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.

Monday, February 13, 2017

The Complaint: Installment 11

Once again we're running out of room. Feel free once more to make fools of yourself by disagreeing with me. :-)

231 comments:

  1. Not me, Doc; I'm on the side of the angels. But I do want to share something I found earlier when looking for the source of the black Israeli shirt fibers in JBR'S panties. It's from Mark Beckner's deposition taken in conjunction with the Chris Wolf case, Sections 123-160, and beyond, available on acandyrose.

    In it, Beckner refers to a third source of DNA, which he refers to as DNAX, found NOT on JBR'S body and NOT on her clothing, but from a third source "at the crime scene". He goes on to say this DNA sample was developed AFTER the GJ disbanded in 1999, and almost seems to suggest it's been identified.

    Thought provoking and worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is CC. It's very mysterious. Beckner doesn't want to say what he has or doesn't have - he instructs Lin Wood to call the FBI. Lin is trying to get Beckner to say that the Ramsey's samples, being on file, would have been compared to DNAX as well as Chris Wolf but there seems to be incomplete answers from Beckner since the case is active. But yes, if it's been identified why not proceed from there?

      Delete
    2. Nor my point. Not at all.

      There was more DNA found than we were aware "at the crime scene" somewhere as well as ON HER BODY. Our assumptions and discussions have always centered on the DNA on the longjohns.

      This opens up all kinds of possibilities vis-a-vis Garnett's renewed DNA testing, and clearly he is "proceed [ing] from there".

      Delete
    3. Could be that third source the cord/ garrotte?
      Very interesting info, CC. Thank you...

      Delete
    4. Since 2001 Beckner has known this?

      Delete
    5. The BPD and the Boulder County DA have probably known since 1997.

      Early on in the deposition, when asked if Chris Wolf was a suspect, Beckner said, essentially, that while he wasn't cleared, the only suspects were John and Patsy Ramsey, so apparently his handwriting exemplars didn't get John totally off the hook.

      Between this and Garnett's new DNA testing, I have renewed hope.

      Delete
    6. I do too. Thanks for finding that passage.

      Do you have any idea who analyzed John's handwriting? I hope it wasn't Cina Wong.

      Delete
    7. Talk about a trip down nostalgia lane. DNAX was a hot topic when I was just getting out of diapers. Talk about going around in circles.

      Delete
    8. On this blog, or in your farther distant past with Jameson, et al.? 'Cause don't recall seeing it here, and I read every word early on, though it's been a while.

      No need to go around in circles about it; I just found Beckner's remarks interesting, and it was news to me.

      Hey, at least it ain't the pineapple bowl again.

      Delete
    9. No I've never mentioned it on this blog, but it did come up ages ago on the fora. Happy Valentine's Day, CC.

      Delete
    10. To you as well, Doc. You don't get enough credit for running this joint with endless patience, kindness and wisdom. Thanks, with much love and all my respect.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. See guys, I told you I P*ss off Doc.

    Always a new thread when I make a good point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always a new thread when we get to 220 something. You didn't make a good point. Now CC up there ^ made a good point that there is more dna than we knew and in more places.

      Delete
    2. I think I made a pretty good point. And see my post below.

      Delete
    3. Feel free to repeat your post here.

      Delete
    4. Doc, are you beginning new threads solely to piss off Anon?
      ?!
      It surely wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact we couldn't load all of the comments, would it? Nahhh, I think you're deliberately trying to sabotage all of the non JDIs here, tsk tsk.....

      Delete
  5. Diamondil - Anon, I guess I've been the only one here besides you that have posted before that there would be no way to prove who molested her internally without semen. Nor that she could have only one molester. She could have had multiple assaults by multiple individuals and if not severely injurious, some could have been peer to peer with exploration. Imo, with an adult, I would think they would groom her by not causing pain. Using lube for any digital activity. Others have explained away the vaginitis to medication, tights, baths, etc. Fine, but I've stated before that yeast infections can also be caused by oral sex. She was known to have poor toilet hygiene and anyone of ANY AGE who also may have poor hand washing hygiene that may have been touching her could have kept infections from clearing up.

    -----> Good point! I could have been multiple people. There is no way of knowing.

    Doc - the death and molestation are mutually exclusive. She could have died by accident. She could have been killed by Burke by accident but abused by JR. Or she could have been abused by someone completely different - family friend.

    There really is no way of solving this unless more information is released or someone confesses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm getting tired of repeating myself: there is no way to tell for sure who molested her until we've identified who killed her. Proving who molested her per se is impossible. But proving who killed her is a cinch. Since the person who killed her is the one most likely to have been molesting her then it's not difficult to figure out who was molesting her. And the prior molestation provides us with the perfect motive for murder. No other believable motive has ever been proposed.

      Delete
    2. I'm not wanting to get on your case, truly. But other motives have been proposed, you (and others) just don't FIND them believable. And frankly, neither do I. Bed wetting - not enough to spawn an attack of rage proportions. Sibling rivalry - no. But take away the molestation you have no other believable motive for John. I think you have eliminated Burke, Patsy and the Intruder because you don't find any plausible motive, but just because you haven't found a plausible motive does not leave one man standing. I see your frustration, we're all frustrated, if not with this case, then with each other :)

      Delete
    3. Well, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, too. There is no way to determine if the person who molested JBR killed her. One is not a guarantee to point to the other. There isn't even a determination that the molestation was done by an adult. IF we had that info, then maybe we could narrow it down.

      Children experiment with their bodies and sometimes the bodies of other children. Accidents happen. They are a family that want to protect their image. They couldn't even admit they got another dog in place of an incontinent dog.

      Inquisitive - PR got rid of a dog for being incontinent. She couldn't deal with it. They couldn't train it so they sent it away. PR had been through a great deal of stress in her life. Holidays are a stressful time. You don't think people can snap over little things if they have enough emotional stress piled up on them? Maybe you haven't met my mother. So, yes, it is possible bedwetting could have set her off. Sibling rivalry - Burke had been know to make comments about how JBR received a lot of attention and he had a past history of hitting her with an object (the golf club). No one else in the family was reported ever hitting JBR. Also, notice the connection of what BR said to the social workers/detectives right after JBR's death, with him stating that he knew what happened to JBR, that someone swung and hit her (then he demonstrate what probably happened). Isn't that the SAME thing that happened with the golf club? Swinging and hitting her?

      You guys are making a LOT of assumptions that certain things are not "believable". ANYTHING is possible. We have a very unsolved case.

      Delete
    4. Anony, I agree with you that anything is possible. There are many possibilities and there is a lot of assumption that can take place if we dont see the forest for the trees. Burke could have def been the responsible for an accidental head blow but nobody believes he could have written the ramson note or finished off her sister in the manner she was finally killed. Patsy could have had one of those moments, too much stress, too many times trying to help JBR learn not to wet her bed...but, if it was her who killed her, why on earth call 911 at that precise moment when the body was not still disposed.
      However, if, instead of focusing on one particular thing, you try and see the complete picture, the whole movie, you will see that there is only one person that could have done it. All the pieces must fit. Try to read Doc's theories with cold eyes.

      Delete
    5. Yes, bed wetting or sibling rivalry could have been the trigger - things don't usually happen in a vacuum. My point was it's too simplistic to say Patsy must be ruled out because bed wetting isn't a plausible enough motive, or sibling rivalry for Burke, so essentially I am agreeing with you that there were other things to be taken into consideration and not just the simplistic motives offered up over the years.

      Delete
    6. I believe we have Marcela. All of the pieces aren't going to fit

      Delete
    7. I'm not talking about minutia.
      The important structural aspects of the case are logically explained in Doc's theory and the pieces fit. You will go in circles endlessly if you fail to see it.

      Delete
    8. The pieces fit for the story Marcela. But that's the only place they fit for me at the time being. At least I'm not arguing for an intruder any more, that's progress. :) By the way you don't have to answer this question if you don't want to, since it's personal, but I was born in Brazil so I wonder where in South America are you?

      Delete
    9. Dad was in the foreign service so we moved from there, mom was a southerner

      Delete
    10. I was born in Argentina since my parents were missionaries there.
      Very close to Brazil. I used to spend my summers in Bahia.

      Delete
    11. thank you for sharing that Marcela.

      Delete
    12. I keep saying it but no one hears me. You'll never solve this case by worrying over the motive. Fortunately motive does not have to be proven in court. What needs to be proven is GUILT! And once guilt is determined then the guilty party is the one most like to have molester her. But even if he isn't actually the one who did it that does not make him any less guilty of murder.

      And yes, anything is possible. So Sherlock's dictum needs a bit of revision: "When you eliminate everything that makes no sense, then what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

      Delete
    13. OH, and Happy Valentine's Day, ladies.

      Delete
    14. Same to you DocG, and to all that post and read here.

      Delete
    15. Thank you, gentlemen!
      Happy Valentine's to all here!!

      Delete
    16. Happy Valentine's day to everyone!

      Delete
    17. Thank you Doc. Right back at you!

      Anon, refer to the principle of parsimony.
      Doc's theory is the only one I've read in twenty years that doesn't employ massive leaps of logic and pretty much adheres with that principle.

      It is almost guaranteed that the person who wrote the ransom note is the killer. Thus, we can confidently rule out Burke. We can rule out an intruder (as we know: 1. an intruder would have brought the RN with him/her. 2. A kidnap for ransom would have consisted of very few lines. 3. A kidnapper would have taken the body with him/her).
      So we're left with John and Patsy.
      If Patsy wrote the note to stage a kidnapping, she would have no reason to call 911 before disposing of the body, keeping in line with the kidnapping story the author was so desperate to push. And we can surmise that, by the very specific instructions included in the RN, the writer's intention was to stage an actual kidnapping, not a "botched kidnapping". However, the person who dialed 911 ruined any chance of LE ever believing it was a kidnapping, as the police were on their way over to the house to discover JB's body. This means that the author of the note and the person who invited police over that morning certainly had a conflict of interest, which tells us the author and the caller cannot be the same person. Thus, we can add Patsy to the list of "Ruled Out". Then we're left only with John.

      A simple process of elimination.

      Delete
  6. Okay, then here we are. There is no where to go unless more information is released or someone confesses. Blog over. And i do understand the emotion "resignation." We've all been there. But let's take another look at our main character John. I see someone who at the beginning and the immediate aftermath of the murder, had something very big at stake. Protecting his life and livelihood and that of his family. I do not see a person who had finding the person who did this as his priority. Yes, he made a big show of hiring his own investigators, but really does anyone think John exhibited any signs of a hunt and pursuit of the intruder or intruders who brutally murdered his daughter, or why. No, instead we see a man who very expertly organized a defense against those that were trying to find who murdered his daughter. He shuttles Burke out of the house around 7 a.m. to remove his son from the drama. If he were protecting Burke the murderer, I'm sure there would have been other measures taken to ensure that Burke would not be accidentally or otherwise questioned. Having him stay at a friend's house is not adequate protection from anyone who could pry into what Burke saw or did.

    John then either intentionally or unintentionally tells John Andrew he found the body much earlier than when he brought her up. Again,why not bring her up then. Why not say at the time he was conducting his own search and found her. Why keep that a secret for a full two more hours? Who did he make the decision to protect - we're narrowed down now to two, himself and Patsy.

    Patsy is dead now. He doesn't have to worry that she will be questioned anymore, he doesn't have to worry that she will slip up on television and say something. He knows he has better control than Patsy and he knows he doesn't have to worry about himself slipping up ever. But it's clear he is not concerned about finding the killer. There has got to be some chink in the armor, something simple that would warrant a fresh look at the case - something that happened on day 1 some really major slip up that I'm hoping will come to light, something really simple, something as simple as what Burke heard during the night. Two voices talking, or just one? Noises downstairs anytime from midnight until 5, footsteps - it's possible the killer may have stood in Burke's doorway and looked in to make sure Burke was in bed and appeared to be asleep, was there a night light on in the hallway that would have illuminated a figure in the doorway? I think the key to cracking the case lies with Burke and although Lin Wood will always be present if Burke is questioned, if we start with the premise that Burke heard and saw something, then a very clever interviewer could frame their questions in such a way that Lin Wood would have to allow him to answer. Or - under threat of an arrest he could be allowed immunity for answering questions regarding either his father or mother or both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting points.

      What I'm struggling to make sense of is the pineapple. If we agree that JBR ate pineapple after getting home from the White's, why lie about it? What does it achieve?

      Delete
    2. Both Patsy and John locked themselves into a story that he carried her up to bed, he thought Patsy was behind him or in front of him, who got her ready for bed and they never saw her again, so they can't say they were awake when she went downstairs or was downstairs when she would have ingested pineapple. They locked themselves into their stories as soon as Officer French took down their statements.

      Delete
  7. I know I've brought this up before but I would like to take another look at JAR. I know he claims to have had an "air tight" alibi, but if so, why did he need a lawyer as well as his mother? What questions didn't they want to answer?

    His friends immediately suspected him when they found out JBR was murdered.
    He was reported to have been obsessed with JBR.
    His suitcase was found in the basement along with a blanket and child's book.
    He slept in the room next door to JBR when he stayed with them.
    The RN sounds like it was written by a young person or persons (college age - 18 19 or so) perhaps him and a friend planned it?
    When questioned as to what should happen to the person/persons who killed JBR, he said that they should be forgiven.
    He had a friend who had a pilot's license.
    The neighbor across the street said he saw him earlier in the day walking up towards the Ramsey house, which he later recanted. Wouldn't the neighbor have known if it was him or not?
    They had pictures of JAR at an ATM machine, but his cap was pulled down and his face couldn't be identified. Maybe it wasn't him?

    Maybe that's what Burke saw that night, so they sent him away from the house that morning without police escort when his sister was being held captive for ransom? WHAT parent in their right mind would do that?

    Just something to think about.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the first I am reading about JAR. Where did you read that his friends immediately suspected him when they found out JBR was murdered?

      They did have his suitcase in the basement that had a blanket with his semen on it. It would be interesting to have some kind of documentation of when JAR was visiting the Ramsey home and JBR's doctor's appointments. JBR could have been molested by JAR but then murdered by someone else (or it could have been an accident). Maybe JR suspected molestation by JAR and tried to protect JAR because then that would mean two dead kids and one in jail. Not exactly family of the year material. But being the subject of a kidnapping gone wrong/intruder/murder is more easy to digest. Think of all the support the family would get with everyone trying to find the intruder!

      Delete
    2. EG that is something to think about, because we have exhausted nearly everything else. I had read that John Andrew's friends said he was obsessed with her but I don't know where it is I read that. So, look into it. Might be something there. I've always wondered how a blanket with his semen and a Dr. Seuss book end up in a Samsonite piece of luggage at the foot of the window in the basement.

      Delete
    3. EG - there is a short thread on topix discussing JAR - and non-state-actor, post #3 makes an interesting observation about the guest room.

      http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TCO4QV17LLAETGJKI

      Also - people tend to leave out that it was John's future son-in-law that spoke to LE, (perhaps Steve Thomas), as HE also heard John say the morning time was when he found her.
      So there is someone other than blood relation that told LE what John said on 12/26.

      Delete
    4. EG, John Andrew Ramsey was in Georgia on Christmas night, no "ifs" or "buts" about it. Many people have corroborated his alibi. He was then with his sister on a flight very early in the a.m of Boxing Day, so it is a physical impossibility that he could have been in Boulder at the time JB was murdered.

      "They had pictures of JAR at an ATM machine, but his cap was pulled down and his face couldn't be identified. Maybe it wasn't him?"

      Which means he had someone posing as him to give JAR an alibi, therefore someone else knows he is lying.....why haven't they come forward? Why did they protect him in the first place, they would have had to know in advance he was up to something pretty sinister if he said to them "Here's my ATM card, make sure you use it between 9 p.m and 2 a.m, and make sure you obscure your face"!

      Take his airtight alibi into consideration along with the fact that NONE of his DNA, hair or any other physical evidence was left on the victim's body, the photographic evidence he was in another state at the time of the murder, and it is patently obvious he is not - CANNOT be - the murderer. One more thing......do you really think Patsy would cover for JAR if he sexually molested and murdered her six year old daughter? Even after she became suspect number one? If nothing else, I highly doubt she'd take the rap for a step son.....

      Delete
    5. MsD - I do know he was cleared but something about it nags at me. And I do not think PR would have covered for JAR, but JR would have. His response about forgiving the murderer is just odd to me. After having been told of the brutality of the crime I think it's an odd response for an older brother to have.
      As I said earlier, something just doesn't sit well with me where he is concerned.

      EG

      Delete
    6. Well then, EG, you'll have to accept that JAR had a friend pretend he was him at the ATM. His friends who corroborated his alibi must have also been complicit. He also had to have flown to and from Boulder that night without his flight being recorded, not to mention he had to be back in time for his early flight with Melinda.

      As far as "forgiving the murderer" goes, do you know how many Christians say the exact, same thing? Almost every crime show I watch, I hear a family member of the victim saying he/she "forgives" the killer. Do a bit of research into it, you'd be surprised at how common it is.

      Delete
  8. I read that people who knew him from college said he was weird and obsessed with his sister. They immediately thought it was him when they found out she had been murdered. I believe it was on Websleuths.

    I also read that JBR had severl Monday morning school nurse visits. JAR sometimes stayed at the Ramseys on weekends. I am sure those school records were sealed along with the phone records and the doctor's records.

    Anything that might have given them a clue was blocked, sealed, ignored, and just plain not done, starting with the exhumation of the body which would've confirmed stun gun or not. Total incompetence.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder what kind of knot tying skills John Andrew may have had. I mean EG, why not look into it. And who overheard John tell John Andrew he found (John) her body around 11 a.m.? Why tell John Andrew that specifically?

      Delete
    2. Wasn't he already cleared through DNA evidence?

      Delete
    3. I had to look it up of course - regarding knot tying. John Andrew was an Eagle Scout.

      He was cleared yes though. He gave blood and hair, they looked at his handwriting as well. No fingerprinting. Found his timeline on acandyrose. He was in Georgia. Too bad - I'd like to pin it on him. There's still a chance of course, if his friend lied (Brad Millard)but doubtful.

      Delete
    4. Inq

      I know it's a stretch, because he was cleared, but like everything else in this case, something about it doesn't sit well.

      EG

      Delete
    5. JA also said (on acandyrose) that his stepmother, Patsy, was "flashy." That's kind of an old fashioned prudish thing to say. Maybe he wasn't too happy when his father left his first family to marry a pageant queen and start a new family.

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. EG: how would exhumation of the body confirm stun gun? The stun gun theory was pretty much discredited for a number of reasons, so it would be unlikely exhumation would be ordered anyway. But I'm curious about your idea.
    DaffodilGal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't read thru the entire autopsy report. So I don't know if the ME cut under the skin of the abrasions/marks to look at the tissue damage from the deeper layers.

      Delete
    2. Apparently stun guns leave characteristic burn marks in several layers of derma, and as Lil pointed out, can be confirmed by cutting beneath the epidermis.

      The results of the panel of medical experts who confirmed prior sexual abuse should have been enough to trigger an exhumation in 1997, at which time they could have checked for stun gun burns, but Alex Hunter was faint of heart and weak in the knees.

      Delete
    3. Daffodil,

      CC answered your question correctly. It's my understanding that the marks made by a stun gun burn into several layers of skin. Had they exhumed the body, they would've known and not had to guess all these years at what MIGHT have made those marks.

      Diamond - Thanks for that thread and agree. Very strange indeed. That would've made JAR mighty uncomfy being discovered with a kids book in his suitcase and a blanket with semen on it within close proximity to where his sister was found dead.

      I also read that JAR didn't return to school right way, whereas Burke did. And how fortunate for him that he saved that stub from the movie he saw that night and was able to produce it months later to tighten up his alibi.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Kind of reminds me of Scott Peterson with his printed receipt from the Berkeley Marina.

      Delete
    5. Inq, did you get to watch Dr Oz today on Scott Peterson? Amber Frey was one and she really hasn't changed in looks all these years. She also talked about doing missionary work.

      Delete
  11. Did a search here on the blog for previous mention of DNAX and didn't find anything to link back to. If others can find it, please post it, tia.

    On the ACR site there is this entry (and I forgot that Patsy's sister appeared on LKL and said that the DNA in the panties could be hers!)

    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

    it also comes up in the AMA on Reddit with Chief Kolar, but one would have to really scroll around to find it

    https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/?st=iz645x0z&sh=15348f7f

    also discussion in 2012 of Beckner. Wood. Wolf and DNA X here -
    http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TUU5DKFM6TC5PF8Q2/p42

    ReplyDelete
  12. JDI is an absurd theory. No evidence whatsoever and John would have certainly come up with a better plan than that and better timing.

    Everything points to Burke with parents covering for him.

    Burke and JBR used to sleep in the same room. Patsy caught them one night "experimenting" or "playing doctor" and told Burke he would not be sleeping in there anymore.

    Burke was downstairs eating pineapple the night of her murder. Pineapple being hardly eaten and JBRs pillow downstairs indicate she interrupted Burke.

    They went downstairs to the basement to look at Burkes birthday presents (they both had presents on their mind as it was xmas). It wasn't a coincidence this happened on xmas...it was a night the kids were still high on excitement and couldnt sleep. Burke tore some paper off a present to peek at it. Patsy later said she did this...yeah right!! Just one of the many OBVIOUS Patsy lies.

    Down in the basement Burke found the garotte. This was something he would have learnt in boy scouts and had been practising in the basement weeks/months before. He picked it up and jokingly put it around JBRs head. Maybe he pulled it too tight without realising it would hurt her and then JBR started to panic. She ran outside the basement and maybe screamed or yelled out. Burke panicked because he knew if his parents came down they would be in trouble (sneaking out of bed, tearing open bits of presents, mucking around with rope). So, without even thinking, his instinct made him lash out at JBR with the torch to keep her quiet. Again, he didnt realise how much damage that could do.

    JBR is now lifeless on the floor. But there is no blood and Burke doesnt know what to do. He's a kid and he doesnt want to get in trouble by his parents. So he waits a while, prods JB with train tracks and trys to wake her up. Finally 30+ min past and he finally wakes his parents.

    John and Patsy cant believe it. JBR is dead and has a garotte around her. Plus Burke had "played doctor" with her before. The parents dont know what to do. They know it was an accident after Burke frantically tells them what happened but there is no way they can ring 911 with the way she looks. John takes Burke to bed and tells him JB will be ok and go to sleep.

    Patsy and John then only have one option...to make it look like someone else did it. Not very hard to believe at all if thats how she was found. They NEED a ransom note as tangible evidence that someone had been in the house. They never planned on putting her in the car...far too risky and evidence would surely be found. So they stage it as a kidnapping gone wrong. They make the hard decision of adding a sexual twist to the crime to cover for Burke and JB in the past.

    Johns shirt fibers are found in the brand new panties they put on her. And Patsy writes the note and makes the 911 call as she could play the stricken mum much better than John could be stricken dad. Patsy wipes down the flashlight as well so no trace of anyone can be found on it.

    And that is what happened.

    Only thing im not sure about is if Burke was told by his parents that JBR was ok and went back to bed (and then an intruder came). And if he actually believes there was an intruder. Im guessing now he knows what happened and realised his parents staged for him. Thats why he spoke for the first time in 20 years because he knew CBS were on the right track.

    Bala

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bala, for now, just one thing only. The underwear and the fibers.

      They had to be put on her BEFORE her bladder emptied. Her longjohns and bloomies were urine soaked, as well as the carpet area near by.

      So do you think someone just pulled them down after her bladder voided, and pulled them back up wet?

      Whoever did it, didn't go the extra measure to remove all soiled clothing and redress her in clean clothes after she expired.

      Delete
    2. "That's why he spoke for the first time in 20 years because he knew CBS were on the right track."

      So suing CBS is Burke's attempt to misdirect the way not calling the police until at least after 10:00 A.M on the 26th was the parent's attempt to misdirect?

      Non-JDI theories have one thing in common. They all rely on perpetrators believing the best way to escape getting caught is to say and do things that augment getting caught.

      Scene: Kitchen in the Ramsey house, December 26th, 1996, 4:00 A.M.
      Players: John and Patsy (in kitchen), Burke (in bed), JonBenet (dead in basement)

      Patsy:

      "So what do we do John? How do we get out of this? I don't want Burke to spend a year or two in a juvenile detention center! But what if he says something, intentionally or not, that makes US look the ones who killed JonBenet? Most people in this liberal enclave called Boulder will presume us guilty anyway, even if Burke plays dumb or doesn't connect the dots as to what happened last night!"

      John:

      "You're right, Patsy. We have to make this look like an intruder. Furthermore, our plan must take into account that someday, somewhere, someone will probably write a book theorizing that it was one of us--probably me--who murdered JonBenet. The theory will be based upon a set of logical inferences drawn from a set of indisputable facts. To counter that, everything we actually do and say, beyond the facts, will be illogical and incriminating!"

      Patsy:

      "Brilliant John! I'm so glad I married you! If it's an intruder we want, it's an intruder we won't give them?"

      John:

      "That's my girl!"

      Mike G




      Mike G

      Delete
  13. Bala - are you mocking some of us on here? Where are you coming up with these details or do you THINK this is what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can anyone recommend a good book on the case? I've gotten through PMPT and Steve Thomas's book. I'm debating between The Cases that Haunt Us by John Douglas or Who Killed JonBenet by Charles Bosworth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like" listen carefully " on amazon, it's new

      Delete
  15. Inquisitive - I've always wondered how a blanket with his semen and a Dr. Seuss book end up in a Samsonite piece of luggage at the foot of the window in the basement.

    -----> could it be possible that JR is using JAR as a scapegoat? I read a few interviews with JR talking to police/detectives about JAR's belongings at the house and JR seemed very overzealous about it. Almost very EAGER to share the details with the police.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ok, so they figured out what to do, concocted a plan, wrote a RN that would cover them and then just before getting rid of the corpse, they call 911. I think both parents were smart people, enough to know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Could it be possible that JR is using JAR as a scapegoat? I read a few interviews with JR talking to police/detectives about JAR's belongings at the house and JR seemed very overzealous about it. Almost very EAGER to share the details with the police."

      That is my belief. Casting suspicion on JAR, Patsy, Fleet, and anyone else who knew him, was his "plan B". I firmly believe that is why he uttered the words "It has to be an inside job" the second he brought JB's body up the basement stairs - what parent would say that upon finding his child dead, especially a parent who is allegedly trying to draw attention AWAY from his wife, as PDIs suggest is the case? I cannot think of a logical reason for him to have said those words, unless he was trying to frame someone. I am certain this is why Patsy's paintbrush was used in a ligature strangulation that didn't really require one - after all it wasn't quite a "garrote", was it? As I've said before, I believe a manual strangulation occurred earlier, perhaps with a scarf or similar, and the paintbrush handle/cord were added during the staging. This would also be consistent with the marks on her neck, indicating the device used to strangle her had been moved.
      If John was capable of murdering his daughter, he was more than capable of letting an innocent person take the rap.

      Of course, it wouldn't have been John's initial intention to frame anyone in the family - he was setting up a kidnapping by a foreign faction - but he expected JB's body to be long gone by the time LE were called. When Patsy called the police, he would have known the cops were never going to buy the kidnapping story with the body still in the house. It's clearly an "inside job", so he ran with it.....but being sure to deflect attention away from himself, and the best way to do that was to draw attention to everyone else. The "who" wasn't important, as long as it was anyone but him.

      I have no trouble believing that, in the 90 minutes he was missing, he planted evidence that incriminated his wife and son.

      Delete
  17. I don't know Anonymous - when JR is questioned about the Samsonite (and Patsy too) they both said JA stored things in their home, like his computer in the basement, and that the suitcase may have been moved from upstairs down to the basement. John doesn't know why a Dr. Seuss book would be in the suitcase, only that there were kid's books in the house. He said to ask JA about it. Also I thought it was a blanket in the suitcase - it was a duvet cover. It was kind of funny having one of the investigators try and explain to John - man to man - what a duvet cover is. He didn't it right either - it's not used to cover a couch. It's a slip cover for a comforter. I think the investigator was thinking "divan", not "duvet."

    ReplyDelete
  18. all that is on acandyrose just fyi.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gummy: Good on you, girl, for doing some reading. If, as you say, you're leaning toward JDI, even just tentatively, read John Douglas's "Mindhunter". John did, it was found in their bedroom during the 12/27-28 searches, and I think it was his primer for murder. It'll leap right off the page atcha', I promise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for asking this, Gummy. Thanks for the reco, CC. I too just finished my re-read of PMPT and was looking for next book...wouldn't have thought of Mindhunter! Hooray! (Plus, it'll have some nice non-Ramsey diversions in there too ;) ) Happy belated Valentine's Day to everyone!

      Delete
  20. I listened again to Patsy's deposition in conjunction with the Chris Wolf lawsuit. It appears in four parts on you tube and lasts upwards of two and a half hours, but it's worth the time for at least advanced beginners on this case. Pay particular attention to the following:

    1) Patsy's testimony as to who decided to call 911 and, afterwards, the family friends.
    2) Patsy's testimony on the red heart drawn on JBR's palm. (Much of it was new to me, and highly implicates John.)
    3) Patsy's deferrals to John as the one who "wrote that section of the book (Death to Innocence).
    4) Patsy's confession that she had not read the kidnappers warnings until after she called 911. (Huge!)

    There are other very interesting aspects of this deposition, and I walked away from it more convinced than ever JDI.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YROdRPPP48

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched it again, as well. The sections you referred to Mike are interesting. She appeared to be honestly trying to answer the questions...and, more importantly, her answers didn't seem rehearsed. She certainly did not come across as a person carrying the burden of having killed her daughter. Maybe, I'm relying too much on my own instincts, but when she said she did not kill her daughter, did not write the ransom note, and did not know who did either of those things, I believe her. K

      Delete
    2. I remember when I watched those videos. Patsy appeared to me, coquettish. John, dehydrated! Sucking on the water bottle every chance he got. Was Patsy flirting? Was John nervous? For you to decide.

      Delete
    3. Lol Inq, your mention of the water bottle thru me back to that horrible Cindy Anthony and her water bottle, lying thru her teeth and her mean mugging for her bad seed daughter Casey. Then again, Scott Peterson's mom was wretched back in the day too, helping her son try to flee the country.

      Delete
    4. "I remember when I watched those videos. Patsy appeared to me, coquettish. John, dehydrated! Sucking on the water bottle every chance he got. Was Patsy flirting? Was John nervous? For you to decide."

      I think you may have been watching a different deposition or interview, Inquisitive. There's was nothing coquettish about Patsy in the Wolf deposition; and she certainly wasn't flirting. It really isn't relevant anyone.


      Mike G

      Delete
  21. I have a theory on the pineapple found in JBR's stomach or upper intestine that doesn't work unless the Ramsey's were questioned about it prior to viewing the autopsy report.

    Was John so burdened by the weight of being a suspect that he may have believed the Police had invented the finding to catch he or Patsy in a lie?


    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gumshoe, if you do read "Mindhunter" keep this in mind, Douglas was hired by the Ramsey team and in his "heart" said the parents weren't guilty. Apparently he also had his own blog/forum where he would post.

    Here's an old news article about him

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/green8.htm

    plus lots of discussion about him on old websleuths threads too.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Here is Douglas's website
    http://mindhuntersinc.com/the-weight-of-the-evidence/

    ReplyDelete
  24. And one more link, screen grabs from the crime scene that recently aired on the reelz documentary
    https://www.mediafire.com/folder/4uxes88smk81o/Jonbenet_Overkill_Crime_Scene_Screencaps

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh God, those first photos are just horrible, aren't they diamondlil?
      I've viewed the autopsy photos a hundred times, but I've never seen the photos of JB's body at home, strangely enough. It reignites my disgust and boiling anger towards her killer (after months of debating the facts here, it's easy to become complacent to a degree, then you see the photos again, and you're reminded just how brutal her murder was, and that a tiny, six year old girl senselessly lost her life at the hands of someone who was supposed to love and protect her. How can anyone do this to their child and manage to still live their life.....I just can't fathom it.

      Delete
  25. Thanks, Diamondlil and CC, for answering my questions on the last thread.

    And don't worry, CC about seeming short - succinct and thorough is an under-appreciated combination :)

    I tried to add a comment on the last thread that got eaten twice - about PR replacing JBR's dog and wanting to disguise the fact from adults in the household as well as children.

    This seems really consistent to me for someone living with a narcissist. PR may well have been worried that JR would let JBR know what had happened - out of carelessness or malice. And so PR tried to hide what had happened to the first dog from all.

    b&b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, b&b, your post got tossed in the spam bin for no reason I can see. I just restored it.

      Delete
  26. Mike, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents regarding the pineapple. I thought in the beginning, 20 years ago, that neither parent knew JB had eaten pineapple. And I'm going to suggest that still could be the case. They didn't SEE her take it or eat it. But admittedly how they answered questions about it was deceptive. Neither Patsy nor John had worked any scenario whatsoever into their stories accounting for her having been downstairs - because that's the real question. They wouldn't know pineapple showed up at autopsy until they were told or asked about it. It's also possible Burke never saw her "take a piece" from his bowl. Everyone, all three family members, have trouble recognizing the bowl of pineapple - Burke has trouble "seeing" it with the social worker, Patsy said she would never serve it to the kids with a big serving spoon and that the bowl is a kind of salsa bowl or whatever, and John (I don't remember what he says about it but he was out cold with his melatonin). He even suggests there may have been canned pineapple in the pantry, Patsy said she only serves fresh. She doesn't remember though if it was served Christmas morning, maybe someone else put it out there? Now much later we have to address it because we have it sitting out on the dinette table and it was found in her system so the question still remains not who served it and put it there but how and why was she downstairs when everyone was supposedly sleeping. Very likely no one saw her take it but that everyone wants to come up with a story regarding the bowl and spoon size and whether canned or fresh and how Burke likes chocolate and berries, etc. are the white lies to support the bigger lie that they know she was downstairs and they know what happened that night. Just look to the lies, then you'll see the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Patsy and John didn't know about the pineapple, then IMO, it points to Burke as the killer.

      Delete
    2. Not necessarily Gumshoe. Unless you subscribe to the CBS special theory that she stole a piece from his bowl and he chased her with a flashlight over it. Which I sure as hell don't. It's possible no one saw her take a piece from that bowl. The little lies - I'll amend what I was trying to say above - were more like providing too much detail to investigators. They don't know what it was doing on the table, they don't know if anyone put it out there, they don't know if they have fresh or canned, Burke usually prefers chocolate and berries for snacks - it's a dance with the truth, it's obfuscation, if I've used that word correctly.

      Delete
  27. Thanks to those who provided the book recommendations.

    For those fully on board with the JDI theory, what do you all think he was doing when he was gone for roughly an hour or so the morning of 12/26? He claims he was in Burke's room looking for potential perpetrators through binoculars and spotted a suspicious white van; we all know that is BS. But if you think he was finishing the staging and moving the body, I ask why? Why not leave the body wherever it is? He's running a HUGE risk by moving the body with LE and other friends and family in the house.

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

      Delete
    2. You think he could slip past a house full of people with a body stiff with rigor and get her from the garage to the basement? *thud*

      Delete
    3. Gumshoe, also don't forget Chief Kolar's book. I haven't read it but it has gotten high praise from many.

      sidenote - I am not in the Patsy was a Stepford Wife camp.

      Delete
    4. "Why not leave the body wherever it is? He's running a HUGE risk by moving the body with LE and other friends and family in the house."

      1. Maybe the body was in the trunk of his car? He certainly couldn't leave her there with LE swarming the house, no matter what the risk was of being caught. If JB's body was found in his car, it would be game over for John, so he would have figured the risk outweighed the possible consequences of being caught in the act. Which is why he probably waited until L.A was the only officer there when he disappeared - it minimized his chances of being discovered.
      2. Now that JB's body wasn't going to succumb to the elements as his initial plan entailed, it was necessary to wash her down, maybe tamper with her body, along with the crime scene, so that other family members/friends might be implicated. He had no choice but to make it look like a botched kidnapping at that point, so some duct tape and wrist bindings were in order (which would explain why the ties were placed over her clothes, not over her wrists directly, as one would do if they were binding a struggling victim.)
      3. Most importantly, John had to try to destroy evidence of his prior abuse, which I believe he probably did with a latex gloved finger, in the hope of obfuscating previous injuries (and it worked, didn't it?). Traces of what might be talcum powder were found in JB's genitalia and latex gloves are often coated in talc. Let's not forget that Patsy's drawer where she kept her chemo supplies: alcohol wipes/latex gloves/syringes/bandages etc. was found in disarray that morning, which I believe John had frantically searched through as soon as he went AWOL that morning, looking for the alcohol wipes, along with the gloves.

      This is all speculation, of course, but it is consistent with Doc's theory.

      Delete
    5. "You think he could slip past a house full of people with a body stiff with rigor and get her from the garage to the basement? *thud*"

      The garage was located near the basement, was it not? No one needed to have seen him. At any rate, it was a risk he had to take - if he left things the way they were he was SURE to go down. Better to take his chances, the pros outweighed the cons.

      Delete
    6. Fair enough. I really struggle to think he'd be able to move the body from the car to the wine cellar without being caught, but I guess stranger things are in play with this case.

      Delete
    7. Diamond, I want to read Foreign Faction but it's not out on audiobooks yet, which is most convenient for me.

      Looking at the crime scene photos you posted above, it reminded me she had clearly been strangled underneath where the ligature had been found. To me, this could point to Burke doing it because she could have been strangled to death by him, which would eradicate any issue people questioned on the parents "finishing her off".

      Delete
    8. Hello Ms D, I trust you had a nice Valentine's Day? Not to play Mr. Science here but the birefringent material found inside her by definition is "the optical property of a material having a refractive index". Thus, it could be talcum powder, but two other properties that have a refractive index are paint, and paint varnish. So, back to the paint brush handle/stick. I don't think you are saying it WAS talcum powder. I just think that the most likely culprit if you will, was the paint brush handle.

      There are many things John could have done during his disappearing act - look for tale tell evidence that would implicate his wife and remove it, move the body from a more obscure location in the wine cellar room to one that would be more readily "seen" when the door is opened, shoving the suitcase under the window, or in particular finding the body in the first place. He could have had his binoculars trained on the alley and the dumpster looking to see if anything he may have deposited in there was about to be searched. It's unfortunate they did not have the manpower that morning such that his every move would have been monitored, or that the house was cleared.

      Delete
  28. b&b - I tried to add a comment on the last thread that got eaten twice - about PR replacing JBR's dog and wanting to disguise the fact from adults in the household as well as children.

    This seems really consistent to me for someone living with a narcissist. PR may well have been worried that JR would let JBR know what had happened - out of carelessness or malice. And so PR tried to hide what had happened to the first dog from all.

    -----> oh, I'm not surprised your post got put in the spam folder. Any comments about PR lying about the dog defend PR's involvement in the cover up and don't support the blog host's theory.

    ANYWAY, I think PR lying about the dog could go either way. Either she was fearful of JR as you state, or she, herself, was fearful of what others would think. PR could have been honest about it to other adults who would understand if the dog was ill or had issues. Either way, she lied and staged.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How do we know about the substitution of the dogs if she didn't tell at least one adult? And probably more just not the kids. DocG doesn't delete people's remarks that disagree with him in fact there are only a handful of people who do agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The housekeeper noticed it wasn't the same dog and asked PR about it. PR's reply was her famous "WHAT?" (just like in the 911 transcript), and then eventually confessed to replacing the dog because the original was ill. Apparently, the first dog was incontinent.

      It would have been great to have this verified by the vet or pet shop, because this behavior of lying, trying to pass one thing off as another, is consistent with the staging. It also is a good indicator of PR's character.

      Delete
    2. oh, and PR asked the housekeeper to keep it a secret (that she replaced the dog).

      Delete
    3. Or, it was an act of love - the dog was ill wasn't he? So she replaced it out of love for her daughter. This woman doted on JB, I think to the point of obsession but that's a different story.

      Delete
    4. That is what the housekeeper said PR said, but then why the need to lie to adults? They had the original dog for a few months. Why pretend no one else is going to notice a new dog after a few months?

      The housekeeper made an odd remark, that life was good the Ramseys until it was inconvenient. Basically, the dog's incontinence was an issue and instead of caring for the sick dog, they got rid of it. Didn't want the inconvenience.

      It is possible PR lied about the new dog because she didn't want to be seen as cold-hearted, for not caring for the sick dog. I don't think they even kept the new dog. The neighbor's ended up taking it in.

      Delete
    5. I don't even think Patsy said anything to the Barnhill's by way of goodbye, can you keep the dog. They just left.

      Delete
  30. It is odd that all three family members act so closed off and have convenient amnesia when it comes to the pineapple. SOMEONE had to get out the pineapple and put it in the bowl at some point. NO ONE confesses to this. No one says, oh I prepared that before we left or before I went to bed and forgot about it. Maybe JBR came down in the middle of the night and ate a piece of it. Nope. They all look at the photo and sit and twiddle their thumbs and say "ummmm".

    So, they are trying to state that an intruder not only broke into their home with all FOUR family members asleep at home, kidnapped and murdered their daughter, used their pen and notepad to stay and write a lengthy ransom note, and also prepared a bowl of pineapple and a glass of tea? And JBR did not have any issues eating this pineapple with the "intruder"?

    The bowl of pineapple alone should have landed them in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Since there was a glass of tea standing next to the bowl of pineapple, and we know BR and PR's fingerprints were on the bowl, is there any record of any prints being on the tea glass? Any dna from someone's mouth being on the top of the glass (from drinking it?)? How can there be fingerprints on the bowl but not the glass?

    If JR WAS the only one involved in JR's murder/the staging, then how come JR's and JBR's fingerprints are not on the glass/bowl?

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's really possible the Ramsey attorneys were able to obtain some pertinent facts to the case and let them in on it before they sat for questioning. IF I killed someone in my own house I would need to be able to account for everything in my carefully constructed "story." In some of their answers it's as if they do know where the investigation is going. In other places it's as if they are trying to find out. But I don't think there is any doubt that both of them were able to think on their feet. An intruder came in. That's their main theme, and what they are consistent about. John clearly hedges his bets against an FBI polygraph. He bluffed, and he was successful. I'm sure those skills were very necessary in his business dealings.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If John did it alone, why did both Patsy and John lie about Burke being up that morning? He was clearly heard on the 911 call.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If you are asking me Gumshoe I can go either way so I'm perhaps not the one to ask. In order of weight, I give two scenarios: 1. Patsy accidentally caused JB's death, thought she was dead, ran and got John. IT's a PDI/JDI theory.

    2. Burke did everything. Then PDI/JDI covered up.

    In the first scenario yes, why lie about Burke being up. Because he may have heard something, so they want LE to believe he slept through the night and into the morning until John got him up and had him removed to Fleet's.

    In the second scenario, the lie is more reasonable for having told it.

    You have to take yourself back to the time. Ramsey's wouldn't know that the 911 operator heard anything at the end of the call. Ramsey's may not have known pineapple would be found in her upper intestine. They couldn't account for everything.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gumshoe Doc is going to hit me over the head with a stale Valentine's sugar cookie for saying this but just before Xmas I read "Little Girl Blu" by Sweetie Bee. Obviously she doesn't want her identity known. It's a logical, in my opinion, thought- out scenario of how the housekeeper orchestrated the murder - the "familiar intruder" theory.Just to round out your reading list. OF course the housekeeper and her husband were ruled out (no alibi, but they used handwriting) but it was compelling. One other, hold on have to look it up.

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

      Delete
  36. Here it is: "A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer" by Psychiatrist Andrew G. Hodges

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Inquisitive. Are these online blogs/stories or actual books?

      Delete
  37. Actual books. Both in paperback. But see if you can get them via kindle if you wish. there's also Doc's kindle book and the book CC recommended.

    In "A Mother Gone Bad" the shrink who wrote it suggested that John did not take his melatonin, but instead crept back into JB's room and attempted to molest her one more time before their trip the next day. Patsy heard a noise and took the flashlight with her to investigate. Saw her daughter and husband in a very compromising position and flew into a rage. She lunged at John and possibly JB swinging the flashlight and as a frightened JB ran from father to mother got caught in the crossfire and was struck. Now a dilemma. Can't call 911 and say you killed your daughter accidentally because you caught your husband in bed with her, nor can John say that happened either. You can let the book take it from there. Dr. Hodges also compares Patsy's past Christmas letters to the note and the Christmas letter that came after the murder. Dr. Hodges also discusses Patsy's emotional/psychological state, without having examined her of course, but give the book a go if you think it might be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Your question is good, Gumshoe.
    I believe that one strategy successfully used by John was to present a united front with Patsy since the beginning. I think he convinced Patsy that it would be for Burke's best interest to stay away as much as possible from everything regarding JonBenet's murder. In one of Patsy's interviews she even stated that she had "agreed" to send Burke back to school if certain precautions and security measures were in place. I sense here she was really concerned about Burke's security.
    Guess who wanted to send Burke back to school right away? Guess who knew there was not intruder out there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was quite obvious from day one, when he shuffled Burke out the door while his daughter was being held for ransom, without police protection.
      He had to know there wasn't an intruder and Burke wasn't in any danger. I am sure that isn't normal police procedure either, but then again, nothing about the way this case was handled was normal.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Exactly. It is obvious it was him who was not concerned about an intruder. because there was none. Unfortunately, it is not obvious for everyone. Some people are caught in John's web of lies and deception.

      Delete
    3. Marcela, of course it was obvious to John. That scenario doesn't change if PDI or BDI because both parents were probably involved in the staging.

      Delete
    4. Agreed Zed. And by staging we can include getting rid of stuff as well as moving stuff around.

      Delete
  39. Good point EG. Also John's plans to leave the state by calling his pilot right away - not because he wanted to protect his family from a murderer who was still "out there" but because he most likely wanted to protect them from the prying eyes of the investigation

    ReplyDelete
  40. I looked up ahead Gumshoe that you can't get certain books on audio but try your local library - for all of the books. They call their sister libraries if they don't have it and have it sent over most of the time. That way you don't even have to buy anything at all. I get put on a wait list before a book even comes out. The library also has a selection of audio books - not a huge selection, but still in all they can possibly get it once it does come out on audio.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Marcela - PR was not concerned about BR leaving the house either that morning. Many argue she was too medicated to know what was going on but she was not passed out. She was still conscience. He was her only other living child and there were people who were "watching them" who "had their daughter".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Anony. That intrigues me. Why she let Burke leave the house that was somehow protected by police. But I dont believe she was involved in any way whatsoever, murder, accident or staging.

      Delete
    2. For the same reason she let Burke go back to school. Because John called the shots and it was his decision.

      Delete
    3. Yes. You are right, Anonymous...

      Delete
  42. Ms D: you said "Patsy's drawer where she kept her chemo supplies: alcohol wipes/latex gloves/syringes/bandages etc. was found in disarray that morning,". Where does that information come from? In my extensive reading, I don't recall hearing that and am seeking the source. Thanks.
    Daffodilgal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually read it here on this blog, Daffodilgal.....I'll have to go back over the posts of the past several months, so it may take a while! Unless the person who posted it can remember and help me out? :D

      Delete
  43. I didn't post it but I believe the info came from the crime scene pictures. That drawer was in the bathroom used by Patsy to store medication and other supplies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here I found it on acabdyrose.com

      [IMAGE] #032
      ???? Photo is screen capture from Court TV "A Second Look" 5/10/03 -- Patsy Ramsey (6/98)

      JAR's bathroom drawers open (0284-05) THOMAS HANEY: 32? PATSY RAMSEY: That's the bathroom to my bedroom.
      THOMAS HANEY: Is that normally used by anybody?
      PATSY RAMSEY: Not on a day-to-day basis, not really. I don't know why the drawers would have been out, but...
      (0284-23) THOMAS HANEY: What's normally stored in those?
      PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that's usually where I kept my supplies for my -- when I was taking chemo, when I had my shots and my little alcohol wipes, thermometers, and all that of stuff. And I could have been looking through, looking for a thermometer to take on vacation. TRIP DeMUTH: What's in the draw below that one? There are two drawers open? PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know, I don't know. I just hadn't used it, all that area, that much.

      Delete
    2. What made you think that drawer had significance being in disarray any more than the rest of the house that was in disarray Ms D? The kitchen was in disarray, the basement was in disarray, JB's room was in disarray, etc.

      Delete
    3. According to Paula Woodward's book, a latex glove was found by a neighbor in her garbage can. The neighbor said it was not hers.

      Delete
    4. Thank you Marcela.
      Patsy didn't mention latex gloves, so my apologies for mixing up my stories regarding the discovery of the glove with Patsy's comment about the drawers in the spare bedroom. At any rate, my point still remains - alcohol wipes were stored in the drawers that were disturbed, which I find significant because we know that JB was wiped down.

      Delete
  44. Inquisitive - that book sounds interesting. However, Sweetie Bee sounds very southern. Since it is a book that is designated to point the finger at the housekeeper, it seems that it might be someone from the Ramsey/Paugh clan trying to sway mindsets.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why did these billionaries not have an alarm system?

    ReplyDelete
  46. If your company is worth billions, you are worth millions, you have young children, a large house that is in an upscale neighborhood, how do you not have an alarm system?

    ReplyDelete
  47. They had an alarm system. They didn't use it because it went off all the time for no reason.

    ReplyDelete
  48. A couple thoughts:

    1. If John did this alone, why do you think Officer French indicated that Patsy was weeping but no tears were present and that she was staring at him strangely through her fingers?

    2. It seems pretty apparent that Patsy bought some of the items used in the murder at McGuckins; don't you think she would be on high alert with John once those items were found to have been used on JBR and that they're no longer there? Clearly the "intruder" in Patsy's eyes didn't even bother to take the murder weapon (garrote) but he did take the remaining rope and duct tape?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I think too Gumshoe, if we focus on the materials used in the commission of this crime, and the location where the body expired and was discovered that is an excellent place to start. Start at the end, and work back. Ask:

    1. Who had familiarity with the objects. Who knew they were there. Who used them on a regular or semi regular basis. The paint tote, the paint brush. I'll even include a latex glove in the mix and alcohol wipes. Who's materials were those and knew right where they were.

    2. Who would have reason to be in the basement frequently, either playing down there (the train room) or doing laundry there.

    3. The garrote was "home made" apparently. Fashioned from materials in the paint tote. It was crude, not sophisticated. The swiss army knife was found in the basement area. Who used that knife walking around the house whittling and making things. Who is most likely to have made and used such a device using the materials at hand - possibly even before they were used.

    3. Who may have had reason in the first place for being in the basement after 10 p.m. December 25? Someone who had snuck out of bed when the others were asleep, or someone who was up late getting ready for two trips or both?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of those questions would point to Patsy. Didn't Linda Hoffman-Pugh hide the swiss army knife in a cabinet so Burke wouldn't play with it? That knife was clearly used to cut the rope.

      Delete
    2. There were two Swiss Army knives I believe. Clever Burke would have either found the one hidden, or used another one. If Patsy needed to cut cord or duct tape she would not likely have gone on an excursion to the closet to retrieve that particular knife. Conversely, nor would John. He wouldn't have even known what LHP did or didn't do.

      Delete
    3. I also have to remark that a woman doesn't usually cut duct tape or cord with a knife. We use scissors.

      Delete
    4. Inquisitive, fair to assume you are in the BDI camp?

      Delete
    5. It's rather pointless for me to commit again, I wouldn't be believed. So I'll just pose questions. But IF BDI it has to be all or nothing (but for the note and some wiping down, change in underwear, getting rid of materials).

      Delete
    6. I think the BDI theory is a good one. I think my biggest challenge in getting there with it is how a child his age would be able to keep that a secret all this time and avoid cracking under police interrogation.

      Delete
    7. And he wasn't really interrogated. Lin Wood makes a big thing of saying he was asked a few questions after he was removed from the home WITHOUT J or P's consent, but mostly what he was asked was did he hear anything I believe. Then he's videotaped with a social worker where he makes some rather odd comments as to what he thinks happened. He also testifies what, a year later in front of the GJ - then doesn't he lie dormant for 20 years? Well, have to work today so we can pick this up later.

      Delete
    8. Inq, weren't yhe initial questions to Burke even before the autopsy, before anyone even knew she had a cracked skull? I can't remember how soon after Burke asked the detective "is that a Rolex?"

      Delete
  50. Zed - don't you think it's more than possible that Burke made that crude garrote? Dr. Phil should have asked Burke what kinds of things did he whittle? Did he have more than one Swiss Army knife? How often did he whittle? Where did he get his "wood". When was the last time he whittled something. Was he in the basement at any time Dec. 24-Dec.25 and if so what was he playing in the basement. How often did he and JB play together in the basement? Did they play there at any time Dec. 24-Dec.25? Had he won any merit badges for knot tying in cub scouts/boy scouts? When he snuck downstairs later that night what did he do while up alone? But no, of course Dr. Phil wouldn't have asked those questions since he was scripted by Lin Wood. I'd steer clear of the pineapple bowl, and instead concentrate on Burke's play habits.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think I have a theory that makes a lot of sense but before i present it, I'd like to pose one other question to the group:

    It seems that many think JBR wet her bed that night, which is why she had a different shirt on from the one she went to bed in that was found rolled up in the bathroom. If that's the case, how did her bladder give out upon death? Would there have been enough in her bladder to empty again during a few hour time period?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Taking a different perspective, what things at the crime scene were NOT staged? For example, the pineapple bowl is certainly not staged. The head wound was not staged. Any others? Another example, were the large size panties staged or a mistake made during staging?
    Daffodilgal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see no reason why the oversized panties would be due to staging. Looks to me like it was a mistake on the part of her attacker, after he removed the original panties, which most likely had some of his semen on them. Can't think of any other reason why she'd have been changed.

      Delete
  53. Gumshoe, when the bed sheets were photographed and then taken in as evidence, they appeared to be dry and clean. No smell or stain were found.
    This all idea that JonBenet wet her bed that night, came from Steve Thomas, who states the motive was bedwetting and that PDI.
    The red turtleneck was never tested for urine. The sheets were but they only found traces that could be from a previous incident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, that's what I thought. Then why was she wearing something different at the time of death than what she was wearing when she went to bed?

      Delete
    2. I personally believe she was re-dressed after being wiped down. She must have bled during the sexual assault. (Noticed that even the area was wiped off one drop of her blood was found commingled with saliva.) The clothes, she was found out with, must have been put on her before the strangulation, since like you said, they were urine stained.

      Delete
    3. Ugh. If that's the case, my theory might be shot.

      Delete
    4. Marcela, either way, wouldn't Patsy find it extremely unusual that JBR was wearing something different than what she went to bed in? And that the shirt she wore to bed was balled up in her bathroom?

      Delete
    5. Where is this coming from, Gumshoe? In her 4/97 interview with LE Patsy said she put JBR to bed in the white shirt with a star from The Gap and a pair of longjohns - precisely what she was found in the next morning.

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

      Delete
    7. Ok CC, I could have sworn that was not the case. Not sure where I read that she went to bed in a red shirt which was later found in her bathroom. I must completely be losing my mind.

      Delete
    8. Look it up, Gummy. All the LE interviews with the Ramseys are available on acandyrose. The red sweater was found balled up on her bathroom counter the next morning.

      Delete
  54. Inquisitive - the pineapple gives a lot of details. It provides a framework of time of death and BR's fingerprints were on the bowl, a large spoon was used, and BR liked sweet tea (that was standing next to the bowl). There is that...but you are right to go down the path of BR's pay habits. We know he didn't have good boundaries with the feces in JBR's room. He hit her in the past with a golf club (whether by accident or not, he is careless).

    I wish they looked into his boy scout troup to see if they taught the kids how to use a garrote because I really do not believe he would have known how to use one otherwise. Garrotes are very specialized. Not even many adults are aware of what they are and how they are made, and for what purpose. It isn't instinctual to make a garrote. Strangulation with hands or rope, cord, or fabric is more innate. I have a huge issue with believing that BR hit his sister and then made a garrote on her. That is extreme staging. Notice also, that BR did not mention to the detectives/social worker that JBR was strangled. He just mentioned her being struck on the head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't a glass of sweet tea. It was a teabag in the bottom of a glass.

      The bowl of pineapple could have been on that table since breakfast - clean and tidy was not a Ramsey hallmark.

      The feces in JBR 's room were never tested and can't be definitively linked to Burke.

      Can we stick to facts, please?

      Delete
    2. Also, where did you learn that Burke liked sweet tea? I don't recall any mention of that. And you are right about the garotte, anonymous. Burke might have learned to tie knots in Cub Scouts, but the device used to strangle JonBenet was a lot more complicated than a knot -- and I seriously doubt that's something he'd have learned in Cub Scouts or anywhere else.

      Delete
    3. So many doubting Thomases about tea, lol.

      Re: Iced Tea/Sweet Tea
      Patsy Ramsey during her interview questioning with Tom Haney, June 1998 stated both she and Burke drank iced tea, mainly in the summer.
      She stated that Jonbenet "did not like iced tea or tea at all."

      Patsy said she did not drink hot tea.

      So yes, Burke did drink cold tea, according to both parents.

      Sweet tea, which is served over ice, chilled, is a Southern staple in restaurants and grocery stores. Down here you can even buy jugs of it to go from Church's Chicken, Popeyes Chicken, Captn D's, Milo's...sweet tea is not like "sweetened tea" it's more like "tea candy".

      *Source for Patsy and what she and her kids drink-
      http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

      Now, did the family eat grits? Lol,also served at just about every fast food chain for breakfast in the South.

      Delete
  55. Was there urine on the ground in the wine cellar floor or was the urine just on her pajamas?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I believe the urine was on her long johns and on the floor outside of the wine cellar.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I honestly don't know why an adult male would need an implement to secure a cord for more leverage in strangulation either. If it was done not only for the express purpose of killing but also to look like an intruder did it what kind of intruder would use an implement, other than the cord, in the home owner's home - and also one so childish and crude. Also an adult male would not need the extra "help" in strangulation via a garrote. His hands would be strength enough with the cord. Which is why i tend to lean toward play activity by Burke. Play is a rotten word in this case, but essentially he could have started it out as a play activity. There was a cord mark around her neck on the lower portion of her neck first, then up higher where it did it's damage. Perhaps he started out with the hand tying and neck tying, then it escalated from there. He may not have been enraged at all. He was playing. Just as he was taking a swing with his golf club and either noticed she was behind him (which would make it intentional), or didn't. We can't guess at his psyche either. But for instance what was he doing seeing a shrink for two years after. Patsy obviously thought he needed help. And why the lack of affect when the social worker asks what he thinks happened to his sister? Social worker also thought he acted strange when the subject of sexual behavior was broached.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought you finally settled on PDI, Inq. Now you're back to BDI?

      Delete
    2. No, I"m still on PDI, but after her panic at finding JB comatose, had to wake John to help her decide what to do. So both of them. I just wanted to see how far thinking Burke did it could take me.

      Delete
  58. Garrotes were popular with the Resistance in France during WWII, and were also weapons of choice in the Middle Ages in parts of the Middle and Far East. Clearly this one was used to underline the "foreign faction" alluded to in the RN.

    Why complicate everything unnecessarily?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'm sure I know where you got that she was put to bed in the red shirt Gumshoe. Read Officer French's statement he took from John and Patsy. I had it bookmarked after GS sent it but I can't find it now. When I do I'll send the link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there is documentation of Patsy mentioning having her in the turtleneck. It's the ever changing story with so much directly from the parents.

      When I came back to read the new comments I thought of Beyonce, "girls, who run this...blog" lol. Inq, if your mind thinks a certain way to try to make sense of things, it's fine with me. I don't get why any person's ideas on the case has to be lockstep. Later on I'll try and post a link that I think you and Gumshoe might like. Others can ignore it if they choose.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Lil. I get really bogged down sometimes in all of the little minutiae of this case. Wanting to have it all make sense. This is a complicated case!

      Delete
    3. Have you seen how tightly that garrote was twisted around JB's neck, Inquisitive? Nothing "playful" about it. Come on now, if you want to switch to BDI again, you can do better than that.....if Burke strangled his sister, it was no accident. If you believe he did accidentally kill JB, then you have to stop at the head blow. You can't have it both ways. The head blow *may* have been an accident. The strangulation - no way.

      Delete
    4. You're welcome. Some things won't make sense and it is frustrating. I don't know if DocG would make a separate entry for minutiae, but there wouldn't be so much if not for all the books, interviews, items in evidence, items noted but not taken into evidence, etc. If there was a stand alone entry for the bits and pieces, then those that hate that topic could ignore it.

      Here is the link for you and Gumshoe. It does go over just about every little thing like acandyrose does. I just found it this week, so only about 5 pages in. It has a black background so can be hard on the eyes. Posts started last year. But I think you might enjoy reading thru it. *note, some language.
      http://fincklandboard.proboards.com/thread/23/jonbenet-ramsey-20-years

      ps - the posters do mention many books out there, including DocG's, so no doubt it will piss off a few here.

      Delete
    5. That is, of course, the flaw in the BDI scenario. I'm not switching to anything at present, I'm sticking with an accident by P, then woke up John. MsD we aren't doing much to keep the bad dreams away, are we?

      I'll check it out Lil, thanks.

      Delete
  60. Well, that would be a simpler explanation. But if you think he wrote the note in the airplane hangar would he also have factored in staging the crime scene to go along with the note?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yes, of course. The whole thing was well thought out and intended to suggest the antithesis of the cool CEO persona - a lesson he learned from "Mindhunter".

    ReplyDelete
  62. Okay. And you are right, I do complicate things so I will make a bigger effort to keep things simple. Thanks for the coaching.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I have a question for the legal minds in here, if any want to answer it. It will take a bit to set it up. In 1975 Michael Skakel killed Martha Moxley with a golf club as she was walking home from his yard to hers in Connecticut. It was believed his older brother killed her for years. Michael Skakel was 12 at the time, a minor.When information came to light that Michael Skakel was the murderer in 2000 a judge ruled Skakel could be tried as an adult. In 2002 he was found guilty of murdering Martha. Laws vary from state to state. According to articles on www.pbs.org/wgbn/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/states.html state laws, judicial waivers, statutory exclusion, concurrent jurisdiction and age restrictions are taken into account.


    What I am asking here since Colorado law regarding juvenile justice is different than Connecticut law, could Burke ever be tried as an adult for murder since he was a minor and under Colorado laws pertaining to juvenile justice in that state in 1996 if a judge ruled (and obviously if he was arrested) that he could be tried as an adult? Could the same ruling that was applied to Michael Skakel in Connecticut be applied to Burke Ramsey?

    I also used the following links but could not find an answer:

    www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/trendsinjuvenilejustice.pdf

    and

    criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/juvenile-law/1756 which pertained to a statue of limitations in juvenile justice (but not how they vary from state to state).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the Kennedy's with all their money and influence finally got Skakal retried and found innocent? Isn't he a free man today?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. My Bad....here's an update on Skakel. The media hates this story because of it's love affair with Camelot. It's actually one of the more intriguing murder cases in American history and one Mark Furman gets little credit for helping solve.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/nyregion/michael-skakels-murder-conviction-has-been-reinstated.html?_r=0

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. Skakel was actually fifteen at the time of the murder, Inq, not twelve.

      Delete
  64. CC - It wasn't a glass of sweet tea. It was a teabag in the bottom of a glass.

    The bowl of pineapple could have been on that table since breakfast - clean and tidy was not a Ramsey hallmark.

    The feces in JBR 's room were never tested and can't be definitively linked to Burke.

    Can we stick to facts, please?

    ----> How come no one identified the pineapple, even if it was left out since the morning.

    I thought the housekeeper was the one who mentioned BR leaving the feces in JBR's room.

    ReplyDelete
  65. CC -

    From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70:

    "I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny - housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.

    There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenet's bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.

    Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenet’s body.

    I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.

    I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenet’s candy would have been smeared with human excrement."

    AND from another source:

    "After they sealed off JonBenet's room, the crime scene technicians went through it, [and] they apparently found feces smeared on a box of candy she had [gotten] for Christmas," said former housekeeper Linda Hoffman, according to the Daily Mail.

    Hoffman recalled a time when she allegedly found "fecal material the size of a grapefruit on the sheets" of JonBenet's bed.

    Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, who was featured in the documentary, indicated that Burke had a history of such behavior. He said Burke had previously put feces on the wall of one of the bathrooms.

    "The brother is not exactly thinking straight," Spitz said. "The behavior is [indicative] of somebody who's got a problem. When I think of putting feces in the sister's bed … he was doing that."


    Here are your facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and CC, if you don't think they are BR's feces, then can you explain whose feces you believe they might have been? Just curious :)

      Delete
    2. Anon, it shows that on Christmas day, parents are in the kitchen area to eat and don't notice a bowl of fruit left out
      And on Christmas night are in their daughter's bedroom and don't notice or smell poopy pajama bottoms.

      Unless they did and just thought heck, while we're out of town, let the housekeeper deal with poopy clothes and leftovers sitting out.

      Either way, the clothes were one of the children's not brought in by someone else, or worn by an adult.

      Delete
    3. If you read Kolar carefully you'll see that there is no evidence any of the fecal matter came from Burke. That's how he saw it because Burke was on his radar. If it was found in JBR's room the most likely person to have excreted it was JBR. No reason to assume it was Burke's. More confirmation bias.

      Delete
    4. But there is no evidence it came from JBR, either. It was found in pajama pants too large for her. There are others other than Kolar who feel the feces came from BR. Just because the feces was in her room, does not mean that the feces belongs to her. The kids were in each others rooms.

      Delete
  66. Gumshoe, here is info to back up your mention of the red turtleneck
    Source- Steve Thomas book

    https://books.google.com/books?id=pC3k1vnwLhEC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=jonbenet+red+turtleneck+steve+thomas&source=bl&ots=ICVqoLOYzy&sig=icVJBtRJRTL5FmF75B06neGJgYs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXneahipbSAhWHdSYKHe8QBkIQ6AEIajAS#v=onepage&q=jonbenet%20red%20turtleneck%20steve%20thomas&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  67. Lil, I'm really liking the article you linked us to. Of course I'm not half through yet. Just wanted to let you know Gumshoe when you are back on here check it out. Her post on that link was at 8:54 p.m. I like how it's laid out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool Inq. Just bookmark that link. There are 25 or so pages and it is full of details plus theorizing. It will likely take me several days to get thru all the entries. I enjoy reading the conversation between the two members there.

      Delete
  68. O.M.G. Lil - did you read the article? It was an adult Dr. Seuss book! I assumed it was a children's book, like Cat in the Hat or something. According to the evidence list it was an adult book in the suitcase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, a book by Dr Seuss written for adults. I think I became aware of that from entries on topix or ffj. But the forum I linked you to, presents it a bit better as they have screen grabs and such.

      However, the parents may not have had any idea about that book, since JAR stayed there off and on.

      Delete
  69. There is a thread on the Reddit Jonbenet page titled "The Burke Problem Nobody Likes to Discuss".

    The writer of the thread gives a pretty detailed account for what could have happened that night and it makes a lot of sense.

    He/she basically states that Burke was sent to bed after JBR's body was found by her parents and then that is when PR and JR went into staging mode. Burke came out of his room when he heard his mother on the phone to 911, and that is why he was heard most likely saying "what did you find". He was referring to PR stating she found a RN. That is also why JR was gruff with BR and said "we're not talking to you".

    That makes a LOT of sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many that do hold to the BDI with parental cover up, but it's pretty much shot down here, shouted down, however you want to put it. It seems the JDI only believe nothing that ever happened to Jonbenet prior to her death and the night of her death could be done by another child. And no child could ever keep that quiet. I disagree, but that is from my own life experiences and what I know about other people and cases.

      Delete
    2. I do wonder how BR could have kept that quiet if he did it (I tend to think he did or PR did it).

      Delete
  70. the article Lil linked to suggests there may have been more than one sexual abuser. Could have been JA, or Grandpa Paugh. That JB was flirting with men, unembarrassed to walk around naked or have them clean her up. Others told Patsy this but she ignored it. This article says something must have happened on the 23rd at the Ramsey Christmas party. JB was crying and saying she didn't feel pretty. That was the night 911 was accidentally called. Just bizarre.

    ReplyDelete