Remember that one? I've been waiting patiently for the results of all the "scientific" testing ordered up by his new attorney, Kathleen Zellner. But she's been strangely silent since December, and some of his supporters are starting to wonder out loud. I'd imagine that if the tests proved Avery's innocence she'd have been tweeting like a whole flock of birds. What if they prove his guilt, I wonder? Will she tweet about that?
Refreshing myself on this case, I ran across this. I'm inclined to believe this fellow inmate's story.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/tv/steven-avery-confessed-killing-teresa-halbach-fellow-prisoner-163812743.html?client=safari
I discovered a radio interview of Fleet and Priscilla White conducted by Peter Boyles and Alan Prendergast on December 18th, 2014. The Whites never personally appeared in any of the recent television documentaries and have remained relatively silent about the case through the years, but for an open letter to the people of Colorado they wrote twenty months after the murder that "seemed to call into question the reliability of Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and of the investigation in general."*
ReplyDelete*https://www.romper.com/p/what-did-fleet-whites-open-letter-say-it-was-highly-critical-of-the-ramsey-investigation-18584
At times it's difficult to parse who among the four are speaking, but one can become familiar with Fleet's voice in the above link before listening to the interview.
As you listen to the discussion, take note that, before the first commercial break, Peter Boyle, speaking to Fleet says "when we get back, let's begin with "when you get the phone call to come to the house..that the little girl was missing". This isn't what happens; obviously, during the break, Fleet must have declared all details about what happened that morning--the details we'd all like to know--out of bounds for discussion. Still, many other non-RDI theories, books, legal proceedings, and facts are discussed that Doc and/or CC might like to comment or shed further light upon.
http://peterboyles.podbean.com/e/peter-boyles-show-dec-18-2014-hr-4/
Mike G.
Yes, I heard that a while ago. Always frustrating when Fleet White is interviewed as he's always unwilling to tell all he knows -- though it's obvious he suspects John.
DeleteWell no, now Doc. Fleet White was frustrated over how the BPD conducted the investigation.
DeleteWell no, Inquistive. If you listen closely, and read between the lines, it's obvious Fleet and his wife suspects John.
DeleteMike G
I've often wondered if something occurred, or was said, on the 23rd, and again on Christmas evening, that caused the Whites to become suspicious in regards to John and his daughter, which may have resulted in being the catalyst for JR to kill JB that night in order to keep her quiet. Fleet was "taking notes" at the Ramsey's - long before JB's body was discovered - so it appears as though he may have had his suspicions from the moment Patsy called him that morning. Why? Had something transpired the night before at their home? Wasn't it Fleet who dialed 911 on the 23rd - albeit, he claims, mistakenly? Just what does Fleet know, and why isn't he telling after all these years?
DeleteDoc:
ReplyDeleteAre you wanting to maintain two separate threads now; one for Ramsey case and one for Avery?
Mike G
I rarely bring up other cases on this blog, Mike. But I have made exceptions with both the Amanda Knox case and the Steven Avery case because I've been so troubled by what strikes me as serious injustices in both that I felt compelled to comment on. In the case of Amanda Knox I felt the injustice was done to her, as the facts of the case pointed clearly to her innocence. In the Avery case, the injustice I see was done not to Avery, who imo is guilty as Hell, but to the law enforcement officers who've been tarred and feathered Joe McCarthy style, based purely on character assassination and innuendo.
DeleteFor details I'll refer you to my blog posts on the Avery case, beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/01/some-observations-regarding-making.html#more
Please read these posts and also the following comments before adding any comments or questions of your own on this matter, as that will save time. Or else just ignore the topic and proceed as usual with our consideration of the Ramsey case. I'm willing to discuss either at this point. And maybe we need a break from the Ramsey case as we're starting to go around in circles again.
If Avery killed her in his trailer and then put her body in the burn pit, I have three questions:
ReplyDelete1. Why was there no blood found in the bedroom? Steven wasn't a criminal mastermind and could not hide all the blood that would be in that room.
2. How did the flames from the burn pit get hot enough to do what it did to Teresas body? Experts have stated in the time frame it was not possible.
3. Why was her bones found in three different areas if Avery placed her body directly in the burn pit?
I think this inmate is after attention/money.
1. As with the Ramsey case, it's been all too easy for people to jump to conclusions regarding certain evidence, or lack of it. Before responding, however, let me turn things around. If Steven was being framed by the authorities, then we'd also expect to find the victim's blood in his bedroom. Forget about planting a key, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for them to plant her blood all over the bed and floor. So the lack of blood evidence cuts both ways.
DeleteAccording to the fellow inmate who now claims to have heard Avery confess (and of course we need to take this with a grain of salt), the girl was raped and strangled while in Avery's bed. Dassey reported that her throat was cut there as well, but Dassey's testimony is all over the place, he is clearly a reluctant and at times hostile witness. I think the kid is a lot smarter than he's been given credit for and deliberately muddied the waters by combining truth with lies.
I think it likely that Halbach's throat was slit after she was removed from the bedroom, either in the garage or the back seat of her car. We know for a fact that the garage floor was cleaned with bleach, which could explain the lack of obvious blood evidence in the garage. Plenty of blood was found in the car.
2. A very interesting case was reviewed recently on TV, possibly 20/20 or 48 hours I forget. The suspect claimed at one point that he burned his victim's body behind his house and there was some question as to whether a body could be burned so completely that way. This possibility was investigated and as it turned out, the answer was yes. In that case as in the Avery case, the bonfire lasted at least several hours and apparently that's long enough to destroy just about all the evidence.
3. Avery could have moved some of her ashes after the fire went out.
In this case, there are two facts that have convinced me of Avery's guilt. First, the testimony of Dassey's young cousin, who reported his confession to her school counselor. She later retracted, but her retraction was totally unconvincing as she was unable to provide a reason for why she would have lied about something that serious. She was obviously being intimidated by her family. So regardless of what you might think of Dassey's admittedly questionable "confession," it's not really necessary as he already confessed of his own free will to his cousin.
Secondly, it strikes me as absurd that the police would go to such bizarre lengths to frame Avery, especially the burning of the body. All that was needed was to plant the victim's blood in Avery's bedroom. No need to go to all the trouble and risk to burn a body and then smuggle it on to Avery's property. Sorry, that won't wash.
They 100% planted the key. The bullet fragments in the garage appeared after countless searches. The police never fully investigated the house she went to after Averys. The state had a lot to gain by Avery being in jail and Dasseys confession is clearly not reliable on any level.
Delete-J
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDoc and I were all over this a year ago, Zedly. Check back...he has a whole thread or more devoted to Avery
ReplyDeleteSorry...
DeleteCC
If the police were going to set Avery up, how would they know to pick Teresa? How would they have known about Stephen greeting her in a towel, calling her out to take a picture the exact day she goes missing? Did they have him under surveillance and just get lucky? That would have had paper trails, cuz cops aren't going to take extra shifts for free just to save the county money.
ReplyDeleteAnd witheld his number when he called to make the appointment for her to come round
DeleteRamsey lawsuit news from Feb 1
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4177734/JonBenet-Ramsey-s-brother-Burke-wages-defamation-battle.html
This article is total crap. Burke went back to court to "defend" his lawsuit??? What the hell does that mean? There's nothing new here.
DeleteMike G
"If you really, really use your free time to think about this case, you cannot come to a different conclusion" Spitz said.(regarding Burke striking her).
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Zed, did you read Spitz's response to the lawsuit? Some time I'd like to argue that Burke did everything but the note, the moving of the suitcase, the "possible" new break in the window, etc. I would argue it only - not as someone who's gone over to that side, but simply for argument. Because with Burke all of the little "clues" in the house could line up and point to Burke imo. I would first rule out that was a "damaged" child, or had any kind of personality disorder. In psychology it's difficult to make diagnoses period - without previous history of symptoms. So I would not start with any kind of psychological assessment nor would I end with one. I would just use what was found or as Burke (may) have said "what did you find."
DeleteSpitz has since said that his musings regarding BR are merely "speculation", so I wouldn't put much stock into what he said at all regarding Burke Ramsey, Zed.
DeleteOf course he would say that with a 150m lawsuit up in the air
Delete"Of course he would say that with a 150m lawsuit up in the air"
DeleteThe law suit was filed because the good doctor has no evidence to back his theory, and he knows it, so now he is doing a little back peddling. To suggest that, because Burke was physically capable of felling the blow, he is the most likely to have delivered it, is patently absurd - as even though Dr Spitz concedes it was most likely accidental, it doesn't answer the issue of the subsequent asphyxiation.
Yes, if you go off into Avery and Amanda Knox, then my addiction to this blogsite will finally be broken. Now if you would like to talk Casey Anthony or Chandra Levy - by the way Gary Condit has a new book out now and what a coincidence - the guy who they locked up for killing her in the park is getting a new trial. He still says he didn't do it.
ReplyDeleteHere's just a suggestion. I am a big believer of "outlines." If you started a thread Doc titled "Red Herrings" or "What We Can Eliminate" then we would not be tempted to go back over the same stuff. In simple outline for rather than long paragraphs. As new people come on here and the numbers get added to it always comes up again - the Hi Tec boot print, palm print on the wine cellar door, butt cheek prints in carpet outside bedroom, I'm sure there are many others - the pillow. Even stun gun. There would be different opinions of course as to the relevance of these things but added up in a category all it's own would show that we at least discussed it, exhausted it, and our perspective can be narrowed down to the real meat and potatoes of this case. Add to the list a second package of bloomie panties in the basement. It isn't so. I don't think anyone in here is trying to mislead. I just think with a 20 year old case we've heard or read things and believed them. Beckner said there is alot of info out there not all of it true. Let's try and simplify if we can by eliminating some of it rather than adding to it. A new thread could be devoted to it at least in the introduction led by you Doc of course. Without bias of course.
ReplyDeleteGood idea but even problems with that as some will see things as a red herring and others won't.
DeleteWe've seen so many statements/counter statements by the actual people in the case.
Ie, kleenex box -Patsy, "don't recognize it, not one I would buy"
-housekeeper"yes, she has those"
-Police photo - well looky, one similar in bathroom
It would be a lengthy endeavor.
Add in that during the 20 years some of the players have said new things, or still think it's important to the case,
ie, Mary Lacy most certainly thinks that buttprint IS from the killer. It gave her chills.
Most of us use info from other sites that use the timeline, cast of characters, statements, items taken into evidence.
Then when there is actual interviews found, some don't read it or listen to it and still have an opinion about it. Usually biased to fit their theory of who did it.
But we can't even get new people to read the first two blog posts.
ReplyDeleteThat's unfortunate. Since we're discussing a case any and all information about it should be read, agreed Anony. And now we have a new book available on kindle that Greg?, someone mentioned just a few threads ago and I would love to have it. He hasn't said he read it or let us in on it. It's like in any classroom. You have your A students who are turned on and engaged, and your C students who stayed up too long the night before partying. And the B students that do a little more than required, but aren't fully engaged.
ReplyDeleteInquisitive - why do you think Fleet was frustrated over how the BPD handled the investigation? Was it because he felt they botched the job and didn't catch the "intruder" or that they didn't focus enough on John and Patsy? Two very different ways of looking at it.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Fleet not cooperate and speak openly if he was so much involved that morning that JBR was found dead? That, to me, could be the true crux of the case. Fleet might be able to SOLVE the case. Why wasn't he pushed for more details?
Fleet was aghast that John wanted to take off for Atlanta and not stick around for questioning. He thought Alex Hunter didn't conduct a thorough enough investigation and obstructed. He wanted a new D.A. Other than that I've done 0 research on Fleet. There are his letters, and a video of him before a panel for those that want to delve into Fleet's history of involvement. I'm sure one of the oddest moments for Fleet was having looked into the wine cellar room the first time and not seen the body. He didn't know where the light switch was - too bad! Had he flipped on the light switch the first time what do you want to bet she wasn't in there. Or in there but better hidden. Why do you think it's advised if people want to go walking at night they wear white? So that they can be seen (and not run over by a car). She was covered with a white blanket. In a dark room. If you open a door and there is light on elsewhere wouldn't you see her? Was she far enough into the room originally perhaps pushed up against a far wall, then moved closer to the front so that John could open the door and immediately see her? I'm sure Fleet has mulled this over for years.
ReplyDeleteI've always wondered why Fleet didn't ask John where the light switch was so he could turn it on.
DeleteEG
Because when Fleet checked the wine cellar, John wasn't with him.
DeleteI know that, but wouldn't you have gone upstairs and said, "John, where is the light switch in that wine cellar room? I opened the door but it's pitch black and I can't see a thing."
DeleteI get that the door was latched from the outside, BUT if you bothered to open that door, why not bother to turn the light on?
EG
I guess because Fleet knew JB couldn't be "hiding" in there because, as you said, it was latched from the outside, and at that point he was merely doing a cursory search of the home to see if JB was pulling some kind of prank, as his own daughter had once done. It's not as though he knew he was looking for a body. I'm sure there were no nefarious reasons he didn't ask John where the light was, so his explanation sounds reasonable.
DeleteI suppose you're right, but that is just one of many things that nag at me about this case.
DeleteEG
First time poster - Thanks to Doc and everyone for the best site on the web on the JB murder. All of you have helped clear up a lot of questions and have convinced me JDI.
ReplyDeleteAsking for thoughts and opinions on the possibility that JB was not hit with the flashlight or golf club at all. Could the head injury indicate that she was picked up, "slammed" against a basement wall and held up there while being sexually abused? That scenario would eliminate BR.
pc
Scenario's are just scenario's; they don't eliminate suspects. This case is circumstantial. The murder weapon will never be directly tied back to John unless he confesses. John can easily be prosecuted without having to establish what object he used to smash her skull, nearly killing her.
DeleteHaving said that, the scenario I've envisioned is similar to yours. I've never shared it, because once you open this blog site up to speculation, it's difficult to get the serial speculators among us to stop overdosing on it at our expense. You'll find out who these people are soon enough, if you haven't already.
I can see where John may have placed the turned-on flashlight flat on the floor shining down on the top of JonBenet's head as she lay flat on her back, perhaps lying on the blanket she was later found wrapped in. If the "scream" heard by the neighbor was real and came from JB, she may have been startled awake by John's penetration. If he had used the paintbrush, already broken in half, to penetrate her, the addition pain caused a wood splinter would have been tremendous. Either way, the scream triggers John (in my scenario) to lift up JonBenet's head, and smash it down hard on the head the flashlight.
Mike G
Thank you Mike. I appreciate you sharing your opinion. And, I agree..scenario is just a scenario..especially an unsubstantiated one.
Deletepc
I haven't quite figured out why so many think John sexually abused her. Seems like prior sexual abuse is fairly contested among medical experts. Nothing in John's history would point to this.
DeleteNone of the experts disagreed. There is a whole section on the prior abuse here from last fall, Sept. Or Oct. Irrc called "the case for prior chronic sexual abuse". You should read it because none of the experts disagreed.
DeleteJBR's pedeatrician, who is an expert that would have as intimate knowledge of her situation as anyone, said he never saw any signs of abuse. One of the recent documentaries, bald guy, indicated that it was likely vaginitis which is extremely common in young girls. These are just two that I know of off the top of my head. Why are we to disregard this?
DeleteWhy can't you just go read the thread instead of making everybody repeat everything.
DeleteAll the info is set out at beginning, don't even have to read all the comments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnonymous, in all seriousness, I'm not sure why you even come to this site. Is there anything that HASN'T been discussed throughout all of Doc's posts? Literally, what left is there to discuss at this point unless new details emerge?
DeleteAlso, you somehow have been convinced that every answer to the case is addressed in the first two posts. Somehow, experts like Steve Thomas, James Kolar, et al have written books on the case that still leave a ton of unanswered questions yet Doc has somehow managed to address the entire case in two succinct posts? Yeah, got it.
I still pose my questions above to anyone interested in having a conversation about it. If the questions are that off putting to the group, I kindly ask that someone just point me to the post/blog where it was addressed.
Someone did.
DeleteBoulder authorities sent the slides, photos and tissue samples to a group of nationally recognized forensic pathologists and child sexual abuse specialists. Six found clear evidence of prior sexual abuse, including a hymen that was damaged and eroded over time and a vaginal opening twice normal size for a six year old. Of the three experts who equivocated, one said only that he needed more information, a second was confused about the definition of child sexual abuse, and the third said he would have expected bruising on her thighs or other signs the child had been forced, which was never an issue. That's it.
Dr Beuf, JBR'S pediatrician, never performed an internal exam, without which it's impossible to diagnose sexual abuse.
CC
Thanks CC. Are these experts' opinions not admissible as evidence in court had the Ramseys been indicted?
DeleteThey are.
DeleteCC
because it makes their case Gumshoe. Without it they have no motive for why John would kill his own daughter. Not to be snide - that's just how it is here.
ReplyDeleteI made a previous post regarding the RN is a copy of a previous to the crime note.(pg. 26 an ink test/illusion the note was written the night of the crime). Some individuals have mentioned they see snippets of movie/other high profile ransom notes in the Ramsey Ransom Note. I do not wish to digress but I would like to mention that the number" 118 " was used as a reference locator number by the police in a VERY high profile case...it's been many years..but as I recall- Leopold/Loeb- the body was found in a fielded area adjacent to a culvert..the house directly across from the field was NUMBER " 118 ". I only mention this,because,if the murder of JBR was planned in advance..the perperator(s)/planning a perfect murder/ would have wanted to know where others failed and possibly have come across this number in their research.Have a nice day. bruce.
DeleteInq: "because it makes their case Gumshoe. Without it they have no motive for why John would kill his own daughter."
DeleteCorrection: without it, there is no convincing motive for ANYONE to have killed JonBenet.
Intentionally.
DeleteThe tightening of a garrote to cause strangulation can hardly be accidental.
DeleteCC
But the head blow could have been
Delete(at least in the BDI, PDI, PDI/JDI world)
DeleteThat presupposes the murder was a cover up for an accident, which is ridiculous on its face and does not take into account the prior sexual abuse. I've seen no argument that persuades me two otherwise rational, well-educated adults would murder their child and stage a failed kidnapping rather than call 911.
DeleteCC
Inquisitive -
ReplyDelete(what you wrote):
Fleet was aghast that John wanted to take off for Atlanta and not stick around for questioning. He thought Alex Hunter didn't conduct a thorough enough investigation and obstructed. He wanted a new D.A. Other than that I've done 0 research on Fleet. There are his letters, and a video of him before a panel for those that want to delve into Fleet's history of involvement. I'm sure one of the oddest moments for Fleet was having looked into the wine cellar room the first time and not seen the body. He didn't know where the light switch was - too bad! Had he flipped on the light switch the first time what do you want to bet she wasn't in there. Or in there but better hidden. Why do you think it's advised if people want to go walking at night they wear white? So that they can be seen (and not run over by a car). She was covered with a white blanket. In a dark room. If you open a door and there is light on elsewhere wouldn't you see her? Was she far enough into the room originally perhaps pushed up against a far wall, then moved closer to the front so that John could open the door and immediately see her? I'm sure Fleet has mulled this over for years.
---> Fleet stating that the investigation was botched gets John off the hook. Being aghast that John wanted to fly away right after finding JBR makes him look neutral. I am just surprised there is not more on Fleet in the aftermath of finding JBR. He was there that morning. Was with the Ramseys the night before. Best friends with the Ramseys. I am sure he probably knows all.
And to the other poster who noted that Fleet didn't ask where the light switch was in the wine cellar....I agree! Why didn't he try to find a flash light or something? Or even just go into the room with the lights off to feel around on the ground? Usually, when looking for someone, especially a small child, you look for the little nooks and cranny places where kids would be likely to hide. Obviously, she was not out in the open. An adult would WANT to search that room and would go and try to get a flashlight or ask where the light switch was or even go into the room to look around for the light switch themselves.
Fleet knows. No one investigates him if he acts the part...ie. he feigns horror at his friend's actions and at the same time saying the investigation was botched but never stating WHY it was botched.
Fleet says why it was botched in his open letter.
DeleteWhy were the Ramseys so close to the Whites in the first place? What was the basis of their friendship? Usually, people with small kids gravitate to other people with kids...so their kids can play together. Weren't the Whites older? They were obviously close if the Ramseys were having Christmas dinner with them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, they were much the same age as the Ramseys, as were their children. They weren't "unusually" close as far as I can ascertain from what I've read, just very good friends.
DeleteWhen Patsy is asked in a police interview posted on acandyrose why she called Dr. Beuf's office three times in a row after hours she doesn't remember. I mean how can that be? Does anyone know if Dr. Beuf returned the call and if so how long the call lasted? I'm assuming they could get a court order to see Beuf's phone records. Anyone have any info on this?
ReplyDeleteHey Gumshoe, if you want to have a conversation about all of the different facets of the case I'm willing to do that and point you to different sites. I had no idea there was a site acandyrose until I came here and someone, I think CC, mentioned it to me. The JonBenet Encyclopedia site is in outline form and so it's easy to pick a particular topic, read it, then see the refutations, in particular on the prior sexual abuse issue. For me when I read former Chief Beckner's (sp?) Q&A he acknowledged that she had been abused - either prior to the vicious assault that took place the night of the murder or several days before. I think that did it for me. However we still don't know WHO did that. John? Burke? Patsy? a close family friend? When exactly was it? That, they can't say. The Journal of American Psychiatry on the issue of incest cites statistically (and I did refer to that article months and months ago, cannot dig it up at present) that an older male sibling is more likely to molest a younger female sibling than father-daughter. But of course that does not mean it doesn't happen. It does. I would look at who was around JB the most amount of time enough to have gotten away with it. In any event if you can come to terms that she WAS sexually abused prior to the night of the murder then at least you can dismiss some of the question marks you have.
ReplyDeleteThanks Inquisitive. I've come across each of those sites you mention. The biggest challenge with this case is the constant refuting of various pieces of evidence. My opinion seems to change daily. My goal is to feel very strongly about one specific culprit.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe already answered you at 9:55 a.m.
ReplyDeleteI'm less and less optimistic about this case going to trial. From comments Fleet White said on the radio show, it sounds like he thinks Garrett is stonewalling too. Also, I read recently the Boulder D.A's office is backlogged with cases and understaffed. Finally, Garrett will be serving on a Trump-ordered special commission in Washington designed to look into marijuana usage in America. Garrett is firmly planted in the pro-legalization camp and will have his hands full defending his minority position.
ReplyDeleteI get the sense that, if JR was ever arrested, on the question of guilt, Americans, paradoxically, would line-up, not inconspicuously, along party lines, with Liberals backing John the way they backed O.J.Simpson. It would be paradoxical because the Ramsey's represent everything Liberals detest.
A. They're Republicans.
B. They lived materialistically in the one of the most non-materialistic urban bedroom communities in America.
C. John is/was a trump-like corporate icon and self-made multi-millionaire. Furthermore, he hails from the bible-belt South.
D. The Ramsey's encouraged JB to dress and participate in activities completely anathema to circa turn-of-century Liberal feminists.
E. The Ramsey's were borderline evangelicals.
Over the years, I think Liberals came to see Patsy as sort of a poster-child victim of male misogyny, but that just makes my sense of the situation more paradoxical. I invite others to share their impressions of the political dimensions of this case, provided my comments aren't used as a platform to discuss ones own political preferences or problems.
Mike G.
What would it take for charges to be brought against someone in this case; more specifically, against JR?
DeleteA D.A. with balls.
DeleteMike G
Mike G, I'm from the south and have never heard of a borderline evangelical, what in the hell are you talking about? They were Episcopalian and Presbyterian. I don't think politics has anything to do with this. The statements you made are broad generalizations made about about groups of people! Geez, this sleuthing is really getting off track.
DeleteI'm in the JDI camp, btw. How I vote at the polls or what I believe about religion, or even how I feel about the legalization of marijuana has absolutely nothing to do with my cognitive ability to connect facts, follow inferences, and form an opinion on how/why a little girl was murdered!
Anon:
DeleteAnon:
What you see as sleuthing gone off track, I see as sleuthing running its course. That may change if results of the recent DNA tests, or the other fourteen pages of the grand jury transcripts, are shared or released, respectively. But the samples sent for testing have been in the lab going on three months now and appeals to have the transcripts released have been tied up in the courts for over two years.
I think it's entirely fair to say that cultural and political factors in the O.J. Simpson case negatively influenced the collective cognitive abilities of the prosecution and the jury to connect the dots to produce and render, respectively, a correct verdict.
By taking umbrage at my "broad generalizations...about groups of people" you belied your claim not to understand what I meant by "borderline evangelical" and your "thinking" that "politics has anything to do with this (case)". That falls into the category of personal problems which I asked, and Doc has asked, everyone not to share.
Mike G.
I have to agree with Anon.. I never thought my political leanings hindered me from seeing the truth in an unsolved case! The only place I could see those two things converging is on the topic on sentencing issues but that technically has nothing to do with guilt or innocence,but the punishment side. I did try hard to see your point Mike G but I just wasn't able to.
DeleteI am not finding much about Fleet White on this website. However, reading about him on other websites is making me significantly question why he is NOT discussed here. To me, he seems very suspect.
ReplyDeleteHe points the finger at the investigators, yet he doesn't seem to be Mr. Helpful, does he.
The Ramseys, their attorneys and Smit have maintained that the intruder got into the home while they were away and spent hours in the house before they got home. Fleet of course couldn't be two places at once, since he was at his own home with the Ramseys as his dinner guests. His alibi is solid, among other things.
DeleteNot helpful? He's done more than anyone to bust through the wall of political corruption keeping JR from facing prosecution. Whatever he knows and doesn't share with the public can only be valuable to the prosecution. If it was valuable to JR, Wood would have made it public a week after the murder. To suggest otherwise means you're either obtuse or just a planted Ramsey/Wood troll.
DeleteMike G
DeleteHe doesn't have to defend JR to be beneficial to JR. He can just distract and keep certain details to himself.
DeleteAnon from 8:59pm 2/5: you've got to read the open letter. Fleet and Priscilla were as helpful as they could have possibly been. They made themselves available immediately and often for police questioning. They were cleared. And, heck, they penned a multiple-page open letter trying to get someone to focus on the case and stop the tangential nonsense (http://extras.denverpost.com/news/whiteltr..htm)
DeleteJust because they opted not to do the talk show circuit, does not mean that they weren't helpful.
It could all be tactical. Other information out there about Fleet White is not as positive.
DeletePlus, everyone gets into the mindset that what someone says MUST be true. What the Ramseys said MUST be true....just because there are saying the words. Just because Fleet White says/writes words, does not necessarily mean they are true.
Agreed Anon @ 10:43. Not everything that someone says is true.
DeleteHowever, if you go out of your way to help law enforcement, then "come out of hiding" to pen an open letter that will only call attention to you ice you're cleared, I don't think tactics nor reverse psychology is at play. Just my thoughts. And my little psychology degree (I am kind of mocking myself, as we all know the importance of degrees.) Doc's theory is consistent with my studies.
Brava, Candygram (had to do it, just once). I think Fleet White was one of the few people who behaved heroically in the entire debacle.
DeleteCC
Inquisitive -
ReplyDeleteWhen Patsy is asked in a police interview posted on acandyrose why she called Dr. Beuf's office three times in a row after hours she doesn't remember. I mean how can that be? Does anyone know if Dr. Beuf returned the call and if so how long the call lasted? I'm assuming they could get a court order to see Beuf's phone records. Anyone have any info on this?
---> I thought I was a newbie. The phone records and JBR's medical records would solve this case but both are held under lock and key.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteFor those hat haven't read much about the Stines and the missus did by impersonating Beckner, you can read a little about that here, as well as the "Patricia Letters"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7071-Susan-Stine-Where-is-She-Now-and-The-Patricia-Letters
o/t - for those that are interested in natural science and didn't happen to see the meteor that lit up several states this morning,here is a link with various dash cams catching it on film
ReplyDeletehttp://fox59.com/2017/02/06/large-meteor-spotted-streaking-over-several-states-including-indiana/
Rhetorical question
ReplyDeleteI believe without a doubt that all 3 Ramseys were involved in this crime, but for the ones who don’t believe this, here is my question.
IF JDI and only JDI, then why draw a gigantic red flag on your back to schedule a flight to Atlanta? Yes I know what Johns explanation was, but obviously they didn’t want to “go home”
My opinion: Sure, he can claim they wanted to “go home” but he was 20 minutes removed from carrying JB’s lifeless body up the stairs. There is absolutely ZERO CHANCE that a mother would have ever wanted to leave her only daughters body so quickly after it being recovered. Surely the parents would want to stay around for answers of who did this. We have all seen Dateline’s where parents have had to been subdued physically or through medications to calm them down in similar situations. The only LOGICAL explanation for the flight to Atlanta is because both Ramsey’s are involved are trying to be away from the police and the whole situation. There are simply no explanations that justify a parent wanting to be away from their child’s body that was just found. And if John was the only one involved, he would NEVER take a risk like this and draw attention to his odd behavior.
-J
J- why couldn't John have been the only killer and thought to himself, "I want to get the hell out of here before this situation breaks loose!" Fight or flight. Maybe he was thinking the "flight" route?
DeleteHi Candace - Exactly my point. IF John was the only killer, why draw sooooooo much negative attention on himself by asking to leave on a flight so quickly after the body was found. We are talking 20 minutes after he carries her upstairs and then hes like "ok, we got the body, peace Im out"
Delete-J
From experience, his behavior there can be attributed to shock. That would support the BDI theory.
DeleteIf both he and Patsy were involved in JB's murder to cover for Burke, your question still remains, doesn't it, J?
DeleteNo....it Patsy was involved like I believe she was then it Johns odd behavior wouldn't be a red flag for her at all.
Delete-J
John's fight or flight response kicked in when Plan A went South and he had to rely on the hastily constructed Plan B. He arrogantly thought his RN and broken window were convincing enough that he'd be allowed to leave, and he could tell Patsy he was taking them all home to her parents and sisters, where they'd be safe from the murderous intruder.
ReplyDeletePatsy was "subdued physically . . .through medication" within hours of the discovery of the body, by Dr Beuf at the Fernies'. In addition, she was extremely religious, and it's my understanding that good Christians feel the earthly body is less important than the soul.
That's the other "LOGICAL explanation".
CC
Actually, John's explanation when told he couldn't leave was that he had a business meeting. Mine would have sounded better, imo.
DeleteCC
CC - The RN discussed a kidnapping and a ransom. Once the body was found, the RN's credibility was greatly in question. His story to Patsy about the window wouldn't have happened yet, so JR would have an awful lot to splain.
Delete-J
Love ya, CC! Just typed my response to "J" - only to see that you had "fight or flight" covered!
DeleteYes indeedy, J, and fortunately he had a heavily medicated, credulous wife in deep denial who was used to following his lead in all things to whom he had to peddle his stories rather than a skeptical bitch like moi.
DeleteCC
Happy to share the podium, Candace. You take denial when J questions it, please - your credentials are better.
DeleteCC
I forgot Patsy was essentially Vicky from Small Wonder following John around like a robot. I'm always entertained by the JDI's scenarios for how JR got away with it.
Delete-H
It signed H instead of J, but that's me :-)
Delete-J
I don't think she was any shrinking violet, but John was older and had the money, and that usually equals power. I'm sure he gave her free rein with domestic matters like child-rearing and decorating, but John clearly ruled the roost. She wanted to stay in Atlanta, he wanted to move to Boulder; they moved. She wanted a new mansion in the flats outside town, John wanted a place in the foothills in town; they bought 15th Street. Patsy wanted to stay home for Christmas, John was intent on going to Michigan; they were going. And don't forget what Susan Savage, the former nanny said: Patsy's main job was to keep John from being annoyed.
DeleteCC
CC
DeleteI agree totally. There is no doubt that JR was the dominant one in the relationship. Patsy, although not a stupid woman, was content in her "role" as the wife of a highly successful man, that she catered to. It was John's way or the highway, I think.
However, it's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that PR would go along with JR if she knew he was molesting and then ultimately murdered her daughter.
I can understand the ST's of this world, who know when they've hit a wall they just can't penetrate because powerful people have reinforced it using every weapon at their disposal.
Unsealing phone records of calls made early that morning, along with medical records of both JBR and BR could have solved this case. Someone doesn't want it solved. The question is why not? To protect themselves or to protect someone else.
EG
EG, I agree. I don't think PR would stay with JR and act like everything was fine if he abused and murdered their daughter.
DeleteIF SHE needed him, though, (ie. SHE accidentally killed JBR), she might put up with anything. That would also explain her finding out about the sexual abuse at a later time and not being able to do/say anything about it....because JR was helping her cover up the death. It would also fit in with the BDI theory, as well.
I don't think Patsy had any idea that John was molesting their daughter, and I think she believed for most, if not all, of her life that an intruder killed her. Denial is powerful stuff (step in here Candace, please).
DeleteIf you're referring to Steve Thomas, my strong impression was that he was frustrated with the DA'S office, but stopped short of alleging corruption, if that's what you're implying, and I think it was less a matter of influence and corruption than ineptness and a misguided view of a prosecutor's proper role.
Where is this coming from, about the phone records being "sealed"? I've seen it here several times lately. It's my recollection that they weren't requested by the BPD in a timely manner, and Thomas referred to some third party service provider which acted as a sort of anonymizer, effectively muddying those waters. Impossible to know if they were subpoenaed by the GJ, though I would have done it as a matter of course. Not sure how telling they'd be in any case, but it's Prosecution 101.
Finally, I don't know Colorado law well enough to say, but in my state the medical records of minors are completely off limits in any circumstances.
CC
The amount of speculation in the above posts is amazing to me. How does anybody know who wore the pants? Patsy Ramsey seemed very much like the bulldog in the tv interviews. To say she was content with her role as wife is pure speculation and stereotyping.
Delete-J
C'mon, J, play fair. I gave you three documented instances plus the observation of the former nanny, no speculation involved.
DeleteCC
It wasn't as much in reference to your comment CC. My opinion is not better than anybody else's but at times the JDI theory goes way overboard with the Patsy gaslight, Patsy was drugged, Patsy was brainwashed, etc. it's obviously necessary for the JDI theory to work which is why you all have to do it, but doesn't make it less ridiculous at times. John choosing "fight or flight" is precisely what I was pointing out. It would draw not only a major red flag to the police, but also Patsy and friends. Doesn't seem like a risk he would take IF Patsy and Burke weren't on the same page as him. I can't even sneak off for 5 min to watch a game before my wife is yelling at me, so don't see John being able to just roam free without her asking any questions
Delete-J
J, what is your theory, if you have one?
DeleteJ - I haven't really read much on Patsy's friendships she had from way back when and their description of her, but she could've very well been a "steel magnolia" and not have had any man run roughshod over her.
DeleteIMO, John would have been considered a yankee to Patsy's family and her friends in the South. I do wonder at times after Patsy passed away if they still maintained a close relationship to John.
Anon - I don't want to call it my theory, but what I 100% believe happened was that BDI.
Delete-J
J - that is my theory as well.
DeleteI'm starting to get very curious about the deterioration of the friendship between Fleet White and JR after JBR's body was found. I understand that FW spoke out about the investigation not doing enough....but he doesn't really offer any interesting insight into JR's world. I read somewhere that he (FW) knew of the wine cellar. That morning, claiming he couldn't find the light switch....is very curious. A grown man would NOT ignore a room like that because he couldn't find the light switch. Also, the garrote...the knot. Apparently FW was a sailor. He would know very well how to make an intricate knot like the one found on JBR.
He could have very well helped stage JBR's body and helped out with the entire process.
I don't think Patsy was brainwashed or gaslighted (gaslit?), J. I think she found it impossible to suspect her husband of any involvement, adopted a siege mentality when it became clear LE was focused on the family, and simply followed John's lead, as she was accustomed to do. She took drugs for years after the murder - a fact - and that would have helped her remain in denial.
DeleteNot complicated, and rather obvious to me.
CC
Folks- Here's a piece on denial from The Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/denial/art-20047926
DeleteWhat's interesting is the section, "Understanding denial and its purpose." Some points that it makes:
"When you're in denial, you:
-Refuse to acknowledge a stressful problem or situation
-Avoid facing the facts of the situation
-Minimize the consequences of the situation"
So, it's entirely possible that Patsy was so deep in denial that she even blocked out the possibility that John could have done this.
But John could not possibly have done it. He was "ruled out," remember? NO ONE involved in the case, and hardly anyone following it has EVER expressed any doubt on that score over the last 20 years. So why should Patsy?
DeleteGood point! Even if she had suspicions, the fact that John was ruled out only validated any denial she may have had.
DeleteHi guys,
ReplyDeleteAnybody seen a same of Susan Stine's handwriting ?
-GuruJosh
Not that I've seen anywhere online. Both Susan and her husband Glenn testified at the the grand jury hearing.
DeleteEG -
ReplyDeleteUnsealing phone records of calls made early that morning, along with medical records of both JBR and BR could have solved this case. Someone doesn't want it solved. The question is why not? To protect themselves or to protect someone else.
-----> This exactly! It is very bizaare that the Ramseys called all their friends and the pediatrician over to their house when the ransom note stated to not talk to anyone. VERY bizaare. Again, this is not addressed by many detectives or journalists. Ignoring the RN by calling a slew of people over is highly suspicious. And the family friend pediatrician is also an area that was not pushed enough by detectives or journalists.
The pediatrician wasn't called to the house that morning with the friends, he treated PR at the Fernies later that day and nobody has ever said he was,a family friend as far as I know. What's to push?
DeleteIt has already been discussed here - many times, as I'm sure you're aware of, as you're not a newbie, EG - that Patsy never read past the first few lines of the RN before calling her friends over. Once the line "We have your daughter", is understood, adrenaline kicks in and one's natural instinct as a parent is to call the authorities, and I would have done the same. I do not find Patsy calling friends over to comfort her "bizarre" at all. What I *do* find bizarre, is that RDIs can accept Patsy's decision to call the police BEFORE staging was complete (body in the house: ransom note becomes redundant - there's something seriously awry with that staging, unless one accepts it hadn't been completed yet) if she was involved. Thus, out of the two scenarios: The first pointing towards Patsy's involvement due to inviting people over against the RN's instructions, the second pointing towards Patsy's lack of involvement due to her inviting police to the house under the guise of a kidnapping whilst her daughter's body rots in the basement with signs of sexual abuse. I know what I see as the more logical of the two. Both scenarios have flaws, and one of them has to be correct, so look at the one that looks more plausible.
DeleteMs D, Patsy clearly read past the first few lines because she mentioned "SBTC" and "Victory" on the 911 call.
DeleteAlso, I hear a lot on this board about "staging wasn't complete". Exactly what does that mean? Getting the body out of the house? If you're going to take a body out of the house, there seems no better time to do it than the middle of the night. Why would John and/or Patsy attempt this during the day? If you're going to stage a kidnapping, and you're supposed to leave for Michigan early the following morning, you basically only have a few hours to do it.
The 911 operator asked who the RN was from, Patsy had it in her hand and flipped to the end to read the signature.
DeleteThe "kidnapping" would have forestalled the trip to Michigan, obviously, and John would have had all day the 26th to take the body up into the mountains and drop it off any handy cliff under the guise of delivering the ransom, having persuaded Patsy and Burke to leave the house for their own safety.
Sorry if I'm stepping on your toes, Ms D - I'm unclear on the time difference.
CC
Seems like it would be very difficult for John to make it into the mountains, unseen, to dispose of the body.
DeleteIs it not possible that his plan all along was to have the cops discover it in the house? The ransom note helps point to an intruder doing it.
Gumshoe - First off, why ever comment on anything about anything on here because as Ms D LOVES to say "this has been covered already" Not that it being covered already means anything at all, because it's simply a way to immediately put that person posting on the defensive. Please feel free to post away
Delete-J
Gumshoe: first of all John would have waited until after dark to dispose of the body. Secondly, it wouldn't matter if his car were spotted, as he'd have claimed he was delivering the ransom. The note provided a built in alibi.
DeleteNo, thanks for answering, CC....I'm tired of posting the same response over and over, and J, it's not that I mind going over what we've already discussed, I'm well aware I repeat myself also. It is only when - BDIs, in particular, but not exclusively - blatantly ignore the answers and keep asking the exact, same questions as though they expect a different response.
Delete"If you're going to take a body out of the house, there seems no better time to do it than the middle of the night."
Not when you have a sleeping family upstairs who might hear you start your car at 3 a.m, or nosy neighbours who see you drive off. How are you going to explain leaving the house in the middle of the night to the cops when you report your daughter's "kidnapping" the next day? Hence the reason for the ransom note.....it buys time and a handy alibi, which brings me to your next question:
"Seems like it would be very difficult for John to make it into the mountains, unseen, to dispose of the body."
Gumshoe, THAT was the purpose of the ransom note! To buy John an alibi should he be seen in the area where the body might later be found - Doc has covered this at length in his early posts.
Anon,
DeleteThe whole way in which the investigation was handled is bizarre, along with the behavior of the parents.
Who allows their other child to be taken out of the house without a police escort when your other child is at that very moment kidnapped and being held for ransom?
The moment a kidnapping was suspected why wasn't the FBI all over the place? From what I've read, the BPD told them they weren't needed. Since when does the FBI answer to the local LE? Don't they have Federal Jurisdiction in this type case? Maybe one of the lawyers here can answer that one.
Who doesn't wake up the remaining child and ask them FIRST if they saw or heard anything during the night?
Who wants to get out of town on the day you find your daughter murdered?
Who would stop looking for the murderer of their child?
I do realize that none of the above proves anything, BUT you had to admit, it's odd.
EG
The RN also screams of two people writing it...based on certain words and phrases within the letter. I would bet my last dollar Patsy wrote the note because the note and the 911 call were the two tasks that John had her doing.
ReplyDeleteJohn would have been frantically watching over Patsys shoulder as she wrote and told her things to add in. They would have spent at least an hour (probably much more) writing that together.
There is not one, single word in your comment that is not based on pure speculation. Not one.
DeleteSo me and JDI'ers have something in common :)
DeleteThat's just not true at all, Zed.
DeleteAlmost everything JDIs believe stems from what the evidence tells us.
Point me to one part of your above comment that is based on fact. Show me the evidence that two people wrote the ransom note. Show me the evidence that John administered the tasks of writing the note and calling 911 to Patsy. Where is the proof that John was, in fact, standing over his wife's shoulder whilst she composed the note? Every one of those statements is an opinion, you couldn't possibly know these things!
Ms D – this might come off that I’m attacking you, but you are definitely one of the more vocal JDI’s, so here goes.
DeleteRegarding the “we follow the evidence” line, I’m sorry, but Im not buying that for a second. What actual hard evidence exactly are you referring to?
- If you are talking about prior sexual abuse, well that isn’t 100% conclusive and more importantly there isn’t 1 single piece of evidence that points to John Ramsey as the one committing the sexual abuse. Just because you all have thrown out stats about the adult male, it doesn’t make John Ramsey in this case to be the pedophile.
- The RN….once again, zero evidence to say that JR wrote the note and zero evidence that says he was the sole author of the note.
- Motive…once again, speculation that John wanted to cover up his sex crimes. No evidence of this at all.
Your theory eliminates Patsy due to an opinion that she wouldn’t dial 911 with the body in the house. No factual…just opinion
Your theory really doesn’t even explain the pineapple in her stomach and has written that part of the narrative as being not that important.
So, when you are saying “we follow the evidence” you aren’t following OJ’s blood trail. Your “evidence” is a theory that on the surface makes some sense proposed by Doc. Just remember that because Doc tells us it is based on facts and logic, doesn’t mean it is. Its like being told something is “Fake News” doesn’t make it so
-J
You're right, J, there is no hard evidence pointing irrefutably to one particular person. I like facts, so for me it's the prior sexual abuse and the GJ's findings. For you it's that damnable bowl of pineapple and Patsy's alleged involvement. For me Doc's re-inclusion of John was eye-opening, for you the CBS re-enactment of the head blow was pivotal.
DeleteIt seems we've availed ourselves of the only option we have: to read and study as much as we can and draw the most informed conclusions possible. I freely concede I'm not going to change your mind, or Zed's, and likely you won't be changing mine or Ms D's. Perhaps all we can hope to do is influence newcomers and, as I do, hope one of them sees something I haven't that cracks the whole case wide open - which is why I encourage 'em to read, read, read.
So I'll continue to look for a revelation from Stan Garnett while simultaneously doubting it'll ever come, and keep (endlessly, it seems) offering my version of what few facts there are to the newly initiated . . .and happily sparring with you all the while.
Lighten up, J-man, and take it for what it is - all we've got. Love ya' Lucy.
CC
Hey CC – I absolutely love what you said. It seems like since January 20th I have been very agitated and cranky for some reason. I’ll try and lighten up, I promise
Delete---I just hope you think of me every time you see or eat pineapple
-J
For what it's worth, J, I think of you whenever I so much as see pineapple, fresh, canned or otherwise. :P
DeleteWe've all been a little "cranky", I know my own bad mood is due to this unrelenting, Aussie heat, and perhaps all of us - JDIs, BDIs, RDIs, PDIs (there aren't any IDIs here anymore, are there?) - are just a little tired of going round in circles. But, as CC (always the voice of reason) said, though there isn't a hope in hell we'll change each other's minds, hopefully we can offer something for the newcomers to think about.
I thought I was picking up some deeper frustration. We're the last two old timers left, we have to hang in there. Chin up, pal - I can no longer look at or smell pineapple, you've effectively ruined a perfectly good fruit for me.
DeleteCC
Every time I look at pineapple I just see Burke's crazy smiling face on Dr. Phil
Delete-J
I am sure this has been discussed before, so please accept my apologies for wasting so much time
ReplyDeleteRegarding the body....The theory of JDI is that with Patsy and Burke would be out of the house all the next day, so John would dispose of the body then. Question.....when exactly would he be dumping this body? He obviously can't do it during the day right? SO, he would have to bury her somewhere at night and risk being seen after dark driving around. He would have to have the body in his possession all day while he CSI'd the house. I really want specific answers on this, because all I have seen are vague "stage" responses as to what Johns plan was.
(For the record, the idea of John staging all day and night the next day is ludicrous, but still curious to see what the JDI team comes up with)
-J
Oh my God!!! DocG please help! Dr. Oz is at this very moment airing a show with the Ramsey's PI John San Augustin (who Dr. Oz says had access to ALL of the evidence in the case), he's insisting that JonBenet was stun gunned twice, there was an intruder, Michael Helgoth owned a pair of Hi Tecs. Next he's going to talk about poor John and how he's coping (Ugh!) In the intro Dr. Oz said the grand jury was disbanded without an indictment... never mentioning the signed true bills. How can he so irresponsibly put something like this out there? I wonder what connection he has to John San Augustin. This needs to stop.
ReplyDeleteMrs. B.
Is there a phone-in option?
DeleteCC
Oh sorry... spelling of his last name is San Agustin.
DeleteNo there was not. They are on to the next topic.
DeleteBoy was my blood boiling! Lol...There is the option to comment about the show on his website. Who wants to tackle it? I've read as much as I can get my hands on, but I don't feel confident commenting as succinctly as should be. Thanks for listening to my rant.
DeleteThanks for that, Mrs B.
DeleteCan you perhaps post a link to the web site? I might give it a go.....
You seem plenty articulate, Mrs B, and you've identified several misstatements - you step up. If you think it will do any good, maybe a few of us could chime in as well, though I'm afraid we'll be whistling down the wind.
DeleteI share your outrage, though I know that's cold comfort.
CC
For those like John San Augustin, who think someone like Michael Helgoth was the intruder, what is their explanation for the ransom note? Clearly Helgoth did not know the Ramseys enough to write it nor do I think he would have spent that much more time in the house writing it out of fear of being caught. For an intruder to have done this, there would have to be a second party involved; maybe someone who wrote the ransom note for them to take to the Ramseys. Either way, the ransom note is never expounded upon by IDIs.
DeleteDr Oz show tweet an hour ago about this episode
ReplyDeletehttp://www.doctoroz.com/episode/true-crime-tuesdays-who-killed-jonben-t-ramsey?video_id=5313115914001
Thanks, lil!
DeleteATTENTION EVERYONE!
ReplyDelete1) Go to twitter.com and create an account if you don't have one.
2) Follow Stan Garnett
https://twitter.com/DAGarnett
3) Implore him to try John as I did in the following tweet I just sent him.
"Another absurd intruder theory airing on Dr. Oz. PLEASE Mr. Garnett try John with what you have. Many behind you even if you fail!"
He tweets at least once a week so he will see it. The more of us who tweet, the better our chances.
Please note:
Twitter accounts can be created anonymously, but I have made my identity here and on Twitter, Mike G, one and the same. "Followers"
remaining completely anonymous can be blocked.
Mike G
It's airing now in my area, the investigator is claiming strangulation first, that those are her nail marks, and the blow to the head came after, that she was basically dead from strangulation since very little blood bleed. Aphrodite Jones is there as well. The Ramsey guy you have seen a number of times. He wears glasses and look of some kind of Asian descent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he is promoting the stun gun, and that she was stunned twice, on face and back. Of course denies Burke, and does say she was sexually assaulted. Aphrodite says the DNA does NOT exclude the Ramseys like she once thought.
ReplyDeleteJohn SA says there are pedos still not vetted in the boulder area (omg, this man has been on the case for 20 years so why hasn't HE vetted them!) Aphrodite talks of jmk and helgoth. John SA shows a pic of no snow at back of house. Next photo is basement window, open with the suitcase. Saying jb fibers found inside suitcase. Then pic of paintbrush and cord. Which John calls sophisticated.
ReplyDeleteJohn SA says these are burn marks, it is a stun gun, when showing the final pic of Jonbenet's back, and the two marks. Goes on to say 'what parent would stun gun their child, twice'. Aphrodite says 'if it's a stun gun'.
ReplyDeleteJohn SA mentions twice that that Jonbenet dug her own fingernails into her neck creating the marks. He is also a father, and mentioned how JR was able to find love again for the past 10 years with his new wife Jan. He also doesn't mention that Patsy was considered a suspect at one time. Just John and then Burke.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust a few details in the RN were mentioned on Dr Oz and how Helgoth said he was coming into some money.... all which can be explained by the facts.
ReplyDeleteBoulder PD statement posted on Dr Oz site
ReplyDeletehttp://www.doctoroz.com/page/statement-boulder-police-concerning-jonben-t-ramsey-case
John is a serial husband, his third wife, that his investigator felt necessary to mention on the Dr Oz show, he just offered that up. We know he dated Natalee Holloway's mother, Beth. However Beth was also a client of Lin Wood. Viagra was not introduced on the market until 1998. The investigator also mentioned John's daughter that had passed away prior in the car accident.
ReplyDeleteTo some people, they would think he's got some bad juju, two dead daughters, one by murder, a younger wife that dies, and in later years cried broke. So I guess the women must find him charming, or a fixer upper project, as it can't be what Nelly sings "must be the money!"
Lin Wood is fond of bragging that the seven Ramsey defamation suits made him a rich man. . . and his take would only have been 1/3 to 1/2. Plus JR has book profits. He ain't poor, Lil, don't fall for that.
DeleteCC
The FBI usually waits to be invited in, EG, but it's always their prerogative to take over when it's a Federal crime. In our case, it became a non- kidnapping and garden variety murder within a matter of hours, and they had no time to flex.
DeleteCommander Eller's hubris prevented him from availing himself of the services of the FBI, the CBI and even the more experienced Boulder County Sheriff's Department, which in my opinion was the BPD'S second biggest mistake.
CC
Thanks, CC. I guess I assumed it would be an immediate response, but you're right. Inside of a few hours, they had a murder victim, hence no longer a kidnapping.
DeleteAnd I agree about Eller's ego/pride getting in the way of the investigation. That's what amazes me the most with this case. All that should've been done, but wasn't. I keep thinking conspiracy when it's probably just incompetence.
EG
There was an immediate FBI response, to the extent that they sent one agent to the scene the morning of the 26th.
DeleteI tend toward incompetence on the part of both the BPD and the DA'S office rather than look for snakes in the woodpile; just seen no evidence of the latter and much to support the former.
CC
Here are some interesting point about the ransom letter pointed out by linguists:
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the ransom note writer was also someone who: 1. felt correct punctuation and editing was important 2. used words such as “monitor,” “tactics,” and “authorities” 3. felt a ransom note (like any letter) needed a salutation, closing and name 4. liked to use exclamation points, especially at the beginning and end of letters 5. knew John’s bonus amount of $ 118,000 from Access Graphics 6. knew John personally and well enough to reference “inside” information from his history such as the phrases “fat cat” and “good southern common sense” 7. used American Southern regionalisms such as “gentlemen” for male strangers and substituted the word “bring” for the verb “take” 8. felt a “proper burial” was important 9. wrote with an overtly feminine style and vocabulary, and was most probably female Conversely, the ransom note writer wants us to believe: 1. they are uneducated and lack English language proficiencyproficiency by misspelling two words 2. they are part of a “foreign faction” 3. they are not alone in their actions but are part of a group 4. their actions have something to do with John’s business, Access Graphics 5. JonBenét was still alive (“ safe and unharmed”) when they wrote the letter
5. I recently learned that John received the bonus approx 10 months earlier, and I read (somewhere here, perhaps?) that it wasn't actually 118K, but it amounted to close to 118K *after* taxes. So I'm not entirely sure I still buy that that was the reason for asking for such an arbitrary and odd number.
Delete8. The author may not have felt a proper burial was important, but knew it was important to the reader of the note.
9. I don't necessarily think the writer wanted the reader to believe they were uneducated - I believe they were genuine spelling errors because the author had a problem with double "s"s, and guess who has an issue with just such a thing? John Ramsey...quite the coincidence, huh?
Finally, there is nothing to suggest JB was alive at the time the note was written - the author *wanted* the reader to believe she was, so naturally included that she was safe.
The analysis doesn't work for a document like this, because clearly, the author was using deception as a means to disguise his identity.
I am extremely suspicious of attempts to attribute the ransom note to a particular person on the basis of so-called "content analysis" or "linguistic analysis." When we read, for example, that it was written in an "overtly feminine" style, I have to roll my eyes a bit, because the reasons given strike me as incredibly naive. That conclusion was reached for one very simple reason: to point in the direction of Patsy Ramsey, who became, as we know, the number one suspect for those who rejected the intruder theory.
DeleteTo say, for example, that a phrase like "be rested" somehow reflects a typically female concern for someone's welfare, is both sexist and extremely naive. There is nothing whatever in that note that indicates any sort of concern for anyone else. And why on Earth would one want to show concern in a ransom note of all things, much less a note intended as staging. And as far as the "foreign faction" bit is concerned, it's hard to believe the writer actually expected anyone to believe a foreign faction of any kind was actually involved.
When we compare certain words or expressions from the note with words or expressions found in John Ramsey's statements we see a great many rather obvious similarities, which is not the case for Patsy. And by the way, a formal construction such as "and hence" is totally unlike Patsy's characteristically informal style. We find an instance of "and hence" in one of John's interviews, but nothing of the sort in any of Patsy's. And the assumption that Patsy wrote the Xmas letter in which this appears is an excellent example of confirmation bias, because that note was written by both of them, not only Patsy.
A simple list of word and phrase similarities is more meaningful, imo, than the sort of pseudo-sophisticated "analysis" of the sort we've seen so commonly in this case.
As far as I'm concerned, however, all attempts to identify the writer of the note on the basis of either handwriting or content analysis makes for an interesting sport, but takes us no closer to solving this case. It's only when we consider the reasons why any given suspect would want to or need to write such a note that we can gain some insight into the identity of its author.
I gotta agree with you on this Doc. It seems like a lot of the conclusions by these experts are a bit of stretch. I think there is a lot that the ransom note tells us, none of which is the gender of the writer. One thing I think we can all agree on (for all RDIs, JDI, IDIs, etc) is that the note was written to deceive and/or divert attention.
DeleteWhich brings me back to my question above that no one answered; for all the IDIs out there, what is their explanation on the ransom note? Obvious suspects like Helgoth and Oliva clearly could not have written that note.
I doubt there are any IDI's out there Gumshoe. Not any more. If you consider that this crime had to be someone with intimate knowledge of the family, used their pad of paper and pen, addressed the letter specifically to them think about that from the perspective of an intruder and you can notice how bizarre the response has been "hence." In all of this time neither Burke nor John have wondered who it could have been that was so close to them to have known so many details about them and is still on the loose? Might they come back? Was killing their daughter not enough? It looks on the surface like some kind of revenge killing, to harm someone so precious to them and leave a note that could be traced back to whoever they were, in a Ramsey "inner circle." Yet John says later the killer should be forgiven. He's not even in his alone time pondered who could have done it? Some vague person who isn't in the jail system? And that's it? I would keep looking until the day I died. But he's calm. Burke doesn't seem too interested in who may have done it either. The three of them knew full well who did it.
ReplyDeleteVery true Inquisitive. In Steve Thomas's book, he even mentions how Burke was back in school, without police escort, only a few weeks after the murder. What sane parent would feel comfortable in doing that?
DeleteAlso, if it was a revenge killing, why the sexual abuse? IMO, murder and sexual abuse during a revenge killing just don't seem to mix; at least not in this situation with a 6 year old girl.
Also, surely John San Augustin has to have a theory on the ransom note to go along with the intruder.
Burke was back in private school - in Boulder - less than two weeks after the murder, which seems an unlikely thing to permit your child to do had he killed his sister and you desperately needed him to keep his mouth shut, but rather an attempt to let him return to some degree of normalcy. PMPT describes the steps the principal and the school took to protect Burke, without unwanted police presence that would further alarm the rest of an already frightened student body.
DeleteCC
I don't think getting my child back to normalcy is exactly my top priority two weeks after my child is allegedly killed by a complete stranger who broke into my house. Any normal parent would think there other child is also in danger; at least I would.
DeleteDunno. I think I'd be torn between wanting exactly that and a strong inclination to lock him in a closet surrounded by armed guards.
DeleteIn any event, I agree with very few of the Ramseys' parenting choices, most noticeably beauty pageants for children, but to each his own.
CC
That's how you dis spell an Intruder theory Gumshoe - exactly! If a killer is on the loose and you need to keep your "babies safe" why allow your other baby to go back to school. No, I feel certain that the Ramsey's knew that a killer was not on the loose. JR still finds it necessary to perpetuate the charade however, taking to the media outlets.
DeleteFrom Patsy's Deposition (being questioned by Kane)regarding Burke returning to school:
DeleteQUOTE1 A. One of my children had just been
2 brutally murdered in the sanctity of our
3 home. I have one remaining child, and I
4 didn't want him let out of my sight. I
5 didn't want him to return to school. I
6 didn't want to return to Boulder. I was
7 frightened for all of our safety.
8 Then it became apparent that it
9 would be in Burke's best interest to be back
10 in a routine in his normal environment with
11 his friends, and I saw the benefit of that.
12 And I said the only way I will let him go
13 is that if there is a great deal of security
14 put in place.
15 Q. And that's why you hired
16 professionals such as Tracy Temple?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I think Ellis Armistead also had
19 some involvement in that; correct?
20 A. Well, together or somehow they
21 installed that wiring system and all that
22 kind of stuff.
23 Q. Why did you allow Burke to go to
24 school without a guard and have Susan Stein
25 transport him?
225
1 A. Well, Susan had the medallion.
2 The medallion was in Burke's proximity at any
3 given time.UNQUOTE
IMHO John Ramsey called the shots in this family always. She talks about only agreeing to let Burke go back if there were some sort of safety measures in place. Agreeing with who? The leader of the clan of course. SHE doesn't want Burke to return. I'm sure John was making the suggestions, setting up the security and pushing her to let him go back. He had nothing to fear. She obviously felt to afraid to let him go. And because I strongly suspect Johnny is a narcissist, Patsy goes along with whatever he deems is sound, logical, safe, you name it. Whenever I look at Patsy's decisions after the murder, I keep in mind that this was more than likely a woman who had the typical narcissistic victim syndrome where your reality is not your own. Your thoughts and ideas are not valid. You abide with the narcissist because you are made to doubt your own choices and instincts and going against the narcissist just spells ugly. Which also could explain why John was not counting on Patsy making a 911 phone call without his consent. I don't doubt Patsy when she told Detective Arndt that if "she loses Burke" she will have "nothing left to live for." Not even John? But she needed John to defend her, which he did brilliantly, because narcissists can't let the lookers on know that there is a crack in any aspect of their (what they want you to believe) perfect façade. But, being the sociopath that all narcissists are, he was passively aggressively hoping Patsy would be charged with this crime. PDI, BDI and IDI should read up on that very real psychological disorder and phenomenon as John and Patsy fit that bill quite nicely. Of course, this is all in my oh so humble opinion. :) Suzs
Well done, Suzs. Move over and let me share your not-so-humble opinion, please.
DeleteCC
Ditto that, Suzs and CC. :)
DeleteDouble ditto that, Suzs, CC, and Ms D. Oh how easily this case might be unraveled if Garnett could recognize the NPD in JR and then get brave enough to start the take down. JR will NEVER expose the truth, and sad as it is, even if a circumstantial case is brought against him and won, he would be one of those who meets his maker thinking he will be able to schmooze himself passage through the golden gates. Thank goodness my faith convinces me that'll never happen! MWMM
DeleteDamn! Triple ditto, suzs!
DeleteMike G
Happy to be in such clever company! :) Suzs
DeleteYes, Suzs, this has to be in your "humble" opinion because unless you are a licensed clinical psychiatrist I sincerely doubt you can spot a narcissist AND a sociopath, which are two different personality disorders - one social, the other antisocial. I'm not a licensed clinical psychiatrist either, but I sat in over 55 credit hours of psychology enough to know that getting a diagnosis is extremely difficult without many hours of observation. All we have in this case is what others observed up until the night of the crime - a rather aloof husband who spent most of his time at the office, and and a micromanaging mother who had a lot on her plate leading up to Christmas night 1996.
DeleteSince they packed up and moved to Atlanta, did Burke go back to school in Atlanta or Boulder - that might make a difference - as in his "safety."
ReplyDeleteAlso with a revenge killing, assuming it was pre meditated by an intruder, why go on ahead and leave the note. I once thought the note was to "taunt." It had nothing to do with what was found, once she was killed there would be no need for the note. The note would only result in the inner circle being investigated and handwriting samples given.
This new book "Listen Carefully" on kindle has a good rating on amazon. Unfortunately for me, it's a kindle book and I do not have kindle. It lays all of the evidence out there without bias. If anyone in here is able to spend $7.99 and read it please comment in here. thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need a kindle to read a kindle book. If you go to the Kindle store at Amazon, you'll find links to freely downloadable apps for just about any device, including a Windows PC or a Mac.
DeleteA word of caution. I don't know anymore what it means when someone claims to have laid out all the evidence "without bias." In my experience, there is always a bias involved, either explicit or implicit.
DeleteI'll check with my computer guru to make sure the free downloadable app stays free. This book is written by The True Crime Detectives, some collaborative that has written other books, and one paragraph from amazon says:
ReplyDelete"Exposing the many myths and misrepresentations of facts in the Ramsey case the book uses documented evidence and detailed research, as well as extensive interviews with many who were involved in the case, to present the truth surrounding JB's death and the 20 year investigation." I like to keep up to date on whatever is "new", even if it's old. We need a few myths dispelled, don't you think?
meant to insert the word "Guild" after The True Crime Detectives
ReplyDeleteI recently read something about the RN which makes total sense. If you wrote that note, while John was upstairs sleeping, why tell him to be well rested? Noone tells a sleeping person to be well rested. You would say that to someone who was awake and would need to get some sleep. No?
ReplyDeleteEG
The note says that the call will come "tomorrow." Since there would be no time for John to collect the ransom prior to 8AM, or to rest as you've noted, if "tomorrow" meant the same day the note was found, then obviously tomorrow meant tomorrow, i.e, the day AFTER the note was found.
DeleteBut since they put date of death December 25 on her tombstone the author of the note thought tomorrow was Dec. 26, no? "Tomorrow" could have referred to the day after the crime. Or am I overly confused here. But I see your point, the note was not to be found until the morning of the 26th. Just shows more evidence that an illogical non-rational thinking person wrote the note.
DeleteMany of you may know this about rhe charges against Ramsey investigator John San Agustin. Another hearing is set for March.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.gazette.com/former-el-paso-sheriffs-officials-presley-san-agustin-face-arraignment/article/1594505
He faces two felony counts
None of us know the Ramseys personally but the ransom or note does seem long and wordy which is not the typical style of a stoic businessman and I have trouble believing that both Patsy and John wrote their Christmas letter together, especially with the fact that John was not home a lot per comments by friends and family and Patsy was a millionaires wife and stay at home mom, we can easily conclude that she wrote the Christmas letter which does have some similar writing style to the ransom note, especially the overuse of exclamation points. I believe that both John and patsy played a role in JBRs death and they deliberately call the police right away to seal her fate as the ransom note told them she would die if they did anything.
ReplyDeleteFact: JBR was dead hours before the 911 call was placed. To believe the call was made deliberately is to believe that John and Patsy intended the police to believe that a nearby faction had been monitoring John and, upon learning he had ignored their warnings, they killed JonBenet, placed her in the wine cellar, then escaped without being seen.
DeleteSo tell me, were the Ramsey's unaware pre-call rigor mortis had already set-in or was staged cluster-fucking part of their plan?
Mike G.
Correction: nearby "foreign" faction....
DeleteMike G
I think so too Greg - but I wasn't sure about the last sentence in your paragraph about calling the police right away to seal her fate. That is I am not sure what you mean.
ReplyDeleteThe ransom note starts off in a real attempt to camouflage the author's penmanship - in a shaky hand with wavy lines. As it picks up speed the wavy lines disappear as if whoever wrote it is becoming more comfortable with the idea of it - or forgot he/she started off with a shaky hand. I've often thought too why start it off addressed to Mr and Mrs, then direct it to John Ramsey only - was it because he was the one who had to follow the instructions, or was it because she wanted to remove herself from the equation. It doesn't sound like the hodgepodge of a two-person note, but more like a hodgepodge mind of one person.
Inq- What Greg means is that by deliberately disobeying the note there was a reason for JBR to be found dead in the house. I know it's not accepted by DocG or CC etc but imo that's the purpose of the RN and 911 call - GuruJosh
DeleteYup, pretty subtle strategy, Josh; clever misdirect. Not only did it not fool Doc and I, it went right past LE, too.
DeleteCC
Pretty silly strategy i agree... definitely not the strategy of a cool narcissistic sociopathic CEO.. yet CC somehow the case remains unsolved apart from on this blog :-) GuruJosh
DeleteI never read the indictments against the Ramsey's unitl now from the grand jury, Alex Hunter hid the grand jury results from the public for many years until a reported sued for the release of public records:
ReplyDeleteCOUNT IV (a) On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) 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.
COUNT VII
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the perfect rson being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.
Question to Doc or anyone on this site: Has it ever been published whether the notepad paper had "see-through" quality paper? If so, why would the handwriting analysis have any value at all? I've always wondered what direction the investigation would have taken(or would take now) if not for that handwriting analysis.
ReplyDeleteK
What do you mean? What is "see through quality paper" and how does it affect the "value" of handwriting analysis?
DeleteMost JDI's don't place much value in handwriting analysis at all because there is only upside-no downside-to disguising ones own handwriting. If you suspect people who find ransom notes to be their authors, to prove they are beyond a reasonable doubt, why would you NOT want to saddle yourself with the greater burden of assuming they disguised their own handwriting instead of using it?
Mike G.
It would be difficult to disguise over 2 pages of your own handwriting, which makes me wonder if the note was written prior to that night copying lettering from another source. Since some paper is opaque, and some is not, I was curious if that info had ever been made public. I don't believe Patsy wrote that note, the letter "a's" too obviously point to her. I think she was smarter than that. K
DeleteDoc - why won't the phone records be released? Or JBR's medical records?
ReplyDeleteGS provided a link to JB's pediatrician visits a month or two ago - I tried to go back and find that link for you Anonymous but 260 blogs is a bit much to wade through. It was posted in December or January. Not extensive notes, but a list of dates and things JB was seen for - As for phone records, wouldn't that be nice?
Delete