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.

Friday, February 24, 2017

The Gospel According to Cherokee

Some posting here have mentioned a new book on the case, titled Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case, authored, supposedly, by a group calling itself "The True Crime Detectives Guild." After some hesitation I decided to get a copy and I've been reading it recently with some degree of interest. To my surprise, however, I discovered that the analysis of the ransom note presented therein looked very familiar. That portion of the book, as I instantly recognized, was authored by an old veteran of the Ramsey case forums calling him- or her- self "Cherokee." And I suspect that "Cherokee" is the author of the whole thing, not just that one portion. [After reading further, I found the following notice: "Ransom note analysis used by permission. Originally published by Cherokee at forumsforjustice.org, copyright 2003." Which implies that Cherokee is not necessarily the author of the entire document as I'd originally suspected. While Cherokee's analysis dates from 2003, the book itself is fully up-to-date, with references to recent developments, such as the release of the Grand Jury indictments, the updated DNA information, Burke's interview with Dr. Phil, etc.]

Some have commented recently on the analysis of the note presented in this book, which is one reason I was curious to get hold of it. Now, however, I see that this is nothing new.  In fact, I presented a fairly detailed critique of "Cherokee's" analysis some time ago on this blog. See here and here. I see no need to get into all that again since I've already dealt with this particular take on the note in those two posts. All I'll say for now is that Cherokee's analysis is imo superior to any of the others, as it is truly an attempt at analysis rather than the simple cherry picking of dubious "matches." But it is nevertheless deeply imbued with confirmation bias, as I believe I've been able to demonstrate. In any case, this is nothing new, as Cherokee's work was first presented on one of the forums many years ago. By the way, I'm sorry to say that his/her examples are no longer available on the Internet and the links I provided now go nowhere. To see what I'm referring to in my critique you'll need to get hold of the book.

240 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah I forgot it was just Mr and Mrs

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

      Delete
    2. This may be deleted by Doc, I'm going to risk it because it's my last post here. It's clear you despise whatever I say here CC and I would be offended if I hadn't seen you do it with others. I could name at least three, who are no longer posting here where you have gone on the offensive with. Other times we see the "nice" you, the pretense of being kind and gracious but it never lasts. One wonders what they have done to so mightily offend you and why you feel you need to guard dog this sacred site. No one laughed at your theory of sitting JB down in front of a bowl of pineapple, clearly we now know she had fruit cocktail. No one asked you to explain how fibers of John's shirt got in JB's crotch area when he couldn't have worn his shirt to bed, or gotten up and changed back into it. No one deletes your comments calling people crackpots. One wonders how such a busy attorney (even with cut down hours) can spend so much time, morning, noon and night on a blogsite. But I don't need this and I've never asked for credibility nor do I care what you think. Doc, it's been great off and on, thanks for the opportunity to work out 20 year old mystery. You provided a great environment for people to read and think for themselves if they wanted to use it. Group Think was not what you wanted so job well done. Harshness and rudeness and sarcasm is not what I want from above comments.

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

      Delete
  4. Read the thread on possible computer-generated tracing months ago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've decided not to delete the above posts as they raise meaningful issues despite the harsh words, and also because I want to encourage Inquisitive to continue posting here. CC, while we usually agree (though not always, obviously), and you are usually very civil, there are times when your impatience gets the best of you and you lash out. I do that from time to time myself, admittedly. But it's not an attitude I want to encourage. I hope you'll try to be more patient in future, especially since I value your participation in this forum so highly.

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

      Delete
  5. I noticed in "Listen Carefully..." that he/she uses only one example of John's writing and about 7 of Patsy's. I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's because only that one example of John's writing was available at the time Cherokee first produced that analysis. The exemplars John provided to the authorities have never been made public, so until very recently there's been very little to work with.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Doc. So would those exemplars given by John that were not made public seen by the grand jury? How could anyone come to the conclusion that Patsy most likely wrote the note without having the same amount of examples from John? It sure makes you wonder what the grand jurors know that the public does mot.

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doc/CC:

    Doc, I have to side with CC as to the time the garrote was applied. No only had rigor mortis set in, an odor of decomposition had been detected. The police arrived within 4-7 minutes after the 911 call--- not enough time to finish getting dressed, fashion and apply the garrote, ostensibly check for open doors and windows, and stage the broken window area. More likely, this was the time the argument, Burke heard his parents having, ensued. I think John was so angry with Patsy for having called the police, he had to apologize to her profusely to regain control of the situation, and to restore her confidence in him as the man of the house. So he takes it upon himself to be the one to explain to LE why "he" put their daughter in danger by ignoring the "kidnappers" warnings. Patsy sees this as John protecting her from developing a guilt-complex down a road "they" both hope not to travel. John, of course, has other plans. His outburst and "their" subsequent reconciliation provided John the much needed, and no doubt serendipitous, opportunity to deceive Patsy and the police by directing their suspicions away from him and towards an "intruder" whose "kidnapping" had gone wrong.

    CC, with all due respect, if John is the "monster" you claim him to be (and I believe he is)--a "monster" capable of fooling Doc--in my opinion, he's "monster" enough to have sexually abused JonBenet the night he murdered her.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me, but I was NOT fooled. Regardless of when John might have applied the "garotte" that was certainly a monstrous thing to do -- not to mention the monstrous head blow that preceded it. I don't claim to know when the garotte was applied but I do think it possible it could have been applied after the 911 call, yes. After the police arrived, and before the need to monitor the phone after 8 PM, there was time for John to slip into the basement for some staging, unnoticed in the confusion. And considering all the people milling about in that house the confusion would have been considerable.

      Delete
    2. Doc:
      I'm sorry you took umbrage at my comment; I never meant to imply that you were "fooled" by anyone or anything. To be honest, I don't have a great understanding of how or why a damn garotte is used anyway, whether it's for erotic asphyxiation or just to kill somebody. I'm intelligent and do a lot of things well, but put me on a sailboat with ropes, knots, pulley's and levers and I'm as lost as a sheep.

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. ....and I'm as lost as a sheep.

      ??? I guess I meant to say, "and I'm a lost sheep."

      Mike

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

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

      Delete
  8. Re John's handwriting

    At the beginning of the June '98 interview, Lou Smit refers to a handwritten letter from John to Alex Hunter. The letter was hand delivered by Bryan Morgan(John's atty.) What interested me was that Smit asked John if he would read the letter into the record because he couldn't read John's writing very well. Hmmm.... In the letter John speaks of wanting to cooperate, but that he and his family are suspicious of the police. He states he wants to make their position very clear. Don't you think that if a CEO of a company wanted to make his position clear he would type it? Was there another reason for sending this letter that was evidently hard to read, or am I being overly suspicious? K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting question. But I don't have an answer. Maybe John had his secretary do all the typing.

      Delete
    2. Whilst there is obviously no definitive answer, I think it's rather obvious to JDIs why he wrote an illegible, hand written letter to a detective working on the case.

      I don't think you're being overly suspicious, K.

      Delete
  9. Doc - I don't claim to know when the garotte was applied but I do think it possible it could have been applied after the 911 call, yes. After the police arrived, and before the need to monitor the phone after 8 PM, there was time for John to slip into the basement for some staging, unnoticed in the confusion. And considering all the people milling about in that house the confusion would have been considerable.

    ----> I think this is entirely possible. I think the staging was done very quickly or I believe there would be more care and control with the staging. For instance, the underwear would not be so large; there would be time to get her a pair that fit. Why wreck everything and put on a large pair of underwear that doesn't fit? And the broken piece of paint brush would probably not be used. They would probably try to find something that would work without being broken.
    The length and care of the RN does not add up with the carelessness of the staging.

    BUT....this does not mean it all points to JR. PR and JR could have hoped to get JBR's body out of their home during the bank visit. '

    I'd like to know:
    1. Who decided to call all the friends over to the house that morning? Was it JR who encouraged PR or was it just PR doing so without talking about it with JR? Since PR states that JR was reading the RN on the floor while PR was on the phone with 911, wouldn't he have tried to stop her from having all those people over? Also, having more people over the house would make it difficult for him to do what he wanted/needed regarding staging or getting JBR out of the house. I suppose since police were already called, maybe he would want the deflection of other people, but still, that would be just more eyes in that house? If there are people on this board who claim that JR was able to control PR in the years after JBR's death to the point she was brainwashed into never suspecting her husband, how is it that JR did not have control over PR at that crucial time around the 911 phone call? He could have told her to call 911 and friends back and say that the RN says to not call authorities or JBR will be killed. You can't have your JR persona theory all over the place. He can't be meek one minute then controlling and brainwashing and master manipulator the other minute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You raise some good questions, but in fact we have no way of knowing what went on between them before the police arrived. John might have initially suggested calling the friends as an alternative to calling 911. And Patsy might have then decided to do both. It's one of many possibilities, but we just don't know.

      And just because John was unable to stop her from calling 911 at a moment of acute distress and panic does not mean he wouldn't have been able to manipulate her in future, under very different circumstances.

      Delete
    2. Wait, the 8 PM mention, now I'm confused on this. Wasn't 8 pm the time the ME finally arrived? Was this supposed to be AM?

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I should have typed AM, not PM. Careless.

      Delete
    4. Exactly, Doc. There is no way of knowing ANYTHING that went on between them....at any point, that day or thereafter.

      Delete
    5. I thought you likely meant the morning, lol.
      I too don't want Inquisitive or anyone else to stop posting here.
      off topic, I plan to watch the WBC boxing match tonight, as it is in my city and Fox will air it, so will likely catch up with posts tomorrow.

      Delete
  10. Has the complete report by Arndt been released? I know she is said to have noticed a decomp smell. But wondered if she noticed a urine smell. Or noticed if Jonbenet's longjohns were still damp or if they had dried.
    For those that have the strangulation done after the house full of people, that changes the TOD. I've posted before of the people that day that were in the basement, did none of them notice the urine stain, either with sight or odor, on the carpet? Or was that part of the reason for the moving items and bags that day seen in the photos that BPD questioned John about, a bag or item moved to cover up the urine stain? I would think when noticed, someone took notes on whether the carpet and clothes were wet, damp, slightly damp, dry when she was brought up and whenever the carpet was noticed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've wondered about the urine outside the wine cellar too, Diamondlil.
      Do you know the source for this information? - I went looking recently and can't find mention of urine stain on the floor, just on JBR's clothes.
      Was it extrapolated from the clothing stains and entered into the folklore?
      Wouldn't FW have noticed the smell of it??

      b&b

      Delete
    2. It's been mentioned online for at least 5 years and may have been in Kolar's book too. This site has the crime scene photo of the carpet cut out
      https://shakedowntitle.com/2016/12/07/jonbenet-ramsey-case-insights-1-burkes-knife/

      And yes, I think most should notice the urine smell, unless the house or the basement area had a smell to it that the people downstairs didn't place it to one particular area. (I'm a bit in shock now, having read earlier that the actor Bill Paxton has died)

      Delete
  11. In regards to the discussion on the previous thread pertaining to the garrote and when it was applied, my personal belief is that John, when he was staging a murder by a foreign faction (when his plan was to dispose of JB's body), he most certainly would NOT have wanted to use any items that could be traced back to the house. He'd have been an idiot to use Patsy's paintbrush at that point - especially when a manual, ligature, strangulation would have sufficed just as well, and left no physical evidence other than the ligature wound (though I believe John was hoping JB's body would have decomposed by the time it was found, IF it was ever found). This is why I cannot accept that he used the garrote prior to the 911 call - which was the moment he was forced to scrap his entire "foreign faction" plan. I do accept the official JDI theory - that John strangled JB to death in the evening/early a.m hours 45 mins/ 2 hours after the head blow - but I believe the paintbrush handle was added to the cord during the staging, somewhere between the 911 call and discovery of the body, in a deliberate attempt to throw shade on Patsy - not because he had a desire to see his wife go down for their daughter's murder - but it looked like it was going to come down to only the two of them being suspects, and he certainly wasn't going to be the one to go down. He simply saw Patsy as "collateral damage", if you will. This is why he so eagerly handed over her note pad to LE - the notepad he probably would have destroyed if plan A had gone accordingly. John is not a stupid man, and he was well aware that when the police discovered Jonbenet's body in the basement that it was very unlikely the (now redundant) kidnapping ruse would be believed, so he began with, the hastily improvised, plan B. He'd had as long as eight days to organize plan A (the kidnapping), but he had to come with plan B on the fly, and I believe this is why the staging is so sloppy. He knew it was all pointing to an "inside job", and no amount of staging would change that, as JB's body WAS going to be discovered in their own home THAT day. So, with the kidnapping story now out of the question, John was faced with two choices: "Me or Patsy", and he chose Patsy. But implicating anyone at all who was close to him was not part of his original plan - the plan that involved disposing of JB's body without so much as a skerrick of evidence that could link her murder back to anyone in the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds very reasonable, Ms. D.
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. Ms D.. I wanted to share this with you. In regards to your comments on the previous thread about your anger at John's narcissistic behavior and that he's walking free today: it reminded me of his comment to Dr. Phil at the end of that show: " The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us." A chill went down my spine, and that was the day I became a firm JDI. I still have hope that this sweet baby girl will have justice in my lifetime.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Mrs B, I agree. When I heard those words, I got a rare glimpse of the real John - the narcissist who is always looking out for himself. His little girl was murdered, but what bothers him the most is the inconvenience it caused him. He killed Jonbenet solely to avoid being exposed as the monster he is, so I'm sure, in typical narcissistic fashion, he blames *her* for putting him in this situation to begin with. The man makes my blood run cold. He is evil personified.

      Delete
  12. PR stated that she stood outside on the porch while waiting for law enforcement to arrive after calling 911. Why is a woman whose child is kidnapped and being held for ransom by people who said to not call anyone or else JBR would die...standing outside on her porch if they were supposedly being watched. Wouldn't she be scared? Where was JR at that time? Wouldn't he be worried that his wife was outside where the kidnappers could see/get her?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, if Patsy didn't read past the first few lines as claimed, then she clearly didn't know she was being monitored, would she? Where was JR at the time? Beginning his staging, of course.....

      Delete
    2. In fact, it was probably John who told Patsy to wait outside so he could tidy up a few loose ends in the minutes before LE arrived!

      Delete
    3. No, Ms. D. PR stated to detectives later on that she went outside to wait for police and wondered to herself if the kidnappers would see her.

      Delete
    4. Yes which means she read the note.

      Delete
    5. Any source for this info? It's new to me.

      Delete
    6. I've never heard it before either and was very surprised. I've searched high and low and can't find Patsy saying anything that remotely indicates what she was doing in the minutes it took LE to arrive. So, yes, please cite your sources, Anon. I'm not suggesting Patsy didn't say it, I just can't find it, and would love to read the details. Thank you.

      Delete
    7. From PR's 1997 BPD interview:

      TT: Okay. The policeman arrives.
      TT: Who, who all was, where was John at the time that the officer arrived?
      PR: Oh, I don’t I don’t know. I remember I, I don’t know where he was. I walked out onto the front step there and I was just, I was just kind of out of it. I was hysterical.
      TT: Um hum.


      From PR's 1998 BPD interview:

      7 John went back up to get dressed.
      8 And I called them and told them
      9 that she's been kidnapped, she is missing. And
      10 then I walked out through here, and opened the
      11 door, and started waiting for -- front door --
      12 started waiting for the police to show up.
      13 (INAUDIBLE).
      14 I was standing on the (INAUDIBLE)
      15 and pretty soon a squad car came -- you know,
      16 officer came up. And I remember thinking
      17 because it said somewhere in the note, if you do
      18 that, if you call somebody, that's not good.
      19 Blah, blah, blah. And I just remembered
      20 thinking oh, my God, I hope they are not
      21 watching me. I mean, what if they are watching,
      22 if the policeman comes, I mean all this was just
      23 rushing through my head.

      Delete
    8. Whoops...I see this was already posted below.

      Delete
    9. 7 John went back up to get dressed.
      8 And I called them and told them
      9 that she's been kidnapped, she is missing.

      Yet another version of what happened prior to the 911 call. "John went back up to get dressed." And then she called 911. No mention of him on his hands and knees next to her at the time.

      Delete
  13. Ms D: So do you think John added all the other elements after the 911 call too---the blanket, the new panties, the heart on her hand? These items don't fit the image of a "foreign faction". If it was a "foreign faction" he wanted to stage, why not leave, along with the garrote, a completely naked corpse with a swastika drawn on its forehead?

    It seems to me we have to accept what Doc has consistently encouraged us to--that John's plans and actions were not devoid of mistakes.

    No one ever took a stab at presenting an opening argument in a mock trial of this case with John Ramsey as the defendant. I can't say I blame anyone. Just where do you begin? I'll start it off, but be easy on me, especially you CC!

    Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:

    Never before in the annals of criminal jurisprudence has there been a case like the one you are about to decide. The defense will attempt to dazzle you with an array of evidence none of which ties his client, John Ramsey, to the murder of his six year old daughter, JonBenet Ramsey. Fair enough. Thousands of murderers are currently spending their lives in prison, having been found guilty by a jury of their peers, based on circumstances only.
    But contrary to what you may have heard on crime shows, or read in books and magazines, there IS no such thing as "circumstantial evidence". There are facts, circumstances, and evidence. "Circumstances", and "facts" to an even greater degree, are indisputable. Evidence is subject to interpretation, which is why for one side or the other, the side of the defense in this case, the more the merrier.

    But, there is nothing amusing about the evidence you will see and listen to in the days ahead. It cannot, and should not, be avoided. My promise to you, however, is to challenge it, not so as to foist upon you any particular interpretation as to "what it may or may not mean"---you'll have plenty of opportunity to that when you meet in chambers---but to keep you focused on the facts and circumstances of this case, that inevitably leads to the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that John Ramsey did, on Christmas night, 1996, brutally murder his six year old daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, to keep her from speaking out about the sexual abuse he had been inflicting upon her, in the days, weeks, and--dare I say--months, leading up to that fateful night....

    (I'll stop here, though I'm aware I never explained how this case is unlike any other in history. I think only someone trained in law can do this....any thoughts CC?)



    Mike G

    Mike G


















    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You already know what I think, Mike - your interest in the law and this case is laudable, more power to you.

      To the extent you want a critique, an opening statement is not a closing argument. The former is a brief precis of the state's witnesses and evidence, an overview of what's to come, without much editorial comment. It's in the latter you can wax eloquent, pound on the podium, bring the jury to tears or rage. The opener is strictly business

      You go, guy.

      Delete
    2. Mike G - a juror doesn't consider the opening statements for the verdict, so the jury will want to see/hear the evidence of the days and weeks of abuse presented in the trial.

      I think that would be hard to have all the jurors come to that conclusion.

      Delete
    3. I like your opening statement, Mike. Well said.

      Delete
    4. "Ms D: So do you think John added all the other elements after the 911 call too---the blanket, the new panties, the heart on her hand? These items don't fit the image of a "foreign faction". If it was a "foreign faction" he wanted to stage, why not leave, along with the garrote, a completely naked corpse with a swastika drawn on its forehead?"

      Because, Mike, as I've pointed out many times on this blog, after the 911 call - which is when all the staging occurred imo, as no staging was necessary at that point because LE wouldn't be at the crime scene - he was *not* staging a murder by a foreign faction once that call was made. The kidnapping story was no longer going to fly because kidnappers don't leave their victims in the house. John was aware the cops would know it was a murder committed by a parent, so he made a snap decision to implicate Patsy as the guilty parent. Better she go down than him. *Hence* the heart - something patsy was known to have done from time to time (if, indeed the heart wasn't drawn on her hand at the xmas party by another child, or JB herself), Patsy's paintbrush (an extra "flourish" that wasn't even necessary to commit the murder, so one would wonder what it's true purpose was), John eagerly handing over Patsy's notepad (not the actions of a man trying to protect his wife if he knew she wrote the note), and John's being sure to tell Linda Arndt that it had to be "an inside job". If he was still pushing the FF ruse, why would he have directly pointed fingers at those closest to him? The fact he said it the moment he brought his dead daughter's body upstairs indicates he'd probably rehearsed it in the minutes/hours before, and was anxious to push the "inside job" scenario (a term he got straight from Mind Hunter). We all know an innocent man wouldn't say these words the moment he finds his brutally murdered daughter (if he was genuinely discovering her body, I'm pretty sure shock would have taken over and the "whodunnit" questions wouldn't have occurred till a bit later), but I don't believe that a man who is trying to blame a foreign faction would say it either, as it doesn't fit the narrative.

      Delete
    5. As far as the blanket and the panties are concerned - not staging.
      I believe John had wrapped her in the blanket, ready for transportation. The panties had obviously been placed on JB before her death, as they were soaked in urine.

      Delete
    6. Excuse me if I'm confused, Ms. D., but wouldn't John worry that if he wrapped her in the blanket from the dryer, the police would wonder how the kidnappers knew it was in there? Or would he just dispose of the blanket somewhere after he disposed of the body?

      Delete
    7. Sorry, Ms. D, in this case I completely disagree. First of all, there is nothing about the "garotte" that suggests the work of a loving mother. Just because it was made from her paintbrush doesn't mean she's the one who constructed it. And why would she have wanted to point to herself by using it? And John handed over both her notepad AND his. He was obviously trying to come across as "helpful."

      Also, I see no reason why John would have wanted to cast suspicion on anyone in the family, because that would have put him the picture as well. He staunchly defended Patsy from then to now for that very reason. His position has always been that an intruder did it, period. His "inside job" remark was clearly aimed at Linda, not his wife.

      And the panties were not necessarily "soaked in urine." According to the autopsy, "the underwear is urine stained." It may have been soaked in urine, but that's not what the ME wrote. If John changed her into the oversize panties prior to the 911 call, then I have to admit I have no idea why he'd have wanted to do that, since panties stained with semen could easily have been discarded if all had gone according to his original plan. Of course it's always possible she changed into them herself.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous, I do believe his intention was to get rid of ALL the evidence associating JBR's murder with the Ramsey home. I do think the purpose of the blanket was as a convenient wrapping of the body in preparation for moving it into his car. But after the 911 call there was probably no time to return it to the dryer so he had no choice but to keep her wrapped in it. There were only so many things he could have managed as his time was limited and he'd have had no idea if or when more police would arrive and start snooping around.

      Delete
    9. By the time the autopsy was performed, I would think most everything had dried, whether it be blood, mucus or urine. It would be the initial people that saw her body and handled her body to notice if her clothes were soaked or not. So it would be interesting to read those notes made, prior to the body finally getting to the morgue.

      The crime scene photos do sjow a very large stain on both the panties and her boys longjohns.

      So you are not definite that Jonbenet was in another pair of underwear prior to her death and discovery of the body? Or are you suggesting that she was sexually assaulted and then she changed her underwear herself before she was murdered? Because I thought your theory was always that John had removed the typical size underwear because of his semen, and got rid of that evidence.

      Delete
    10. "First of all, there is nothing about the "garotte" that suggests the work of a loving mother."

      Of course not. Because the strangulation occurred when John was still planning to dispose of the body and have it look like the work of a foreign faction. But, as it now stood, LE were in the house, they were going to discover her body, and it was patently obvious that JB had been strangled to death.....no amount of staging was going to cover up that fact. So I believe it is possible that the crude garrote-like device made using Patsy's paintbrush handle was added after the fact, purely because it belonged to Patsy, therefore might have taken some of the heat off John. At that point he knew either he or she would very likely be charged with JB's murder, so what did he have to lose? But, my initial belief, until CC suggested John was perhaps framing Patsy, or at least casting suspicion her way (damn you, CC!), has always been that he simply used the paintbrush handle because it was nearby during the staging and a garrote might look more like the work of a "foreign faction". If that is so, I still don't believe he killed her using the garrote, because there is no way he would have planned to dispose of her body with such damning evidence attached to her, evidence that pointed directly to the murder having been committed in the home. So, my take on this is - for whatever reason - the garrote had to be part of the staging.

      Delete
    11. John could easily have disposed of the "garotte" prior to dumping the body. No need to leave it attached to her neck. So as far as I'm concerned, both scenarios are possible. He may have applied the garotte on the night of the murder, possibly to enhance some sort of erotic fantasy. OR he might have applied it after the 911 call, to stage an attack by a psycho. I don't think we have any way of telling for sure.

      And lil: As far as the underpants are concerned, when I said JonBenet may have changed into them herself I was certainly not implying that she could have done that after the assault. Where on earth did you get that? It's possible she changed into them prior to the assault. I don't think that's likely but I do think it possible.

      Delete
    12. Because in most of your entries you have stated that John got rid of the original pair of underwear and then wiped her down. For you to now consider that she picked the oversized undies and put them on herself that do not contain any traces of semen, would suggest then no semen occurred close enough to those oversized panties and longjohns to leave trace evidence.

      Delete
    13. I don't believe I "stated" that, certainly not as a fact. It just seems to me the most likely scenario. But that does not rule out the possibility that JonBenet may have changed into the oversize pair herself, prior to the assault. I find that unlikely, since those panties would have been extremely uncomfortable, but we can't rule it out.

      Delete
  14. It's just crazy how the Boulder police cannot see what's in front of them. Do they not watch any of these interviews with John? Have they not noted these continual inconsistencies with this man? Too much emphasis is placed on Patsy's oddities and not enough on John's lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Classic misdirection. A magician palms a card right in front of your eyes, yet you don't see it. Once John was "ruled out," all eyes were on Patsy (now Burke) and nothing he did or said was properly scrutinized.

      Delete
    2. Darnay Hoffman aside, I'm still not sure how you can continue to maintain that John was ever entirely ruled out. Mark Beckner considered him a suspect in 1997, and the GJ returned an indictment against him a year or so later, indicating that Hunter and Kane must have had suspicions and presented some sort of evidence against him as well.

      Delete
    3. But we know the grand jury saw and heard evidence that the prosecution was offering to find probable cause and that the jury came back with true bills/indictments against both parents. And the grand jury *is* allowed to ask questions that are submitted to the prosecutor to ask the witnesses. So in that sense, John wasn't in the clear by that grand jury. It may not settle well with you and orhers that Patsy was as well, but the jury had to have seen more than the rest of us in the past 20 years to come to that decision.

      Delete
    4. Above was to Doc, was composing post before I saw CC's entry.

      Delete
    5. Both John and Patsy were certainly regarded as suspects when the grand jury convened and, of course, for a long time after that up to today. But based on the many sources I've read, once he was "ruled out" as writer of the note all the attention became focused on Patsy, both as writer of the note and killer. The Grand Jury indicted them both essentially as accessories.

      It's clear from the indictments that the GJ rejected Lou Smit's intruder theory. And that's all that's clear. My take on those indictments is that they're ambiguous because the GJ didn't have enough evidence to indict Patsy for murder but they felt sure both she and John were involved. We have no way of knowing whether they ever seriously suspected John of being the actual killer, but based on literally everything else that's ever been published on this case, the focus was consistently on Patsy, not John.

      Delete
  15. "But, there is nothing amusing about the evidence you will see and listen to in the days ahead"

    If they start hearing how John supposedly used the garrote after LE arrived, the jury will start laughing as if they're watching a George Carlin performance.

    He probably was doing some staging in the basement but that is going too far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have reason to believe the "garotte" was assembled in great haste. Torn out tufts of JBR's hair were entwined in the knotting, suggesting it must have been tied right on top of her unconscious body. If the strangulation had taken place the previous night, one would assume the device would have been assembled ahead of time, and then applied to the victim's neck.

      Of course, we don't have enough evidence to tell for sure when -- or why -- it was used. But I don't think we can rule out a last minute effort to stage an assault by an extremely violent pedophile.

      Delete
    2. I've seen you post that a number of times over the years, Doc, and I'm curious: What's your source for "tufts of JBR'S hair were entwined in the knotting"? Because the photos of it on acandyrose seem to show a tuft of hair, but it appears to be underneath the paintbrush, not entwined in the knot itself. There's a glimpse of paintbrush handle at the center of the knot, but I don't see any entwined hairs. Are there other, better photos?

      A true garrote has two handles. One really accomplishes nothing but an attempt to further suggest a "foreign faction".

      Delete
    3. From the autopsy:

      "Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as on the cord wrapped around the wooden stick." See these photos: https://nightlurkers.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/paint-brush-and-rope-used-on-jonbenet-jpg.jpg

      Delete
    4. Why is that going too far, Tracey B? No one is suggesting that JonBenet was still alive and strangled after LE arrived.....where do you stand, BDI, RDI, IDI, PDI or JDI?

      Delete
  16. Inquisitive, I hope you reconsider your decision. I enjoy your posts and will miss having you around, especially now that you've switched to the JDI camp!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  17. that comment wasn't necessary.I believe she contributed much to keep discussion going as she certainly was able to get the original followers of the blog to reply to many of her posts. She certainly is no internet wallflower and seemed to delve into the old and the most current news and articles on the case.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ms. D and Doc:

    June 23, 1998 - PR interview with the Boulder Police Dept.

    PR: I was trying to get

    24 this 911 person to -- it just seemed like it

    25 took forever, to drag through, you know, crazy

    0011

    1 by that time.

    2 Anyway, got the message across, she

    3 said she would send somebody out, and oh, God in

    4 heaven. Oh, then I phone -- called our friends,

    5 Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White and Mr. and

    6 Mrs. Johnson, they live in Boulder. I think

    7 John went back up to get dressed.

    8 And I called them and told them

    9 that she's been kidnapped, she is missing. And

    10 then I walked out through here, and opened the

    11 door, and started waiting for -- front door --

    12 started waiting for the police to show up.

    13 (INAUDIBLE).

    14 I was standing on the (INAUDIBLE)

    15 and pretty soon a squad car came -- you know,

    16 officer came up. And I remember thinking

    17 because it said somewhere in the note, if you do

    18 that, if you call somebody, that's not good.

    19 Blah, blah, blah. And I just remembered

    20 thinking oh, my God, I hope they are not

    21 watching me. I mean, what if they are watching,

    22 if the policeman comes, I mean all this was just

    23 rushing through my head.

    24 Anyway, he came in and -- and I was

    25 just rattled. I think John came in, and I think

    0012

    1 he kind of walked us over to this sun room area,

    2 and tried to -- tried to calm us down and, you

    3 know, tried to explain what happened. And then

    4 they kind of took over."


    Blah Blah Blah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know Beckner, in his reddit q &a, also spoke about being suspicious of how rattled Patsy was when uniformed police arrived in a marked car. But I actually believe that someone with no experience of how the police force actually works would imagine some specialist, surrepticious kidnapping team being sent. It's how things seem to happen on the tele. So I don't see this as suspicious, just naive. And John might not have known to expect that ignorance on Patsy's part, so he didn't think she'd call 911 with the threats in the note.

      b&b

      Delete
    2. Thanks, anonymous. Very interesting. Looks like Patsy certainly did contradict herself. She said at one point that she never went beyond the first few lines of the note, but here she's admitting that she did in fact read those dire warnings ("blah blah blah").

      Does that tell us she wrote them?

      If she'd been involved in the staging you'd think she'd have made more of an effort to be consistent. It sounds to me as though she was embarrassed or at least conflicted over her decision to call for help despite the warnings. That comes through pretty clearly in the above statement, which to me expresses confusion more than anything else.

      If she herself had written the note, and included all those very dire and disturbing warnings, then as I see it she certainly would NOT have called the police first thing the next morning, in direct contradiction of the warnings she herself had placed in the note. That would make no sense at all.

      While it may be difficult to understand why she would call the police after having read those warnings, it's much more difficult to understand why she would have included all those warnings in the first place if her intention had been to call the police after all.

      So yes, I do see an element of deception in her denial that she read the entire note, but I'd put that down to embarrassment at having ignored those warnings and called 911 in spite of them. She may have called more out of concern for her own safety than that of her child's, which would certainly be hard for her to admit.

      Delete
    3. Doc, IMO, her putting those warnings in the ransom note are purely to convey what she thinks a ransom note is supposed to look like. I wouldn't look to far into her heeding her own warnings.

      Delete
    4. Or, Doc, it's possible that upon finding the note, she did only read through the first few lines before calling 911, but read through the rest of it after making the call.
      Maybe a bit of a stretch.....in all honesty, the transcript above is slightly disturbing. Certainly no smoking gun though, and I'm not about to change my position just yet! Thanks for the information, Anon.

      Delete
    5. That's also possible, Ms. D. Hadn't thought of that. Patsy certainly seems to have had second thoughts on several issues and yes that's disturbing. Is it evidence of complicity to cover up the murder of her daughter? That too is a stretch.

      If we want to fault Patsy for calling the police in spite of the warnings in the note, then what about the police, who, against all protocols for handling a kidnapping, showed up in marked police cars and full uniforms. Does that make them guilty too?

      Delete
  19. I still find it so hard to believe that Patsy wasn't involved. She's a smart woman. With the sexual abuse allegations and everything else, I feel like she would put two and two together and realize it was John.

    To me, Burke makes the most sense. If he was responsible for her death, everything that ensued would make complete sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Staging a kidnapping by writing a three page ransom note, even though they're actually staging a murder by a pedophile intruder, therefore making the note redundant, makes the most sense to you, Gumshoe?

      Delete
    2. Ms D, if you factor in Burke as the perpetrator, then yes, all of that makes sense.

      Delete
    3. How does staging a murder by a pedophile intruder, but writing a ransom note suggesting it is actually a kidnapping make sense if Burke is the perpetrator, Gumshoe? I'm confused.

      Delete
    4. Gumshoe, I agree that Patsy was a smart woman. So why would a smart woman go to all the trouble to stage a kidnapping by writing a long, detailed ransom note, and then call the police before making sure to get rid of the victim's body, thus negating the staging in her note?

      Delete
  20. Gumshoe….DING DING

    In order for Patsy to NOT be involved which is what HAS to be the case for JDI, you have to be willing to make a lot of concessions for her behavior. That coupled with Burke’s beyond odd reaction to the detective asking him about the pineapple bowl, along with the timing of his Dr. Phil interview, there is a lot of smoke pointing to Burke and Patsy. Honestly I haven’t commented on here in a while and part of the reason was because I don’t have anything new to add. I have zero doubt in my mind that Burke committed the head blow. Some on here tweak their theory over and over to support their theory and I just don’t want to do that. Some on here just will never believe that two parents would cover up a crime for their child instead of calling 911 and that’s fine.

    In the end I think there is a lot of odd evidence in this case and to try and explain every piece would just be insane. From what I have read and the interviews that we were able to see, Burke Ramsey was an odd kid and still seems odd today. I think he was jealous of his sister and even more jealous of the affection JBR was given from his Mom. I don’t think the head blow was intended to kill her, but it did. The sexual abuse had been going on for some time by Burke which is why Patsy wasn’t alarmed by it….she was aware of it. The staging was horrible, but clearly what happened to JBR was horrible and I don’t think all the staging was just for staging sake. Burke could have poked and prodded her for a while before getting help….we will never know. I am glad I have reached a place that I don’t need to post regularly on here anymore because I have come to peace with how I feel it happened. Hopefully one day we will get definitive answers proving once and for all who did this.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J, I agree with you and I enjoy reading your posts. BDI with the parents coveting makes the most sense to me. I don't think any of the theories fully make sense but it's just reply hard to believe Patsy didn't know what was going on. I don't think anyone wanted JonBenet dead. I think it was a horrible accident. I hope we know the truth someday, no matter what it is.

      Delete
    2. Hey Megan....thanks!
      I think the night she died was just a horrible accident and wasn't a pre planned murder to shut her up. Hopefully one day there will be smoking gun type evidence that gives us a definitive answer.

      -J

      Delete
    3. J, tying a garrote around someone's neck so tight, it embeds itself in the victim's neck and causes death, is not accidental in any way, shape, or form. This is why the "Burke accidentally killed his sister" scenario can't ever be reasonably considered - because fashioning, placing and tightening a garrote until breathing ceases requires premeditation and intent! I think you either have to accept that Burke did ALL of it, or he did none of it.

      Delete
  21. Here's my attempt at a theory as to what happened that night.

    They all get home from the White's. There is some kind of argument or fight that takes place between Burke and JBR. This would explain why the parents lied about such an innocuous part of the night saying they put them both to bed. The truth would immediately give a motive for an attack (deliberate or not). I think Burke struck her with something and I also think he tried to choke her with her own shirt collar. This would explain the marks under the ligature wound. I think John then fastened the knot on the paintbrush to make it look more sophisticated like an intruder's work. I'm not completely against the notion that Burke could have done this part as well. But Burke's actions in his interviews could not be more bizarre. I know we all grieve differently but no way in hell a 9 year old "just wants to move on with his life" after his 6 year old sister was murdered in their house. Also, no way in hell a 9 year old isn't beyond terrified of a killer being out there on the loose.

    The BDI theory, to me, explains everything that happened on 12/26/96 and onward. The Ramseys immediately put up a wall of big priced attorneys, public relation specialists, and even their friends and pastor. They were willing to be crucified in the court of public opinion if it meant saving Burke, and the family's name, from the real demons that were in that house. This fits the profile better of John and Patsy more so than John being a pedophile to his own 6 year old daughter.

    I realize every theory has major holes in it so feel free to fire away at this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This fits the profile better of John and Patsy more so than John being a pedophile to his own 6 year old daughter."

      Why? Why does it seem more likely to you that a 9 year old was sexually molesting his own 6 year old sister when we know fathers molest their children all too frequently?

      LE believes the killer wrote the note.....do you believe Burke wrote the note?
      Look at who wrote the RN.
      Look at who did the staging.
      Look at who had the most to lose if JB revealed the abuse.
      Look at who the RN was addressed to.
      Look at the instructions of the note and what they tell us.
      If you believe Patsy is the one responsible - though I disagree - it's a reasonable conclusion, but we know Burke did not do the staging, nor did he write the note, so logic tells us he is probably not JB's killer.

      Delete
    2. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that John was a sexually abusive father. If you look up statistics on the matter, almost always the abusive father was abused as a child. These types rarely go on to be successful CEOs due to a variety of social disorders.

      Also, tell me why Patsy was wearing no the same clothes the next day, and also had her hair and makeup done. Tell me why John told Patsy to call the police. Tell me why Patsy shows hardly any signs of grieving and almost comes off as defiant in all her interviews.

      I also find it hard to believe that John would do all of this while Patsy sleeps, only to get to the most important part, disposing of the body, and say to himself "nah, I'll just worry about that in the morning. I need to get some sleep."

      Lastly, when I look at the ransom note with my own eyes and look at Patsy's handwriting, it doesn't leave much question as to who wrote the note. It's no coincidence that Patsy changed her handwriting afterwards.

      Delete
    3. Patsy having the same clothing on the next morning as well as her make up on was a big sticking point for me, and I still can't account for that. However when we consider all of the possibilities surrounding this case, and it is a unique case, the question to ask as with any investigation is what is the likely probability that a woman who had accidentally killed her child, or believed her dead, would then strangle her and write a note. Or that a child who accidentally killed his sister would have then been put to bed while one or both parents strangled their daughter and wrote a note. It's possible, but not probable.

      Delete
    4. "There is absolutely nothing to suggest that John was a sexually abusive father."

      There is absolutely nothing to suggest Burke was a sexually abusive brother, so your point is moot.

      "If you look up statistics on the matter, almost always the abusive father was abused as a child. These types rarely go on to be successful CEOs due to a variety of social disorders."

      A. Please provide your source citing the statistics showing that abusers don't become CEOs.
      B. I don't think John was your typically abusive father. There is nothing to suggest he abused his other daughters. I think he began to develop inappropriate feelings towards his daughter after seeing her in the pageants. He had a fetish for beauty queens and seeing her looking like a young, seductive woman, triggered something in him. Something that might never have been awakened otherwise. I have read other cases where a father will begin touching only one of his children later on in life. As Inquisitive said in another comment, I don't believe John was a pedophile per se - I believe, in his own warped way, he had a perverse "love" for JonBenet (exclusively).

      "Also, tell me why Patsy was wearing the same clothes the next day, and also had her hair and makeup done."

      We have told you why. Many times. She put on her clothes from the day before because she had very little preparation time. She did her hair and make up upon waking because she was meeting with family, and no doubt it was simply a part of her morning routine. There is nothing remotely suspicious about a woman doing her her and make up before leaving for an outing. Conversely, why would a woman who was up all night committing murder still have pristine make up, Gumshoe? You don't think she would have cried buckets of tears after murdering the daughter she loved? And why didn't she shower and put the clothes she was wearing during the murder in the washing machine in order to remove evidence which would seem the most sensible thing to do? John certainly was wise enough to shower.....

      "Tell me why John told Patsy to call the police."

      Did he? The story changes.....initially Patsy stated SHE told HIM she was calling the police.

      "Tell me why Patsy shows hardly any signs of grieving and almost comes off as defiant in all her interviews."

      Absolutely untrue. Patsy was in such a state of grief that her friends had to BATHE her, Gumshoe. They had to prop her up because she could barely walk. She was an absolute basket case, and your comment that she didn't show signs of grief is patently, demonstrably, false. The interviews where she is coming across as "defiant" came much later, and if you were being accused of strangling your beloved daughter to death, I believe you might take issue with such an accusation also.


      "I also find it hard to believe that John would do all of this while Patsy sleeps, only to get to the most important part, disposing of the body, and say to himself "nah, I'll just worry about that in the morning. I need to get some sleep." "

      Now, you've been here long enough to know that is not REMOTELY what anyone says he did. You are well aware of the reasons he decided not to dispose of the body that night/morning, so you're being intentionally disingenuous with that statement.

      "Lastly, when I look at the ransom note with my own eyes and look at Patsy's handwriting, it doesn't leave much question as to who wrote the note."

      How many times have you compared the handwriting in the note to John Ramsey's?

      "It's no coincidence that Patsy changed her handwriting afterwards."

      A claim made by Steve Thomas, wasn't it? The same guy who made a lot of money by writing a book claiming Patsy is guilty.

      Delete
    5. Whew, boy! Point by point. I think when we think about what he did it has our blood boil. I truly think that Patsy provided John with a good cover especially when they went on CNN. She could be emotional and distraught while he could be himself - emotionally distant - and appear to be in a supportive role as he knew she was more a suspect than he was. The united front. As she made her pleas that they did not do this, she could include his innocence in with hers on national television. He didn't have to do or say much of anything. Someone asked in here a while back how could she not suspect her husband and continue to live with him. My answer to that is what would be worse than your daughter being murdered. Being murdered by your husband. Easier to believe it was an intruder.

      Delete
    6. There is no evidence that Patsy changed her handwriting. Thomas claimed she stopped using manuscript "a" after the murder but that is untrue, as I've demonstrated here.

      Delete
  22. Lil and Ms D, thanks for your comments. And I have no intentions of switching again Ms D, so yes, we can continue to support each other with whatever we dig up or observe to be true in here with JDI :) Looking at John now as lone perpetrator rather than helping Patsy stage puts it's all in perspective. And ruling out an accident - you can begin to see how every time he was interviewed he sought to misdirect. But here's what I found last night from The Boulder News Ramsey Archive Case Chronology. Granted, it's old, but most of the articles printed in the Boulder News can be accessed on this website, although not all. If some of you already know about it, I didn't so I found it interesting. It was like a play by play as the case developed (they also spent 1.5 million investigating it). Here is the link:

    web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/chronology/index9701.html

    Doc, you said early on John was eliminated from writing the ransom note, which then caused everyone that believed there was no intruder, to head in the direction of Patsy. How right you were. Less than 3 months after the murder he was cleared from having written the note. Less than 3 months! Pertaining to that, headlines read:

    3/8/97 - Ransom note author was likely female, sources say
    3/14/97 - Sources close to the investigation say JR did not write the ransom note.
    3/15/97 JonBenet's dad didn't write note

    In an article written by Clay Evans he says "two groups of handwriting experts, one from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the other HIRED BY THE RAMSEY FAMILY, have reached that conclusion." Now isn't that interesting. John's own handwriting team cleared John. Yet they couldn't rule out Patsy. In the court of public perception do you know what that did? It sent the investigation in other areas and away from John. Afterall, it was printed in the Boulder newspaper. Beckner didn't come on the scene until 1998, by then no one would have suspected John of writing the note.

    Now something else of interest - same website.

    Jan. 4 police finish their 10-day search of the family home. 1/4/97 - Ransom notepad found - tablet found in home offers clue in Ramsey murder probe. And 1/8/97 - "practice" note found. Interesting because I thought John handed Patsy's white lined paper pad over to LE on the 26th of Dec., 1996. This article says they found it in their search. So he didn't hand it over? It makes sense that he didn't. He would have wanted to not handle the evidence or be THAT helpful. Once they analyzed the pad they could clearly see indentations from the pen enough to know that the note was written from that pad - which then caused speculation that the intruder wrote it beforehand, or grabbed Patsy's pad and wrote it on the fly, which then caused them to think it had to be someone in the home and since John was ruled out in March - you know the rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. December 26 - Jan. 4 is less than ten days. so that particular chronology makes no sense. However if they found the notepad when this article was printed where they state Jan. 4 it was found, it still stands that John did not hand it to them.

      Delete
    2. From all reports John did hand them that pad, along with his own pad, on the 26th. It probably wasn't made public until later. Aside from that I think you've got it right, Inq. Finally.

      No point in not handing them the pad since he knew they'd be examining it anyhow.

      Interesting that the same thing was said about the DNA evidence as was said about John's handwriting. The handwriting ruled out John and the DNA ruled out "the Ramseys." However, the DNA was re-examined, as we know, but NOT John's handwriting. For some reason that opinion still seems utterly beyond question to just about everyone in both LE and the media.

      To me the most convincing evidence that Burke wasn't involved was the fact that Patsy made the 911 call, which she would not have made if she'd been covering for whoever killed her daughter. And the notion that Burke could have done this without his mother knowing about it is absurd. One more absurdity to attach to all the other absurd elements of the CBS fantasy.

      Delete
    3. Going back to the Ramsey case files chronicled in above link I provided I see that you can access all of the articles. Clicking on a month block of time opens up a tab so that when you want to view an article individually, click on it, then back up to the tab and you can read the article. You can see the warrants for removing items from the Ramsey home, you can read how the Ramsey's requested the questions in advance of their first sit down interview, and you can read what the ME said outloud that Linda Arnt overheard that didn't make it into his report. This may all be old news to most of you but it wasn't to me. There is also the pronouncement by Dr. Wecht that the headblow was a "cover" for the strangulation, and thus came second. And Doc, I know you hold Dr. Wecht in high regard, but that is a differing opinion than yours, correct?

      Delete
    4. Yes, I've referred often to Dr. Wecht's opinion. I hold him in high regard not only because of his stellar reputation, but also because he's such a fine and generous gentleman, as I've learned over the years on the few occasions I've contacted him with questions and thoughts of my own.

      We agree that John is the most likely culprit. For Wecht this conclusion is a direct result of his analysis of the autopsy, which reveals strong evidence of prior molestation. Wecht never wasted time considering the possibility that Burke could have done this, but, on the basis of his many years of experience in such matters, zeroed in on John.

      As far as the sequence of events is concerned, however, I concur with the opinion of the majority of forensic experts, who feel sure the head blow came first. Wecht focused on the similarity of the "garotte" strangulation to the many instances of erotic strangulation he's encountered. However:

      1. strangulation with a narrow cord is NOT erotic.

      2. tufts of JonBenet's hair were entwined with the knotting in this device, telling us it was constructed right on top of her. If she'd been conscious at the time her struggles would have made it impossible to tie the knot.

      3. and of course we also need to consider the brain swelling, which was the principal reason why most of the experts decided the head blow must have come first.

      Delete
    5. Okay, thanks I appreciate your answer. Didn't Dr. Wecht also say she was digitally assaulted that night - same thing by the way the coroner said out loud when Linda Arnt heard him say it, even though it did not make it into his ME report. I also don't think JR was a pedophile. He committed incest, how many times or how frequently we don't know - if there were other abusers who would have come into close contact with JB and abused her, it's possible. Again using the words possible and probable, certainly it's possible, but not probable. John was likely the one.

      Delete
    6. Doc, Wecht's book also seems to insensate that the strangulation came first due to the small amount of blood in or around her brain.

      Delete
    7. Yes, Wecht emphasized the small amount of blood found in the cranium and the other experts emphasized the swelling of the brain, which would not have occurred after death. The deciding factors for me were the ones I listed above as items 1 and 2.

      Delete
  23. Welcome back, J.

    "Some on here just will never believe that two parents would cover up a crime for their child instead of calling 911 and that’s fine."

    To be fair, that is because no one has ever given a satisfactory reason as to why two, loving parents, would willingly just sit around twiddling their thumbs whilst watching their daughter die.
    They'd both have to be monsters with no regard for their children if they did that.....which begs the question, why would such unfeeling parents go out of their way to protect the other child? Give us a logical reason, J. Your theory requires that question be answered if it is ever to be even considered as a possibility. The reasons as to why two parents make an active decision to not save their daughter is paramount for your theory to work. Please don't answer with a question as you're oft inclined to do - ask your own questions after you've at least attempted to answer mine adequately and logically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Ms D
      This is all my opinion obviously and I do hate to speculate as this case is so troubling but here is my answer to your question

      The covering for Burke by JR and PR started long before that fateful night. His acting out was explained away by the Ramsey's to maintain their image as a happy family. Surely they wanted JBR the cute pageant princess to be the face of the Ramsey children, while awkward Burke was in the background. Whether it was odd behavior or his sexual curiosity towards his sister, JR and PR always thought it best to sweep it under the rug while trying to get Burke help away from friends and family. What happened that night might have been the culmination of Burke's acting out and we will never know how long after the head blow he went to get help so I won't even guess. But, it was long enough that the damage was done and John and Patsy had to make a decision on cover up or 911. I don't believe they would have known the age limit to be charged in the state, so their mindset would have been cover up.
      For the record I am aware that most on this blog including myself would have called 911 if met with the same situation. But none of us are John or Patsy Ramsey and none of us were in that house in the years leading up to the night she was killed. If there is one thing I have learned is that nobody truly knows what goes on inside other people's homes. I am aware you don't agree with me but I am also not trying to dodge your question. I hope you feel I answered it despite your feelings on the case

      -J

      Delete
    2. Thank you, J, I appreciate you taking the time to compose a thought out response. My problem is that, two parents covering for a child would surely stage an accident rather than a crime, don't you think? By staging a phony kidnapping, they are actually ensuring a crime investigation, which would seem to be counter productive if it's Burke crime they're covering for, don't you think?

      Delete
    3. It's a totally fair point Ms D. I get the skepticism
      There is sooooo much about this case that I just wish I had definitive answers for and I don't. As I have said I was a JDI for a long time on here. I reached out to a 48 hours correspondent ( E. Moriarty) who covered this case and asked for her thoughts on docs theory. She wrote me back and said she knows A LOT about this case and didn't buy the theory. It got me thinking about everything I thought because she was close to the case thru work and I couldn't figure out why she didn't believe John did it. Then somewhere along the way I was just convinced that Patsy was involved whether it was in all the cover up or just aware of what happened. I never felt she did it, nor did I think she would ever cover for John, so that left 1 person.....Burke. The only thing holding me back was the force needed for the head blow and then I got the proof I needed on that. So I know is long winded but it's how I got to where I did with my belief of who I think did it. No theory covers the bases of all the evidence which is so frustrating, but I have come to grips that we just won't have all the answers......:well, I have the answers but just waiting for the rest of you :-)

      -J

      Delete
    4. The problem is, J, your entire theory hinges on the alleged fact that two, loving parents made the decision to assist their son in killing their own daughter. That you have no answer as to why is inadequate, because your theory absolutely necessitates you to present a reasonable scenario as to the WHY. Otherwise, your theory requires us to believe, with not a speck of evidence or plausible motive whatsoever, that two parents who love their children - Burke more so. Enough that they are both willing to sacrifice his sister for his well being - would let her die, or even actively assist in her death. The WHY being unaccounted for is the weak spot of the BDI theory and it MUST be answered. BDI revolves around motive (Burke's motive but most importantly, John and Patsy's) and it is an issue BDIs always skirt around.

      Delete
    5. Yes Ms D, and that is the BIG gaping hole in the BDI scenarios. He could have struck a blow - but then what?

      Delete
    6. "He could have struck a blow - but then what?"

      Well, I'm hoping J will clue us in, Inq ;)
      Because BDIs avoid the motivation behind the garroting and the subsequent cover up like the plague.....they know they cannot offer a viable explanation. The Ramsey's motivation MUST be accounted for, BDI cannot work without it.

      Delete
  24. I don't know how normal it is to talk - a mere year later - like this about the moments when you are voiding the contents of a ransom note that a killer who has your child wrote.....if you BELIEVE the intruder theory. Who says "blah blah blah" and is so casual about the fact that you could very well be outside in view of the killers who could murder your daughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. The way Patsy acts in her interviews, especially during the deposition for the civil case, is inexcusable.

      Delete
    2. Patsy said she was "just kind of out of it" and I believe her. When you are in a panic you are not thinking rationally. On the other hand, when you are being deliberately deceptive you ARE thinking rationally. You have to be very careful about what you say and do. So what you perceive as "casual" behavior on Patsy's part is NOT consistent with guilt, because someone involved in deliberate deception would want to play the part. If she had placed those warnings in the note, and had decided to call the police in spite of her own warnings, then she would have had a better and more consistent explanation prepared as to why she'd have done such an apparently reckless thing. And she would certainly not have stood on the porch waiting for the police.

      You are suspicious because you disapprove of Patsy's behavior, which seems indifferent to those threats. You imply that if she truly thought her daughter had been kidnapped she'd have acted more cautiously. But on the other hand, if she wanted everyone to believe that this is what she thought, she would also have acted more cautiously. Thus, while we may wonder why Patsy apparently ignored the warnings in the note, that is NOT evidence of guilt, but in fact suggests innocence. Because a guilty person acting out a role would certainly have paid attention to those threats and acted as though they were real.

      Seems clear to me that Patsy was in a panic and "out of it," just as she said.

      Delete
  25. I'm a daily lurker, but rarely post. I was thinking of something today randomly at work.

    If John is the sociopath, narcissistic we're to believe then what did getting away with murder due to his personality? Imagine getting away with murder, and knowing that although you're under the umbrella of suspicion, most of the blame is focused on another family member or intruder. There have been countless books, interviews, and movies based off of the murder you committed. But you were never charged or even seriously considered as a suspect. I'd imagine you'd be very cocky, and feel untouchable. I bet John counts his lucky stars every day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only cocky Zachary, but continuing to play the role of the "much maligned" by the press - doing a few interviews here and there when attention is turned again to this case but never really sure that someone somewhere might start a new investigation.

      Delete
  26. Howdy J. Glad to see you still see the most rationale and down to earth theory.



    If it was proven that Burke did NOT deliver that head blow, I will probably faint in disbelief.

    Burke hit her.
    She died.
    Parents covered (many reasons why they would do this).
    Simple as that.

    Going off on all these JDI theory tangents (because he was a pedophile) is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The thing is, no one knows what went on in that home the night JBR was murdered. There could have been an accident and only BR was there...sitting with his sister, waiting for her to wake up before going to get his parents. Maybe JR and PR didn't know what happened to JBR until the morning. Maybe the entire night was spent with JR and PR trying to figure out ways to dispose of JBR's body without anyone knowing/seeing. Maybe the RN was not written until much later when they realized that nothing was going to work for them to be able to get JBR's body out of the house.

    I agree with what someone above said...that PR could have written the note with wording she thought a RN would include. The RN is full of dramatics. They could have easily written one that said "we have your daughter. give us money and you will get her back". Plain and simple....no need for a three page note.

    I have stated this before, just because the RN says to not call the police, does not mean it wasn't set up that way to explain the eventual finding of their dead daughter in their home. It is actually very clever to include wording to not call the police or JBR dies....because if they had a simple RN that said something simple such as "we have your daughter, give us money or she dies", and police STILL find a dead body in the basement, then that leaves more unanswered questions. Disregarding the note that states "call anyone and she dies", behooves them because it could give an explanation for her death...which DID seem to work for them, didn't it.

    Or, like others have stated, the RN was designed to get JR out of the house long enough to dump JBR's body....but then the big question is why did PR call 911? Maybe they felt it was the least risky thing to do in the long run and scrapped the plan to try to get JBR out of the house.

    In the 1998 police interview with PR, she seems more emotional about the 911 call than she does about having called the cops and realized she could be putting her daughter's life in danger because she disobeyed the RN. That is probably because she had to put on an act during that call and continued the act in her re-telling of the details. There is no emotion when she re-tells the part about her potentially putting her daughter's life at risk by going outside (she even says "blah blah blah" to describe the fact that she was not following the RN. Since she supported the IDI theory, she has not emotion that she could have done something that resulted in the murder of her daughter.

    In fact PR during this interview, does not seem concerned that a "killer" who targeted her family is still on the loose. It just seems altogether dropped and poses no concern for her and BR. There is no discussion over how the "kidnapping" became botched, with JBR never being taken out of the home, and why there was no call from the "kidnapper". All the focus is on their (PR/JR/BR)actions of that night/following day.

    ReplyDelete
  28. PR and JR were never concerned about an intruder. That was proven when they allowed their son to leave their house unaccompanied by police escort, while their daughter was kidnapped and being held for ransom. Not to mention that their every move was being watched.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is another good point. If one of my children was murdered in my home, no way in hell im letting the other one leave my sight, even with close friends.

      Also, I find it beyond odd that both Patsy and John peeked in Burke's room and saw he was asleep. Then just shut the door and called police. Does that sound normal to you? This shows both parents knew what was going on. If one child is "taken" from the house, I imagine you'd be beyond protective of the other and not just leave him in his room sleeping.

      Delete
    2. Gumshoe this is just more evidence of John directing this show, if you will. Pandemonium would have existed in the seconds after she read the note. What else would a mother have done - get her son out of bed and run screaming into the street? Patsy would want the police to handle this, and then later, around 7 a.m. John gets Burke up and tells him that his sister has been kidnapped and has him removed at that time. Not likely the kidnapper is coming back, not with JB hidden away somewhere waiting for a money drop - not coming back for Burke. And of course John knew there was no kidnapper at all. So he can calmly direct this show.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Inquisitive, why would Patsy even consider that the kidnappers would return to the scene of the crime? They already had what they came for - JonBenet - there's no way they'd risk being caught by coming back for Burke, especially now that the authorities had been called.

      Delete
  29. Is it possible that John may have intended to remove the body early that morning, possibly after the head blow, but she was still alive so he had to do a completion task that took time, so he adjusted his plan by making that task look like something an intruder would have done, and then wrote the note deciding to hide her body at least until he could figure out how to get it out of there. Not wanting Patsy to find her body the note was intended to provide cover and distraction to Patsy, having her think there was a kidnapping. I know you already said this Doc. With one adjustment - I think the note was an hasty backup as he was making plans to bundle her up and remove her when he saw that she was still alive. The garrotting then had to take place and time ran out for him to remove the body - or he came up with his "stage it to look like an intruder" scene. This is why for some of us the head blow just didn't fit with the secondary crime of strangulation. He had to use what was nearby in order to do this in the paint tote and whatever cord was close by and it had to be done quickly. We've wondered why so long between headblow and strangulation. Because during that time lapse he was making plans to transport her out of the house, but she possibly came to or showed signs of life. Then he used up all remaining time writing a note and strangling her, placing the note on the stairs for Patsy to find and got back into bed or into the shower one or the other. As you said Doc, the headblow was merciful, but the rest of it was not - because he thought the headblow would have been enough. I can let this one go, it just explains why he had to abort his removal of the body. He may have even still hoped to do so, but calling 911 put an end to that, hence back and forth to the basement to go with Plan B.

    If Patsy had been in on this or if he had helped Patsy after an accident of some sort then he would have had no problem getting JB out of the house as Patsy would have been the cover. If neighbor's had noticed his car pulling out of the driveway at some early hour Patsy could revise the story to include that John drove around trying to find if she had wandered off. But all of her reactions upon finding the note tells us that she was not in on this and had no knowledge of it. She's even afraid she did the wrong thing by calling LE as evidenced by Anonymous's 1998 interview with Patsy. She was terrified she did the wrong thing. Not the behavior of someone who planned to do the wrong thing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I find it difficult to believe that JR would stage the crime scene while people were upstairs in the house along with the police. At any time, someone could have walked down there.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so because I don't think there was anything rushed about that entire crime scene including the RN.
      Whoever it was, knew they had lots of time to spend in that house without worry of being discovered.

      EG

      Delete
    2. At the time the only police officer was detective Arndt, who had herded everyone into a single room on the first floor. John knew that when he disappeared from her sight and must have felt confident that she and the others wouldn't be wandering around the house. And yes, Zach, he also had no choice and had to take some risks.

      Delete
  31. I just started reading Listen Carefully. I have read every word on this blog, every book available on the subject and kept track of the evidence, as well as statements. In the first few pages of this book I learned several things that I had never read before. Small but important things. For example, where was the 911 call made? Kitchen wall phone or basement laundry phone? It's important and it's the first time I've heard it mentioned. Was the RM on the stairs or on the floor? Since it was mentioned as being both places, and JR & PR claimed never to have handled it, it's important. There are a lot more. I don't know where the book is heading, but I know there's a whole lot of stuff presented in it that I've never heard before. So far, it's a fascinating read.
    Daffodilgal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book contains a lot of information that does seem accurate and it's also fairly thorough. I learned some new things from it as well. The problem is that for someone already familiar with the case most of it is redundant and after a while it becomes tedious to read all over again what one had already read many times in other books and from other sources. The most interesting part is Cherokee's analysis of the ransom note, but as I've demonstrated, this analysis is seriously flawed.

      Delete
  32. According to the case files Patsy was asked and complied with giving five handwriting samples. They obviously couldn't get a match, and how many were John asked to give?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well of course it could be false, but in a recent documentary, I recall john saying patsy gave around a dozen and himself around the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We seem to know everything about all the samples Patsy provided, but we know almost nothing about what John provided. A reproduction of part of his left hand sample is provided in Woodward's book, however.

      Delete
  34. the chronology ends in 1999, as of 5/21/97 she gave five and there was no mention of how many he had given. After that nothing is mentioned up to 1999 so it's possible they gave dozens but it could also be an exaggeration.

    7/24/97 John Ramsey gives a statement and a profile of what and who to look for in the murderer of his daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Question; does anyone know when the Ramseys were made aware of the autopsy results which revealed her skull had been fractured?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Or, Doc, it's possible that upon finding the note, she did only read through the first few lines before calling 911, but read through the rest of it after making the call.
    Maybe a bit of a stretch.....in all honesty, the transcript above is slightly disturbing."

    VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY
    December 11, 2001 9:14 a.m.

    Q. With respect to the day in question,
    whose decision was it to call the police when you
    found the ransom note? Do you remember?

    A. John and I, we just said, "What do
    we do? Call the police." I don't know if it
    was specifically one's decision or the other.

    Q. Whose idea was it to call all the
    people that eventually arrived, your friends, your
    whatever, that came afterwards?

    A. Oh, I did that.

    Q. Can you tell me why you did that?

    A. It just seemed instinctive. It was
    just kind of a very stressful time, and I just
    called on friends.

    Q. Had you read the ransom note by
    that time?

    A. I don't think I had read all of
    it, no.

    Q. Were you aware that there was a part
    in the ransom note where you were told not to
    contact authorities?

    A. I think I read that later.

    Q. Did you think that there might be
    a chance that, if you called a group of people
    over to the house and it was being observed,
    that the kidnappers might, in fact, see that
    you had disobeyed the condition of their ransom
    note?

    A. Well, that just didn't go through my
    mind at that time.

    Of course not Patsy! You just got through telling Darney Hoffman you hadn't yet read that far into the letter, and since you've also testified to having called your friends immediately after calling 911, it wasn't until afterwards, while you were waiting on the porch for the squad car to arrive (or to check for "intruders?), that you remember thinking:

    "because IT (emphasis mine)said....if you do that, if you call somebody, that's not good."

    Oh my...if only Patsy had known "John" and "foreign faction" were interchangeable substitutes for the pronoun "it"....

    Mike G.





    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm hoping someone can answer my question above about the date the Ramseys were made aware of the autopsy results which indicated her skull had been fractured.

    Also, here's another major problem I have with John being the pedophile, incestuous murderer. In my opinion, you have to have absolutely zero control if you can't keep yourself from molesting your own child. How is it that John succumbed to these feelings/actions yet never did so again? Seems like once a child molester, always a child molester would be the phrase of the day here and John would, without a doubt, victimize others. That doesn't seem to be the case though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An autopsy report is available to next-of-kin as soon as it has been filed with the state, usually within 3-10 days.

      No one is saying John is a pedophile. Many of us believe he committed situational incest because he had a verifiable attraction to beauty pageants and their participants, his daughter had been overly and inappropriately sexualized, and his wife lost interest in sex after cancer and a hysterectomy.

      Delete
    2. CC, I find that really hard to believe. John was a multi millionaire who traveled all the time. Wouldn't an affair have made far more sense to satisfy his sexual desires?

      Delete
    3. Gumshoe - Don't let this sway you from your belief. The reality is that the JDI theory doesn't have anything factual to say that John was the one abusing her, nor do we know the extend to which she was being abused. Butke and Patsy had the most access to JBR....Patsy was the one taking her to the doctor over and over. So, try not to get to caught up in that part of the case. It can be molded to fit whatever theory you want, which is exactly what the JDI crowd did. Does it make them wrong? No, of course not....they could be right. I feel that when you take the evidence in its entirety, it points very much away from John as being the sole killer.

      -J

      Delete
    4. He allegedly had one with a woman he made dress up in gowns while Patsy was being treated for cancer.

      Much of his travel was abroad, a gteat deal of it to Amsterdam, which has a world famous red light district. I'd be astonished if he didn't avail himself of it, but a narcissist with a sense of sexual entitlement (witness his affair when married to his first wife) needs an outlet closer to home as well.

      Patsy was a pageant participant, as was JBR; then there's the affair with the woman in 1993-94 who mysteriously recanted, and ten years ago he married a woman who designs pageant costumes.

      You don't see a pattern?

      Delete
    5. CC CC CC - you are soooo much better than this :-)

      "Much of his travel was abroad, a gteat deal of it to Amsterdam, which has a world famous red light district. I'd be astonished if he didn't avail himself of it, but a narcissist with a sense of sexual entitlement (witness his affair when married to his first wife) needs an outlet closer to home as well."

      -J

      Delete
    6. De Wallen is justifiably world famous, and I'm hardly the first or only person to suggest John availed himself of its services.

      Delete
    7. I might as well say Burke for sure could have done it because he liked watching Halloween and Jason movies for Halloween.

      Im not trying to be salty with you CC, you know I respect you, but the John had a pageant queen fetish there fore he murdered his daughter narrative is really somethin

      -J

      Delete
    8. You're cute when you're being naive, J. Love you too.

      Delete
    9. CC, everything you just described neither points to John having inappropriate contact with children and especially doesn't point to John having inappropriate contact with his own 6 year old daughter. John was a man with a lot of money and power, and unfortunately, with that comes infidelity. A guy like him probably had a lot of options; his own 6 year old daughter was not one of them.

      CC, I too really respect your posts because it sounds like you have a lot of experience with the judicial system. But pointing to John's infidelity and making a connection to an incestuous relationship with his 6 year old daughter is beyond ridiculous.

      Delete
    10. Someone chronically sexually abused the child prior to her murder, Gumshoe. Nine year old Burke had no history of any interest in sex. His father did, and a verifiablly special interest in pageant queens and sex.

      It's much more nuanced than just infidelity.

      Delete
    11. These are the facts CC

      * You have absolutely no way of knowing how much or how many times she was abused

      *9 year olds can be curious, so stop acting like you know or anybody knows if BR had an interest in sex

      *You absolutely do not know what John's interest in sex was and anything to the contrary is irresponsible to say its anything but your opinion.

      If you want to say in your opinion this is what you believe.....ok. But, you know better....none of what you said in your above post is factual.

      -J

      Delete
    12. Well of course it's just my opinion, J-man. Liberally sprinkled with facts, which just like all of us here, I've chosen to interpret in what to me is the most logical way, but absolutely - only my opinion.

      Delete
    13. CC - I have stayed away from posting because I found myself getting so salty and I hated that I get like that. This case just brings it out I guess

      -J

      Delete
    14. We oldtimers are pretty frustrated, J, understandably so, and most of us have fallen by the wayside. Resist the temptation.

      I see and understand your point, sat behind a nine year old in the fourth grade who poisoned two kids next door, absolutely coldly and deliberately - in fact, his intention was to kill all four children in the family. I know it's possible, and I don't discount Burke altogether. My problem is the prior sexual abuse and the notion two otherwise rational, intelligent adults would stage a goofball kidnapping/murder. Wouldn't your first impulse be to call 911, your second, if you wanted to cover up, to stage an accidental fall down the circular staircase?

      I think we need something to happen: with the DA and the DNA testing, with the pending lawsuits; hell, I'd be grateful for a confession from a homicidal alien right now.

      Buck up, dude. You're OK.

      Delete
    15. Now that I think about it, the case I mentioned has a great many parallels to Ramsey: filthy rich parents living in a historically significant home in a well-to-do town; largely absent father, mother a genuine socialite, a Pratt & Whitney heiress; detached, nerdy son who read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" rather than pay attention in class . . .

      It would cheer you right up, J, and Zed would love it.

      Delete
    16. Mike G

      "So, try not to get to caught up in that part of the case. It can be molded to fit whatever theory you want, which is exactly what the JDI crowd did." J

      If you read the introduction to Doc's book, the standard by which all JDI theories should be measured, you would know that it is the only theory that solves the case without reference to any motive whatsoever. All other theories BEG the question WHY, while providing answers from which no logical inferences from established facts can be drawn. PDI, BDI, and RDI theories require bed-wettings, pineapples, feces, accidents, train tracks, in combination with sociopathic or psychopathic personality disorders. IDI theories rely on kidnappers turned pedophiles who are highly educated mental delinquents.

      The JDI theory is the only theory which, once established, can look backwards and account for evidence SUGGESTING a sexual motive was at play. This is NOT the same thing as taking facts and evidence and FITTING them into a theory.



      Delete
    17. Mike G.

      "CC CC CC - you are soooo much better than this :-)" J

      "If you want to say in your opinion this is what you believe.....ok. But, you know better....none of what you said in your above post is factual." J

      I think what really bothers you and Gumshoe, J, is CC's assertion that John is a narcissist, which can be supported with statements John makes in available online transcripts.

      Delete
    18. Mike G: "The JDI theory is the only theory which, once established, can look backwards and account for evidence SUGGESTING a sexual motive was at play. This is NOT the same thing as taking facts and evidence and FITTING them into a theory."

      Thanks Mike G, that's my feeling as well. While not all the evidence fits my theory like a glove, my theory does take it all into consideration, and enables us to put it all together in what looks to me like a rational manner.

      Delete
  38. This may help, Gumshoe.

    Los Angeles Times
    JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Details Clothes, Weapon
    August 14, 1997
    articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/14/news/mn-22325

    "John Ramsey released a statement through his attorney.
    'The autopsy details released today confirm what we have known for some time - that this vicious murder was well-planned' the statement said."

    "Portions of the report previously released indicated JonBenet had a fractured skull and was strangled with a 'ligature.'"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Inq. I'm more so wondering what exact date John and Patsy found. Was it before or after Burke's interview with the social services worker in January?

      Delete
  39. I remember there was something said by one of John's attorneys that when he told him what had happened to his daughter he said he realized John didn't know. So what that conversation was, or where or when it took place, it's been so long ago that I read it. There was also the deposition videos with Darnay Hoffman where he asks John about the knots from the cord and if John had looked over those knots to see if he could discern who could have tied them and John is very indignant and says no, he did not look at the crime photos because it would have been very upsetting. Now if you go with the article above you can see that the autopsy results were not released to the public until August 14, 1997 and most likely released to the Ramsey attorneys at that time, which led to John's statement through his attorney above. Now you'll have to do some research on your own to find the date of Burke's interview with the social worker and then put those dates together.

    ReplyDelete
  40. There's no way Hal Haddon and Bryan Morgan would not have had John get a copy of the autopsy report at the first possible moment. Information is the name of the game in trial work.

    Now to suggest that John shared it with his nine year old son whose sister you presume Burke had clubbed into a coma ten days prior is another matter altogether, Gumshoe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's my point CC. Is it possible Burke knew about the "hammer" over the head prior to John getting word of the skull fracture via the autopsy? If so, that's pretty damning.

      I also wonder why a parent would even tell their 9 year old son those kinds of details. Maybe he was coached on what to say?

      Delete
  41. Gumshoe, this still does not answer your question but I unearthed this:

    March 16, 2012
    newsfeed/time/com/2012/03/16/interview-15-years-after-jonbenet-ramseys-death-a-father-looks-back/

    Question: At one point, you were guarded on the idea of learning new facts about the case. What determined your being able to deal with it now?

    JR: One thing I was adamant about early on was that I did not want to see the autopsy report. It was too difficult to deal with those details, but if I had to hear it in context of a trial I could deal with it better now than I could have dealt with it then.

    The since re-married business consultant spoke to NewsFeed via email about past regrets, why he's open to learning new facts of the case, and how he persevered through tragedy.

    But Gumshoe there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest John would have revealed any of the details of the autopsy to his son Burke when he did not want to learn of them himself (or so he says). And if he had "coached" Burke, Burke got it wrong anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Inq. This to me is very telling. It seems that Burke would have had no idea that his sister was hit over the head. So how did he know this in his interview with the social worker?

      Delete
    2. Burke didn't "know this in his interview with the social worker". He gave a couple of possible scenarios, JB being hit was one of them. As being bashed or being stabbed are two of the most common causes of homicide, of course he'd say those two if he was asked to guess. So would I.

      Delete
  42. Burke also said his sister was stabbed so he clearly had no idea what he was talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Zachary.
      Gumshoe, Burke clearly offered two scenarios: a blow to the head AND a stabbing.....this indicates he honestly was just guessing as to how his sister may have been murdered.

      Delete
    2. Now wait one second, are you both claiming that a 9 year old couldn't have lied? Please Lt Caffey, tell me you have something more

      -J

      Delete
    3. So he told the truth about the blow on the head, but lied about the knifing?

      Also he said nothing about strangulation as I recall.

      Delete
    4. Correct, he didn't tell the therapist that she was hit over the head and his parents wrote a ransom note to cover for him

      That interview with the therapist was a treasure trove of odd Burke behavior. He talked about secrets that he wouldn't tell her along with completely disassociating JBR from the family. I know its easy to focus on the one thing that was said that makes a case against him, but kind of cheap if you ask me

      -J

      Delete
    5. So you see Burke mentioning the possibility that JB was hit on the head (did he actually say "head" or did he just say she might have been hit?) as evidence of guilt, yet completely ignore the fact that he also offered a scenario that didn't happen, which would indicate he genuinely had no clue as to how she died? And you accuse JDIs of picking and choosing what suits their theory?!

      Delete
  43. Right Zach, I was going to bring that up too but thought it might be overkill. Wasn't sure where Gumshoe was going with this initially. But yes, Burke had no idea what happened to his sister, but when prodded and asked by the social worker offered up a scenario which indicated he really had no idea.

    I think J, Gumshoe, and Zed if you are going to make a case for Burke you really have to dig deeper. You would have to show that this was a "disturbed" boy - look in his school records, see what his teachers said about him, find other evidence of outrage and an inability to handle his emotions - jealousy, anger, envy, plus a dose of unhealthy attitudes toward sex. By all intents and purposes Burke was a boy who had many friends, mostly if not exclusively other boys, enjoyed sailing, loved airplanes, loved airplanes with his father, played in band, and was a cub scout and boy scout kid. It was also said in transcripts you can read almost anywhere but in particular on Lil's website she gave us a week or so ago that he disliked attending JB's competitions and was made to go a few times but that was it. Typical little boy who would not care about "girl stuff." he was more nerd than anything else, enjoying his video games and was likely happy with his life. I know the golf club incident bothers some of you but it's really all you have - and that could have been, and probably was an accident.

    Most of all if Burke did accidentally strike a blow that was hard enough to crack her skull have you thought about what precipitated it? What could have caused so much anger as to have lashed out in that fashion? But most of all why would a cover up of the extreme that was found in any way "help" Burke. At the very least you know he did not write the note, and the person who wrote the note, strangled the girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good points Inq. But explain to me why John decides to molest his daughter on Christmas night with his wife in the house. Why was his cover all of a sudden going to be blown then?

      Also, why didn't JBR show any emotional signs of being sexually abused?

      You talk about Burke being this perfectly normal boy who showed no signs of rage or sexual deviance; I can say the same thing about John.

      Delete
    2. Inq with all due respect we don't have to dig deeper at all. JDI is the author of this blogs THEORY, not proven. Burke seemed to be guarded and protected by patsy and John. A lot of the behaviors that went on inside that house were never privy to the outside world. John did it centers around an intentional murder over sexual abuse that he wanted to cover up. Pure speculation, so I don't feel the need whatsoever to have to delve deeper into who 9.5 year old Burke Ramsey was.

      -J

      Delete
    3. J, if you wanted to prove Burke did it what would you do to that end, was what I was asking. If it were me, I would look to his school work, school behavior, what friends and grown ups said about him, did they ever see him lose his temper, if so what did he do, and how. How did he behave around his sister, etc. Also I'd want to know why Patsy felt he needed to see a Psychologist for two years after his sister was murdered. All of these things I would need in order to build a case. I need something more than a golf club accident and a fingerprint on a pineapple bowl wouldn't you agree? In turn I would dig into John's background - I would try and find out about his first marriage and why that broke up and his long term affair with his mistress. He's a tougher nut to crack due to the image he projected at work, and we don't know how he was at home. The housekeepers have said things that they observed but other than that who else can we ask. But JB was molested - prior to the sexual assault of Dec. 25 and of the 3 in the house that night who was the most probable, most likely, who molested her previously and murdered her that night.

      Delete
    4. Inquisitive, I feel like there is far more evidence of Burke having issues than there is about John being a child molesting murderer. John and Patsy were suspects 1 and 2 from the get go. John's past was investigated like no other; and they found absolutely nothing. From the books I read, the only even remotely negative views of him were for from some girl that worked at his company that thought he was cold. Sounds like a typical CEO in the 90s.

      Burke on the other hand has smeared feces in his sister's room, hit her with a golf club, given extremely bizarre interviews (as a child and with Dr. Phil), and has been the reason for two uncalled for, yet significant lies, when John and Patsy say they put the kids right to bed and that Burke was asleep the entire morning on 12/26.

      Delete
    5. Once again, just because someone hasn't been exposed as a pedophile doesn't mean they aren't one. Whether they were a habitual offender or new one. You see this in the news for instance where an offender is exposed years if not decades later. Not saying this is the case with John, but you're not going to get a clear answer on this. Burke's feces weren't identified through DNA analysis. They could be Jonbenet's for all we know. It would make sense if she was being sexually assaulted that she'd do this to appear unapproachable to her rapist. The golf club was construed an accident, and we don't have any solid proof either side of the argument. The interviews weren't that bizarre in light of a socially awkward kid in a very bizarre situation.

      Delete
    6. Very crystal clear Zach. There are behaviors of victims of sexual abuse in the following article:
      Incest-Effects On Victims found at:
      family.jrank.org/pages847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html
      that describe a few of the characteristic JB may have been displaying such as regression (to pre-potty training); asking anyone including adult men to wipe her after a soiling accident (according to her grandmother Nedra).

      Delete
    7. Ok Zachary, just because a child hasn't been exposed as someone who would smash his sister over the head doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing it. My problem with people's rebuttal of the BDI theory is that they make points (albeit good ones) that work against the JDI theory too.

      Delete
    8. Gumshoe, I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't believe Burke wasn't capable of whacking his sister in the head with a golf club. That Burke could have hurt his sister is not the issue with BDI not being credible. It is the cover up that ensued that isn't credible. If parents love their son enough to strangle their daughter to death in order to protect him, then they must surely love their daughter enough to call 911, say she had a terrible accident, and hope she can be saved. To sacrifice a beloved child's life so that the other won't be looked at with suspicion is not remotely plausible. If you want BDI to be looked at seriously, you have to give a damn good reason as to why her parents let her die at best, or garroted her to death at worst, in order to protect a son that couldn't even be charged, and why they decided to conjure up a scenario that would involve being investigated by the FBI, rather than just stage an accident and ensure a much lower key investigation.
      Crimes are staged to look like accidents, not the other way round.

      Delete
    9. Very good point. Accidents are not staged to look like crimes.

      Delete
  44. Burke apparently asked PR why people always fawned over JBR. I think Burke there was a lot that could cause BR to have issues. His older sister died when he was young. His mother had cancer and almost died. His dad was traveling a lot. His mom (who I am sure BR was fearful of dying), spent a lot of her time with JBR and the pagents. That is a LoT of stress for a young child.

    Also, are there any record of BR's school records or friends being investigated for abnormal behavior? What about the feces? Was it ever determined if the feces was from JBR or BR? Didn't one of the cleaning ladies say that the feces belonged to BR? Also he did wet his bed, but that is kind of common amongst boys, however it did linger a bit longer than normal for him.

    To be honest, there isn't much information about BR - especially his life at that time. I have read more about the men who fixed the broken pipes in their house than BR. I wonder why that could be.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mike G.

    I might add, J, that while John as narcissist is no proof of John as (JB) sexual abuser, it at least pushes the latter from the realm of reasonable doubt to the realm of reasonable plausibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike G

      Scratch the "reasonable" in "reasonable plausibility". It's implied and redundant, isn't it...?

      Delete
  46. Mike G.

    Q: "But explain to me why John decides to molest his daughter on Christmas night with his wife in the house. Why was his cover all of a sudden going to be blown then?" Gumshoe

    A: "John did it centers around an intentional murder over sexual abuse that he wanted to cover up. Pure speculation..."

    Wrong. JDI theories stand up whether it was first or second degree murder, or whether John abused his daughter that particular night or not. Don't conflate superfluous disagreements among JDIers with weaknesses in the theory itself.

    Secondly, that the JDI theory hasn't been proved is no defense that non-JDI theories are plausible. Plausible theories, like JDI, are falsifiable. Non-JDI theories, which rely on ever-changing pools of relevant physical evidence and how they are interpreted, are not.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hey Doc...these "prove you're human tests" aren't getting any easier.
    Are you sure we're not being "monitored" for changes in IQ?

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The BDI theory doesn't hold up when you consider that his parents let him to go to their friend's house. You do not let your child out of your sight if you know he killed his sister. PDI doesn't hold up when you consider that she either appears out of it or doesn't seem to have an answer for certain things. If my daughter was redressed by her killer, I'd be confused as hell by certain questions, such as when she was asked about the underwear. Meanwhile John has spent the last 20 years lying or misdirecting things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You do not let your child out of your sight if you know he killed his sister. PDI doesn't hold up when you consider that she either appears out of it or doesn't seem to have an answer for certain things."

      This makes no sense to me. If anything, this could imply guilt. Patsy put on a show throughout the entire investigation. There are so many things that point to her being part of this.

      Delete
  49. I agree gumshoe, almost everytime anyone brings up something on this blog that doesn't seem right by patsy, the Jdi's seem to pass it off as panic, normal behaviour or she was confused. We all believe john is guilty of something, yet patsy seems to get a pass as it doesn't fit with their theory.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This is very true RSmith. There is very little tangible proof JDI. Or Burke or Patsy or anyone else. You simply have to start by eliminating who it could not have been, and work you way back into the house to the last man standing. It was an eye opener for me reading all of the interrogations with John. I noticed how he would change his story, add to it, embellish on it or subtract a little here and there knowing just how to fashion his answers and relying on an interviewer that would not press him at crucial moments. The same with Patsy but in a different way. In her case the interviewer did not help her clarify her answers, or follow-up when she appeared to be close to better recall.

    To this day, on Dr. Phil, Burke believes a Pedophile in the pageant circuit killed his sister. Has he so successfully blocked out what he did for 20 years or is he still in a fugue state for 20 years. Not possible. Or is he a clever pathological liar who put one over on the Grand Jury.






















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

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sorry for the big blank space above, the backspace key got away from me. In any event:

    Mike - I am still working to try and find a bootleg copy of transcripts from Burke's interview with Dr. Phil. Sooner or later someone will post it. As you probably know you can order one but it's something like $1 per minute. I found this, however, although granted it's not much. Dr. Phil's pre-taping is in transcript form in the following:

    Dr. Phil Episode Transcript - "The Burke Ramsey Interviews Your Questions Answered" -09-15-2016 on Reddit

    The pre-taped segment can be read here:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/53f2be/dr-phil-episode-transcript_the_burke_ramsey/

    If I've mis-typed that in any way it won't copy, however a search using the title on reddit may work better

    ReplyDelete
  53. There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Ramsey's answers. They changed stories about the RN several times. First she picked it up, but didn't read it all. Yet, she knew who signed it. When it was discovered neither Ramsey fingerprints were on it, they both claimed not to have touched it. It was laying there neatly, the pages side by side. Then it was on the floor, as JR was reading it as PR was on the phone, then it somehow got onto the counter.

    Oh yea, their behavior wasn't peculiar at all. Let's see. You wake up to find your daughter is missing and there is a RN on the staircase.

    1. You don't read it.
    2. You don't even bother picking it up.
    3. You don't wake up your son who is possibly the only witness to the kidnapping.
    4. You arrange a flight to leave town ASAP to avoid being helpful to the investigation.
    5. Not only weren't there any fingerprints, but there's no sweat, tears, its not crinkled at all. I would think you'd be a mess while handling that thing. It's the one link to your daughter, I wouldn't have put it down.


    I realize none of this proves anything, BUT talk about strange behavior. Not to mention impeding the entire investigation by your lack of cooperation.

    I could go on and on but am at work so time is limited.

    I think they're BOTH guilty of something. The garrote has me baffled as I can't fit it anywhere, except if there was something sexual going on as in erotic asphyxiation.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EG – Great post, well done!

      Before you get attacked by 3 members of the JDI team, Im curious which route they will go?

      A) Patsy dialed 911 so she wasn’t involved at all (oldie but a goodie)
      B) Patsy’s story never changed about the note and was gaslit my John
      C) Patsy was drugged and under Johns control
      D) You need to read Doc’s 1st post again because it will explain everything

      Honestly, I am floored that they can’t see that Patsy was involved one way or another. Truly baffles me

      -J

      Delete
    2. So it's OK for you to attack us, but not OK for us to defend ourselves. I thought this was supposed to be an OPEN discussion, J.

      A. The ransom note was a ransom note. And yes, that's a truism. Can't get any truer than a truism, I must insist. And if there was no real kidnapper, then that note was intended as evidence that there was. If anything else were the intention, then another kind of note would have been written. The only reason to write a phony ransom note is to stage a phony kidnapping and the only way to do that is to get the victim out of the house. And sorry, but no one has ever or will ever stage a kidnapping gone wrong. That makes no sense at all. Thus: if Patsy and John were both in on it together, the 911 call would not have been made when it was, but only after the body had been removed. You can speculate to your heart's content as to what sort of plan the note writer had in mind, but the fact remains that whoever made that call was not involved in the writing of that note or the staging of a kidnapping. Patsy is the one who made that call. End of story. She must have been innocent. And since I can't think of any reason she would have wanted to change her mind after learning the truth about what John did, I'm convinced she never did learn the truth. And since no intruder theory makes sense, then clearly John and John alone wrote that note.

      2. And yes, Patsy's story about what happened prior to the 911 call did in fact change. If she were in on the plot to deceive the authorities it would not have changed. Based on her contradictory versions of what happened it seems clear that John manipulated her to go along with his version of what happened, i.e., that it was his idea to call the police, which could not have been true.

      The gaslighting of Patsy by John is the only explanation any of us has been able to come up with that could explain Patsy's story about cleaning up the broken glass from John's fictitious earlier breakin. It can't be true because his story is clearly a fabrication. But it can't be a lie either because she included Linda in her story and if she were lying she would never have done that, because she'd have known Linda would have denied it. As I see it, the only explanation is that it is a false memory implanted by John at a time when she was especially vulnerable.

      C. For weeks after her child's murder Patsy was a basket case, as attested by several of her friends. And yes, she was heavily sedated during that time, which would have made it easy for John to take control of both her and their legal team.

      D. My first three posts outline the basics of the theory, but there's an awful lot more evidence supporting it that can be found throughout this blog.

      The assumption that Patsy was involved is based on confirmation bias, as I've stressed many times. If you don't have much experience with scientific research you may have no idea how easy it is even for the most disciplined minds to fall victim to this very common syndrome.

      Delete
  54. There is a lot of odd behavior and constradictions by the family yet no one (not even the press) followed up on their inconsistences.

    Most chalk it up to the Ramseys being really stressed out and nervous, but there can not be that much change in the stories.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I can't believe so many people could think The Ramsey's would ever do this to Jonbenet. Neither of them ever had a history of violence or sexual abuse.What about all of the evidence that suggests an intruder along with the DNA from an unknown male? Isn't it possible? I find it disgusting that anyone would believe this was the work of either of them especially considering the garrotte. The fact that only items from the Ramsey home were used means this was well thought out in advance to be sure nothing could be traced back to her killer. The ransom note was most likely written in advance while they were gone. It's purpose was either to provide more time for an escape or murder wasn't the original intention. That could have come to be the intruders only option when JB was kicking and screaming. If the garrotte was made in a hurry it's possible it wasn't done in advance and an act of desperation but not necessarily. Whoever did this probably wasn't leisurely hanging out in the basement, calmly writing a ransom note and making a garotte. This will probably be my first and last time to post on this blog, I know most believe it was someone in the family. And to Ms D I Have been a blogger on another unsolved case for a long time so I found it a little comical when I saw your name. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'm not completely settled on this, as it's so very disturbing, but I think John probably did molest JB that night, with a gloved finger, before hitting her over the head. I then think he used the paint brush handle AFTERWARD, to cover for the molestation that took place earlier, then wiped her off making sure he didn't leave any of his DNA. I originally thought the wipe down was to clean up the blood, but why? So what? Now I think it was to remove any of his own DNA he may have left. She was bleeding, no doubt about that there were blood swipes on her thigh, but the wipe down had more to do with cleaning her up after the molestation. He then included a sexual attack with strangulation as part of his kidnap-gone-wrong-sexual-attack scenario. He may not have planned on killing her, but I really do believe that he was molesting her prior to the head blow. People in here will wonder how this could have gone on under Patsy's nose. It depends on where he did this. With a house asleep, he could have taken her anywhere. So, the wipe down could have occurred before he drew blood, and included any blood subsequently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And to add one thing - I read that some kind of residue of the cleaning up was found on her - be it a baby-type wipe or soap. There would be no need for him to just thoroughly clean her area to hide blood, no, it would be to remove any trace of himself, and so it's also very feasible that he grabbed fresh panties, not caring if they were the right size or not, as the original panties could hold his DNA. Also forgive me, it took me a long time to get here and quite frankly, I'm horrified.

      Delete
  57. What's up with the latex glove that was found in a neighbors trash can? How come I haven't heard of it until Paula Woodward's book? The neighbor said it didn't belong there. Odd coincidence or did John place it there?

    Doc, is it possible John was able to leave the house while he went AWOL? I'm siding towards very unlikely, but not ruling it out. That would be a risk far too big. Then again, it would explain why he was "looking through binoculars" out the window at the suspicious van he didn't bring up until the intruder theory was being created. He might have been looking at that trash can, hoping authorities wouldn't consider searching it.

    ReplyDelete
  58. ONE one more thing. In a phony kidnap for ransom scenario he yes, would have wanted to remove the body. So then why the strangulation (unless he noticed she wasn't dead from the head blow) and sexual assault? You don't need to sexually assault your victim if you were planning on removing a body. So something must have changed, like he ran out of time, and WENT BACK and strangled and assaulted her, don't you think Doc? That whole think could have taken place at least two hours if not longer after the head blow. I think he had to leave here there for some reason, running out of time, for one. The note probably took longer than he thought to write. Afterall he would have had to have come up with a scenario and disguised his writing. But most definitely he was hoping to remove the body, but plans changed.

    ReplyDelete