibilities too.
Wonder if John ever got a dog for Burke in the years after Jonbenet's murder? I know Jacques version 2 stayed on to live with the elderly neighbors.
What does the dog have to do with anything at all? Patsy "switched" a dog for another dog because it was ill? O.k, not terribly ethical, but not an act to indicate she was capable of murdering her own child. Sorry.....I'm lost with this whole "Jacques" thing.
Delete"Wonder if John ever got a dog for Burke in the years after Jonbenet's murder? I know Jacques version 2 stayed on to live with the elderly neighbors."
I don't know about a dog, but there is a photo of the Ramseys, with Burke in the middle, who is cuddling a Himalayan or Rag Doll cat, so I'd say they had no problem with adopting more pets down the track, which would suggest they weren't concerned with Burke inflicting abuse on animals, if that is what you're getting at.
You tend to always go on the defense about certain stuff and that something is dark in their posts. Where is the Proof the first dog was sick? The vet would know.
DeleteThe poster is showing that Patsy could lie and did lie about replacing a dog.
This family has touted themselves as Christians, one of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith is "Thou shalt not lie".
I find it odd that a parent chooses which child deserves a pet rather than it be the entire family's pet. But people do play favorites.
I don't know what pics are a photo op or the animal is owned by someone else.
Anyone can stand in front of anything and not own it. Or hold anything and not own it.
It could be Burke had no interest in a dog, and Jonbenet did. It seems like Patsy wasn't a dog person from what little we know.
But if Patsy's health wasn't the best at the time of John's great idea of getting a pet, then he was an ass for adding to more daily work and home obligations. For someone extra work, as it was said Patsy did have the hired help clean out her purses.
None of us know if any animal was abused or not. If an animal was, then anyone in the house may have been culpable. I had a step niece who was around 4 when she tied a dog leash around her baby sister's neck to choke her and was also physically mean to our family dog and she was lit into when caught and I never trusted that child again to be alone with either one.
Ms D:
ReplyDeleteA witness told the CBS investigators that they had seen Burke lose his temper and act similarly in the past, hitting JonBenét with a golf club.
This witness had no reason to lie. The only known person in that house to strike JBR in the past was Burke. There is no proof that John ever sexually assualted his daughter which is why the JDI theory lacks any real substance. Until someone can provide evidence on John than Burke was the most likely person to have knocked out/killed JB. And then his parents covered up...to say they wouldnt cover up for their son is just hogwash.
A parent does not defile their dead daughter's genitalia because their son accidentally killed her, Zed. Especially if they're staging a kidnapping.....and the ransom note tells us that is exactly what they/he/she wanted LE to believe it was.
DeleteHad she been found dead of the head blow I could give BDI more credence Zed. It's the elaborate staging and ultimate cause of death that stop me short. Why not arrange her body at the foot of the stairs, claim it was an accidental fall and call 911? Why choose foreign factions, a garrote and murder?
DeleteShe was unconscious, profoundly so, but there was no blood and no way to know how badly hurt she actually was, making a call for help the far likelier choice.
Ms D, ever consider that maybe the defiling wasn't part of the staging and that it was Burke's doing?
DeleteI can more easily buy into the BDI theory if the family knew of some molestation from Burke. If they thought he had killed her and knew of previous sexual abuse, that could be their motive for cover up.
Yes Gumshoe, and that is the only BDI scenario I can accept. If anyone acts somewhat sociopathic it looks like Burke. His lack of affect during the social worker interview, someone just took her quietly from her room and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her, yep that must be it - he's even got that same smile on his face at JB's funeral when he's hugging his dad, that he had on Dr. Phil. I know it's a stretch, we don't know Burke, or John, nor did we know Patsy, but they have all put themselves on television and Burke doesn't seem completely there.
DeleteAt the end of the day, in my opinion, every theory is a stretch, whether it be BDI, JDI, IDI, etc. Each one requires some sort of leap of faith or assumption not based on facts or statistics.
Deleteright - you have to "get up and over" some of the obstacles to completely buy into any particular scenario. We still have some DNA results that will come to light this year - from two different pieces of cloth. What I read is that they are going to only test for male mitochondrial DNA - nuclear would be too far degraded now anyway, and then let's see what they get. And of course CBS hasn't answered the lawsuit yet - Spitz has, but not CBS as far as I know.
Delete"Ms D, ever consider that maybe the defiling wasn't part of the staging and that it was Burke's doing?"
DeleteIf I were to subscribe to the BDI theory, Gumshoe, that is the *only* scenario that would make sense. Along with JB already being dead when her parents found her.....but the general consensus amongst BDIs is that it was an accident committed by Burke, her parents found her unconscious and unresponsive, so ultimately chose to end her life and - inexplicably - decided to make it look like a botched kidnapping. I can never go along with this because, as CC said, the extent of JB's injuries couldn't have been known, thus her parents would have called for help, telling paramedics she fell down the stairs if they were concerned with protecting Burke.
"..to say they wouldnt cover up for their son is just hogwash."
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't cover for their son.
Mike G.
Folks- So, I'm on vacation and decided to read PMPT again. We know that John got a criminal lawyer right away because his business attorney (Mike Bynum) told him that it would be a good idea. John then gets his criminal attorney from (from Morgan & Haddon/Haddon, Morgan & Forman...cited both ways in book). Here's what is odd to me: they then get Patsy her own attorney from ANOTHER firm!?!? Lawyer Patrick Burke? If you're securing legal counsel as a "matter of course" since you know that you're going to be under the microscope - but you DIDN'T kill your daughter - why isn't one lawyer enough? Or even separate lawyers from the same firm? For John and Patsy to pretty much immediately secure separate lawyers from separate firms...does this behavior/choice strike anyone else as odd? I know down the road they all went with Lin Wood, but the aforementioned is what J & P did within a couple of days after Christmas. I couldn't find any mention of this separate, somewhat temporary Patrick Burke fella on this site, thus my lobbing it out there ;) Attorney CC? Anyone? Bueller?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf there's a potential conflict of interest, even a whiff of a possibility, parties always have separate attorneys. Bar Ethics require it.
ReplyDeleteHal Haddon, John's attorney, and Brian Morgan, Patsy's, are both criminal lawyers. Lin Wood does not practice criminal law, his is strictly a defamation and civil practice.
ReplyDeleteSorry to be so disjointed in my reply, Candy - I'm pre-coffee.
Nope, I'm wrong. You and Schiller got it right, Candy - John apparently went with Hal Haddon and Bryan Morgan, Patsy with Pat Burke, who had his own firm, and that makes more sense. Two attorneys from the same firm can represent parties with a potential conflict by doing what we call "building a Chinese wall" to keep their interests strictly separate, but it's difficult and complicated. Who represented Burke, anyone remember?
ReplyDeleteJim Jenkins?
DeleteThanks CC! I figured as much, but wanted to confirm. Guess I'm still surprised at the speed and thoroughness (e.g. we all need separate criminal attorneys) literally a day or two after the murder. I get the need for counsel immediately...know why John did that, but boy, there certainly was a lot of thought put into representation for each of them so quickly.
DeleteI think it was actually less than 24 hours, Candy. Mike Bynum would have recognized the need for criminal defense lawyers - criminal work is a very specialized area of law - as well as the ethical considerations for separate counsel. He was on the scene at the Fernies' the night of the 26th, and suggested the best, most reputable firm in Colorado; likely it was Haddon who then brought in Pat Burke.
DeleteIt was Lockheed Martin that controlled the situation. They made the decisions regarding which law firm would represent the Ramseys.
ReplyDeleteHercule
That is probably a big reason why law enforcement were so hands off. Lockheed Martin has govt. ties.
DeleteYay! Hi Hercule. Please help me remove any and all involvement of John that night.
DeleteI've never spent a lot of time comparing Ramsey handwriting exemplars with the handwriting in the ransom note, but I have read the note so many times, there is one very small "correction" the writer made that always gives me pause. My suspicion that it points to John as its author is possibly just confirmation bias; in fact, an innocent explanation recently dawned on me which I will share too.
ReplyDeleteThe "correction", while subtle, occurs at a point in the letter I would characterize as its climax...somewhat at a point of no return, especially for a perpetrator whose plan was to buy time to dispose of a dead body lying in the basement. It occurs in the first of five consecutive sentences threatening John with the murder of his daughter if he (John) takes certain actions.
"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."
Looking very very closely at the "o" in Police, it looks to me like the author originally wrote Pa, "x"ed out the a, then blotted out the circular portion of the letter all together using the tip of the sharpie. The "a" crossed out looks just like the "a" in
the word "anyone" just above and to the left of "Police"--an "a" altered by the author to conform, albeit poorly, with the font consistently used throughout the letter. John's "a"'s don't have the the upward and left bending hook on them (see the check he wrote at http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html--), as I'm sure Doc pointed out in his book. Neither did the "a" in P(a)loice before it was crossed out and blotted.
The innocent explanation is, many people, pronounce the "o" in Police as a "short" a. (Puh-lease)
I'm thinking John was at that point in the letter where he had to be thinking P"a"tsy was a) not someone HE wanted to "speak" to about HIS situation! and b) not someone he wanted "speaking" to the Police the next morning. The "a" as I see it, was a freudian slip. "Police" was not preceded by the article "the"...his mind was moving ahead quickly to "Patsy". But then the uh-oh fear-driven mistake, followed by the "correction", followed by the 'pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-drape' "others" not-to-contact (e.g. FBI) "etc" (emphases mine). Such classic John Ramsey misdirection!
So take your vote:
a) plausible evidence
b) convincing evidence
c) innocent spelling mistake
d) sheer confirmation bias
Mike G
Mike- there's definitely something wonky going on with that "o." More compelling to me is the initial capped "P." And, to throw gas on the fire, realized that the initial capped "P" might be a giveaway of initial intent to write Patsy (which is where you're going with your whole scenario, I know). The author also initial capped "Law enforcement" further down the page, perhaps to deflect from the earlier Pa/Police blunder! Ok, I'm going off into nuttyville now, but Mike, your question got me back on the darn note. My answer...a) plausible evidence.
DeleteGood analysis, Mike. Never noticed, but think you may be right, John was concerned with LE'S take on the note, but his first and most important audience was Patsy.
DeleteLet's not forget the "hats" added to the A's, obviously, as Doc has pointed out, added after the fact, and imo a deliberate attempt to implicate his wife. She was once "his Jackie O", as a friend in Atlanta pointed out, but cancer and a hysterectomy left her sexually disinterested and expendable in his eyes.
The "kill two birds with one stone" theory?
DeleteOnce again I feel the need to intervene regarding the manuscript a's as somehow part of an effort to implicate Patsy. First, of all, manuscript a was not a hallmark of Patsy's writing style. She used cursive a at least as often and probably more often than the manuscript form. Secondly, there is NOTHING in the note that resembles Patsy's writing style.
DeleteToo many have been brainwashed by the absurd attempts of Cina Wong to cherry pick "matching" letters. As I've demonstrated, the "matches" she found are either not really matches at all, or else the result of poring over thousands of characters to find just one that resembles a match and then treat that as proof positive that Patsy had to have written the note.
Finally, there is no reason why John would have wanted to implicate Patsy. His plan would clearly have been to stage a kidnapping by an intruder. Why on earth would he then try to make the note look like Patsy wrote it (which it doesn't anyhow)? Makes no sense.
As I say, too many have been overly influenced by the "experts" Darnay Hoffman dredged up, bolstered by a few others, such as "Cherokee," who got on the bandwagon and saw what they wanted to see. So we are now living with the myth that the writing on the note somehow looks like Patsy's writing when it most certainly does NOT. I've gone to some trouble to demonstrate this and would urge anyone reading here to read what I've written on this topic.
If anyone's writing looks like the writing in the note, it is John's, NOT Patsy's.
To be very clear, I was NOT suggesting that Patsy wrote the note. I'm JDI all of the way. Only suggesting that John may have made those missteps of which Mike speaks in the note...started to write Patsy, then possibly changed it to Police. When I stated a) plausible evidence, I was referring to it being plausible that the writer started writing Patsy then switched to Police. Reason why, I don't know.
DeleteMs. D - "What does the dog have to do with anything at all? Patsy "switched" a dog for another dog because it was ill? O.k, not terribly ethical, but not an act to indicate she was capable of murdering her own child. Sorry.....I'm lost with this whole "Jacques" thing."
ReplyDelete-----> the point is that, if this actually happened, it means that the Ramseys, or at least Patsy, were experienced with creating an image. Patsy worked for many years in marketing, which requires skill in knowing how to sell a product. She tried to sell the idea that one dog was really the other, hoping no one would notice. Instead of telling the truth right away. I could see doing this for the kids, if they were really attached to the dog (even that is questionable), but trying to pass one dog off as another dog to adults? That seems bizarre. Even when questioned outright, Patsy didn't want to admit it right way. She then lulled the housekeeper into her secret "please don't tell anyone else, no one else knows" world.
So my point is, if it isn't clear already, is that Patsy has been known to try to stage things - even to adults. Anyone would understand if the dog had an illness and she had to get a new dog. Not a big deal. But Patsy couldn't even deal with that. Maybe she didn't want people to think she was callous with the non-potty trained dog, but who actually knows why she didn't just tell people the original dog was ill. The bottom line is, what makes you think she could deal with the world knowing her daughter died in the home if she couldn't stand people knowing she sent away the original dog?
I think I have always been so concerned with the evidence of the case and did not look too much into other areas. The evidence leads nowhere directly, but doing a lot of reading, especially about accounts of people who know the Ramseys, many things come to light. For instance, the bottom of the spiral staircase was pretty prominent in the Ramsey home. It is where they kept the original non-potty trained dog, where PR would leave her purses for the housekeeper to clean out, etc. To leave a ransom note there signified that someone had to know the family very well, or it was someone in the family. That location is too daily-life Ramsey. Imagine if there was a spot in your home where you would always leave things, maybe important documents or a place where you or someone in the home would always sit and read/watch tv. A certain, routine spot. Then a ransom note was left there...you would automatically know that it was someone who knows the home well. I know stairs are used in homes but you don't know if those particular stairs are used. If not, then the note would not be found easily.
ReplyDeleteLittle things like this come to light, particularly by people who were in the home regularly, like the housekeepers.
"Little things like this come to light, particularly by people who were in the home regularly, like the housekeepers."
DeleteOr John, who knew Patsy's routine better than anybody, and knew exactly what stairs she'd be using that morning.
Well for one we don't know that the note was "left there." We only have Patsy's say so that she found it there. It's possible that John laid the note there specifically for LE to see, saying he spread it out so that he could read it. We have no reason to believe any of those two.
ReplyDeleteVery good point and I was also going to touch on this but forgot.
DeleteWe can't assume anything anyone said in connection to this case is actually true. No one else was there at the time the RN was "found". No one else was there except FW when JR "found" JBR in the basement. What they said could have all been part of the staging. For all we know, PR and JR had just finished writing the note then called 911. It might have never been "found". For all we know, JBR was in some other room and not actually "found" in the wine cellar (given the difference in stories of the wine cellar from FW - who said he opened the door with no problem but just couldn't find the light vs. JR who said the latch was on the door and he had to undo the latch first before opening it).
yeah, a whole lotta stagin' goin' on
DeleteTwo could do more together than one by herself
either of those two
ReplyDeleteThe author of the note was trying to create the illusion of an intruder but the illusion he/or she created was also one that couldn't spell (but only two words were misspelled), and didn't know you use "an" before words that start with a vowel sound, and "a" before words that start with a consonant. ' "A" earlier delivery' I don't think was an intentional mistake. Which to me is a tell that the note writer wasn't all that intelligent. A journalism major or an engineer would know this. So was it an honest mistake, something a dumb intruder would do or more the sign of a scrambled distracted individual.
ReplyDeleteAlso why cross out "We 'don' (the word don't) respect your bussiness" - Did this particular intruder have a change of heart - they really DO respect John's business?
Also "delivery" was crossed out in favor of "pick-up." Did the author of the note realize that delivering JB back to her parents might cause LE to catch them more easily than a "pick-up" from some other location?
But to answer your question Mike, I think the use of an "a" in Police was an innocent, if we have to go with that word, mistake.
I think using an "A" prior to a word with a vowel could have been intentional, just like mispelling "business".
DeleteLook at the "A"s in the sentence "If we catch you talking to a stray dog,". There are at least three different A's in that sentence alone. To me, this looks like someone trying to deceive. This tells me the note was written at the scene by someone who didn't have all the time in the world, and not by an intruder who wrote the note beforehand.
Why did they concentrate specifically on "a's". Anyone find that strange? Why not scramble a few "t's" or "e's"?
ReplyDeleteI think you answered your own question, Inq.
DeleteThe manuscript "a"s are Patsy's signature style, which at a glance would imply she wrote the note, but we know they didn't start out that way. So, it begs the question: Who is more likely to - very deliberately - compose certain letters in a way that point to Patsy? John, or Patsy herself?
But Doc just answered that earlier Ms D at 5:05 p.m. that there is no reason John would have wanted to implicate Patsy in the note, he was trying to implicate an intruder. So....dunno. The a's are scrambled - in that there are several styles of a, why not do that with t's or e's? It's probably a moot point but just something I noticed. If we want to cherry pick I think the "t's" look like John's. And he slants to the left so the note looks like someone is making a real effort to have the letters be "upright" or straight so that could definitely be camouflaging.
DeleteSo what I'm getting at is maybe using different "a's" is just how the person writes and that it wasn't an intentional act to deceive. When I print my first and last name I use an upper case letter at the end of my first name and in the last name the same letter is lowercase. It's a quirk.
ReplyDeleteNo, the "hat" on top of the "a" was added later - forming the "a" this way didn't come naturally to the writer. It was deliberate and forced.
DeleteI agree. The hats on most of the a's look as though they were tacked on later. The problem is: since we know the writer was being deceptive we have to ask whether the a's are: 1. his or her natural way of writing; 2. a crude attempt at disguising his/her hand; or 3. a deliberate attempt to make it look like an attempt at disguise by someone who naturally used manuscript a after all.
DeleteSince the note is clearly intended to deceive it's all but impossible to analyze meaningfully, since we have no way of knowing what strategy the writer was using to disguise his/her hand.
I can still think John wrote the note but didn't kill his daughter can I not?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSure you can. But that won't answer your question regarding why John so willingly handed over the very note pad he used to write the RN to LE.
DeleteI know others have mentioned gender text analysis before. The tools I list here are amateur tools. These days with Big Data, much better tools are available (but I don't have access to them). However, before you poo-poo the idea of text-based gender analysis, I want to emphasize that with sufficiently large sample populations, "predictions" take on great weight. Just ask Facebook/Google etc.
ReplyDeleteFor a bit of PURE FUN, here are a couple. I'd be interested in knowing the outcome of the Ransom text using real tools. If the outcome was heavily (90%+) weighted one way or another, this would be extremely suggestive.
http://hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php
Results
Total words: 353
Genre: Formal
Female = 926
Male = 428
Difference = -498; 31.61%
Verdict: FEMALE
https://uclassify.com/browse/uclassify/genderanalyzer_v5?input=Text
Success
female 67%
male 33%
These results obviously do not suggest strongly one way or another. Although, obviously, Patsy wrote the note as all sensible people realize :-) - GuruJosh
"Although, obviously, Patsy wrote the note as all sensible people realize".
DeleteIs there really any need to attack the author of the blog's intelligence, along with CC's, Mike's and my own (along with several JDIs here who don't immediately come to mind)? Surely it's possible to disagree with our premise without resorting to cheap shots? Out of the numerous theories I've read regarding the ransom note, Doc's is the ONLY one that makes sense of all the facets that PDIs/RDIs/BDIs can't make sense of.
For the JDIs out there, do you completely disregard Donald Foster's analysis where he definitely thought Patsy Ramsey wrote the note? Do you completely disregard Steve Thomas's theories that Patsy was involved? Do you completely disregard Werner Spitz's statements that there was no sexual assault? Just curious.
DeleteDonald Foster was thoroughly discredited as a questioned documents examiner some years ago and now teaches English Renaissance Literature at Vassar.
DeleteSteve Thomas offered no empirical evidence. He was suspicious of Patsy because she was wearing the same clothes she'd worn to the Whites' the night before and because she "peeked through her fingers" at him.
Werner Spitz was not among the forensic pathologists shown slides and tissue samples from the autopsy, all of whom concurred in finding evidence of abuse.
It's not as though we dismiss anything out of hand, Gumshoe, in a blind effort to defend our theory.
These feeble attempts were not disregarded -- not by me, in any case. They were debunked. Foster initially wrote to Patsy, claiming he would "stake his reputation" on her innocence. The Ramseys ignored him, so then he went to Hunter claiming he could prove she wrote the note. When his duplicity was revealed it became clear he was a charlatan and Hunter dropped him. As for Thomas, his Patsy-did-it theory is based on a fantasy, with no evidence whatever to back it up. And Spitz is simply wrong, as a reading of the autopsy will reveal.
DeleteThanks CC.
DeleteGood points. Although I do feel you're selling Steve Thomas short a bit. I don't know that anyone was as close to the case as he was. Would the fibers from Patsy's jacket being consistent with the those found on the duct tape from JBR's mouth not constitute empirical evidence?
Trace evidence is a problem in a shared home because of transference and would therefore be inadmissible, so I think we must discount all of it, including the fibers from John's unusualIsraeli-made shirt . . .and you know how that pains me.
Delete. . .fibers from John's unusual Israeli-made shirt FOUND IN JBR'S PANTIES . . . and you know how that pains me.
DeleteI haven't or heard that. Where can I find more information CC?
DeleteI've read so damned much stuff on this case I no longer remember what came from where. Doc will know.
DeleteIn general, acandyrose is my favorite go-to; that site is a gold mine.
DeleteThe book" listen carefully " on amazon has a much more convincing analyis of the RN than from anyone I've seen on here or in any of the JBR books
ReplyDeleteI'd love to know more about the analysis in Listen Carefully - I've been trying to find excerpts online, but to no avail, can you maybe post a brief summary here? :)
DeleteIt has been observed Patsy Ramsey liked to invent and sign off letters with acronyms. One Christmas note to a friend was signed P.P.R.B.S.J., which she said stood for “Patsy Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.” It is interesting to note Patsy felt the need to place punctuating periods between the letters of her closing acronym just as the ransom note writer did in their closing acronym.
ReplyDeleteWho signs a Christmas card with that?
DeleteIt seems the most evidence is found in everything other than the pieces of evidence found on Dec. 26.
Did the book rule out anyone or come to a conclusion on the person who wrote it?
ReplyDeleteDecided to ask my dad if he remembers having anyone come into the funeral home where abrasions could look like burn marks. From what he recalls burn marks looked like burn marks. I knew the funeral home handled a lot of mob funerals but it didn't seem like any that were done while he worked there, from the Catholics, to the Greeks, to a few Mexicans, none seemed to have much to relate to Jonbenet's injuries.
ReplyDelete"I could see doing this for the kids, if they were really attached to the dog (even that is questionable), but trying to pass one dog off as another dog to adults?"
ReplyDeleteI agree this is an extreme behaviour, but if Doc, CC et al. are right about John then Patsy had to disguise the change of dogs from one adult in her household because he couldn't be trusted not to take great delight in telling JBR what had happened.
I think John's narcissism forms a strong part of JDI theory, and this story is evidence consistent with that (I'm not going to say evidence /for/ because it's still very speculative).
b&b
I have several questions about the Grand Jury findings that I'd be very grateful if anyone with relevant knowledge could answer.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'm wondering about the process - would the jury members be presented with one theory from the prosecution (if it's called the prosecution in a GJ) of what they think happened?
Or do they get presented with a number of possible scenarios? Or even just presented with various bits of evidence, and they have to put possible scenarios together themselves?
Secondly, I have a few questions about the indictments themselves.
I know you've explained, CC, that BR could not be "suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree" (so therefore can't be the person JR and PR are accused of assisting) - does the same apply to "Child Abuse Resulting in Death"? Is "Child Abuse" a crime that can only be committed by a guardian (parent or teacher or similar) - or is that just a coloquial use of the term?
The first half of the indictment confuses me -
"JR / PR did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."
This suggests to me that the GJ believed that JR &/or PR knew JBR was in danger /before/ she was attacked on the 25th? Could this then refer to chronic sexual abuse? (Which would certainly pose a threat to JBR's mental health).
Or are they referring to a failure to seek medical attention for the head injury? (With the second half of the indictment referring to the garotting). I suppose this might be consistent with either PR or JR (or even BR) causing the head injury by accident.
Thanks for patience - I have very little legal knowledge, and we don't have Grand Juries in Australia.
b&b
"I could see doing this for the kids, if they were really attached to the dog (even that is questionable), but trying to pass one dog off as another dog to adults?"
ReplyDeleteI think one of my replies disappeared into the ether.
I just wanted to point out, if JR really is the person Doc's theory suggests, PR would have every reason to hide the dog's death from the only other adult in their household - because he may have taken great delight in telling JBR.
PR trying to manage JR's narcissism is consistent with this story.
b&b
Yes, the term "child abuse" usually refers to acts committed by a parent or caregiver.
ReplyDeleteI've always believed Count II refers to the sexual abuse, but you make an excellent point, and one I've never considered, about the head blow and the failure to seek medical attention; I'll have to think about that for a while and get back to you. Interesting.
Grand Juries are, admittedly, strange beasts. Prosecutors love 'em because they operate in secrecy, there is no defense counsel present, and the threshold for indictment is lower - probable cause. Used properly, however, they can be great investigative tools as we saw with the Ramsey GJ, subpoenaing witnesses and evidence.
All three of the scenarios you outlined in your second paragraph are possible.
Forgive me if I seem short, b&b; I hate to drone on about the law.
You left something out, Anonymous. From the "Gender Guesser":
ReplyDeleteGenre: Informal
Female = 321
Male = 713
Difference = 392; 68.95%
Verdict: MALE
In other words, if the text is informal, the verdict is male. The Guesser guesses female only if the text is understood as formal, i.e., a carefully edited fiction or non-fiction text.
As for the Gender Analyzer, here's the result I got when I entered the first post in this blog:
Success
female
58%
male
42%
Now last time I checked I was a male. And I have no plans to switch, I'm very happy with my privileged male status. Also, I like women, so sue me.
Doc, a couple questions for you:
Delete1. I find your reasoning for JDI to be sound and logical. How come others so close to the case have not presented John as a primary suspect? Seems like everyone involved with the case is either PDI, BDI, or IDI.
2. Now, to get into some difficult conversations, when the results of the autopsy lead experts to conclude that there was prior sexual abuse, just what exactly does that mean? Intercourse, fondling?
I will admit that the only aspect of the JDI theory that is preventing me from going all in is that nothing seems to be point to John as a sexual abuser of his own 6 year old daughter.
1. John was THE leading suspect, as I understand it, until the handwriting "experts" decided that he could not have written the note. Since no intruder theory made sense, most following the case then assumed Patsy must have written it. And since it seemed doubtful she'd have written that note to help John get away with murdering her daughter, it was assumed she herself must have killed her -- or else that she was covering for Burke.
Delete2. Prior sexual abuse was indicated by the condition of JonBenet's vagina, which showed signs of chronic inflammation. According to a team of pediatric specialists that could only have been caused by "prior abuse," but the precise nature of that abuse was never indicated. Penile intercourse is extremely unlikely as her vagina would have been too small to accommodate an erect male penis. Most likely is digital penetration.
What points to John as sexual abuser is the fact that he is the one who murdered her, and the need to prevent her from exposing him is the only motive for murder that makes any sense in this case. As I see it, it's possible to prove John was the killer but not that he was the abuser. But if we put two and two together it's not that hard to see that one goes quite naturally with the other.
To put it another way, it's not necessary to prove that John was the abuser in order to prove he was the killer. But once we understand that no one else could have killed her, then it's not difficult to conclude that he must have been the one who was abusing her.
Thanks Doc.
DeleteTo me, John only makes sense as the killer if he was the abuser. Why else would he kill his own 6 year daughter in such horrific fashion?
I know that the whole question of the note is something you have spent time analyzing Doc, and it's near and dear to you as it's the whole premise of your blog and kindle book that John was ruled out as having written the note, that had he even been considered or thought to have written it then the outcome of this case would have been different.
ReplyDeleteActually the basic premise of my blog and book is that the only logical suspect in this case is John Ramsey. We can rule out an intruder, we can rule out Patsy and we can certainly rule out Burke -- leaving only John.
DeleteI've spent a lot of time on the note because it's necessary to understand that 1. John should never have been ruled out as writer of that note, and 2. the conclusion on the part of so many that Patsy must have written it is based on confirmation bias rather than sound analysis.
For quite some people, it is hard to see John as the abuser/killer but once we understand that beneath the victim's facade there's a narcissistic sociopath, (as brilliantly described by Suzc) all makes sense regarding why and how he has gotten away with murder so far.
Delete