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.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Edge On

According to a still isolated by Hercule from a police video made public by James Kolar, the edges of the glass in the broken window pane (see previous post) appear to reveal a layer of dust and/or dirt, proving that the break was in fact old, as John Ramsey claimed. He recently sent me this image via email, to illustrate:



Notice how dark the edge so clearly visible on the right appears to be. According to Hercule this dark shading represents the accumulation of dust and dirt that would have built up after the five or six months that elapsed since John broke the window, which proves he was telling the truth.

First I want to thank him, because photographic evidence can be very useful, especially in settling a dispute such as this. Seeing is believing, no? A photo can also be deceptive, however. As I explained in my previous post, we can safely infer that the forensics people found all these edges to be clean for a very simple reason. If they'd been encrusted with dirt and/or dust that would be a sure sign the break was old, as Hercule has alleged -- but if that were the case then Kolar, when asked if those edges had ever been studied for signs of aging, would not have replied that there was "no way to determine when the window was broken." Since the observation of a buildup of dust and dirt certainly would have determined that the break was old, that's what Kolar would have reported.

By stating that there was no way to determine when the window was broken he is indirectly telling us that those edges must have been clean -- and that the investigators must have been at a loss as to how to interpret that. Dirty edges = an old break for sure; clean edges = either a fresh break, or an old break on which for some reason no dust or dirt had accumulated. That's how I interpret Kolar's response, in any case.

Moreover, my suspicions are reinforced rather decisively by the actions of the people who conducted the police interviews, who would not have bothered to question both Patsy and John about his window story at such length in both 1997 and 1998 -- and would have had no reason at all to ask them if that window had ever been repaired -- if the edges had been encrusted with months worth of dust and dirt. Telling us, once again, that the edges must have been clean.

Now Hercule presents us with what he regards as decisive evidence of dust and/or dirt on those edges, as seen from the above photo. As I interpreted it initially, however, what looks like a dark layer of dirt on the edge of that upper right diagonal could also be a shadow, or reflection. And after further study I discovered another clue that strongly supports my original interpretation. I'm wondering if anyone here can spot it.

241 comments:

  1. Doc, just to be clear. I am referring to the whitish gray jagged point of the shard. The sharp tip. You keep mentioning "dark shading". I think you may have misunderstood me.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my. Is THAT it? You must realize, of course, that after months of lying dormant in that filthy basement room, a thick layer of dust and/or dirt would have accumulated over ALL the broken edges, not just in one tiny corner. I think you've taken cherry picking to a whole new level, Herc.

      Yes, I see the tiny whitish area to which you refer. Looks to me like part of the spider web that must have been in place on that window prior to its being broken. We can see traces of this old web in various parts of the video. The whitish area seems mostly on the surface in any case, not so much on the edge. If it were a sign the break was old we'd see similar traces all over the window edges, but that is clearly NOT the case.

      What I assumed you were referring to was the dark ridge covering the entirety of the right diagonal edge. That looked to me more like a shadow than an encrustation of dust, as that would have revealed some texture, which this edge lacks.

      The clue to which I referred above had to do with the fact that the face of the window pane would have had much more time to collect dust than the edges, so, if you want to take that dark edge literally as a sign of dust accumulation rather than just a shadow, one would have to wonder why the surfaces aren't even darker.

      Delete
  2. The top part of the ^ peak in the left of the photo does appear a bit dusty and possibly has some cobweb strands. Cobwebs can be seen on the left of the window frame. From this angle, I wouldn't assert it's a new break.
    But anyone could snap of a piece of the pane that was previously broken, and then that would be a *new* break away.
    Thanks for providing the image, both of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the small V area also looks like a bit of dust has accumulated, that looks whitish in the pic.

      Delete
    2. See my response to Hercule, just above.

      Delete
  3. I dont agree with Doc much on here as everyone knows how flawed I think JDI is (and PDI for that matter).

    However I do agree that the break in story was a lie on John's behalf. There are many reasons why he made have told this lie, but to me its just not important to the overall case as the case can be easily solved with or workout that lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get it, Zed, and you are right. There's a lot more evidence of deceit than just that one tall tale. HOWEVER: once it can be established that this story is a lie, then any argument for the intruder theory flies out the window. And along with it goes any hope of reasonable doubt. So to me it's extremely important.

      Delete
  4. Are comments off in the previous blog entry? I was going to reply to Mike G but couldn't get the reply box to appear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. disregard, just had to refresh a few times to reply box up

      Delete
  5. Doc,

    Would you approach John Ramsey if you saw him in public?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's not my style. I'm not the confrontational type (at least most of the time, there have been some exceptions). I'm sure John has been confronted many times by people convinced he had something to do with JBR's murder, so this would not be new to him in any case. And obviously he would not be inclined to confess, so what would be the point?

      I'd love to ask him some tough questions on the witness stand, however.

      Delete
  6. I think it's difficult to determine anything from that picture as far as whether or not there was dirt or not. However, up close it would've been very easy to see.

    I agree with Doc that what looks like dirt and grime could very well be a shadow.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  7. You should zoom in on the pic, Doc. Clearly, the white/gray grime is also on the side of the shard. By the way, you certainly enjoy using the phrase "cherry picking" and you use it very loosely. If detectives followed your advice based on how you define the phrase then I would expect a lot more crimes would go unsolved.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cherry picking is when you focus (or in your terms "zoom in") on one or more details while ignoring the overall context. This is what you have done. Crimes are solved when ALL the evidence is considered, not simply that which supports your pet theory.

      Delete
    2. That is precisely how I would describe the context of your theory. You clearly do not have enough facts to correctly solve this case so you use "inferences" that might be impressive if real life was as predictable as you think it is. You mostly ignore the psychology of this case and refuse to accept inferences from a professional source unless it fits your theory (eg. gaslighting). You cannot have it both ways, Doc. If you want to stick with only the facts, your inferences are going to lead you down the wrong path. I have considered "ALL" the evidence. That includes a family history. A timeline of facts that tells professionals in my field what type of people the Ramseys were. Excluding their psychology will prevent you from knowing the truth.

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. I thought we were discussing the window, Hercule.

      Delete
    4. Hercule, do you mind telling your theory of who you feel is involved again? There are so many comments that I lose track of who believes what.

      Delete
    5. In a nutshell: Herc believes PDI, Lil, based on his "Poopy Pants Theory" (JBR pooped her pants, sending Patsy into a homicidal rage and ego-and-status driven cover-up), no demonstrable facts, and a lot of baseless psychobabble.

      Delete
    6. Thanks CC. I know of cases of toddlers and infants that have been killed due to that (and crying) but it seems to be more so with males that are first time parents/caregivers and typically have drug issues as well. But Patsy was a bio mom for almost 10 years...I can see maybe being angry, but not over the top in regards to that.

      Delete
    7. Nor can I, and there's no anecdotal history from housekeepers or nannies or friends or family that supports Herc's Steve-Thomas-meets-Pop-Psych conclusion.

      Delete
  8. Another thought regarding the window - JR stated that when he went down the basement that first time on the morning of the kidnapping, he found the broken window "cracked and open a little bit" and he went ahead and closed it.

    If an intruder climbed out of that window, wouldn't it be WIDE open, or did the intruder turn around and close it over? Unless the window had the type of hinge on it that allowed it to close itself. Was that ever determined?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  9. The simplest things prove Ramsey guilt. Golf club bag is moved between early morning picture taking by police (shortly after 6:00 a.m.) and evening picture taking by CSI's (after 8:00 p.m.). Next day Ramsey is asking for his golf clubs to be gotten from the house. Oh, that's right, my daughter was just brutually murdered and I'm worried about getting my golf clubs so I can go golfing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow. I awaited this image with some interest. What a let-down. OK, Hercule, no offence, but unless you're judging your reading on a much higher-resolution version of this image than the one we see here, there are no grounds on which you can claim that a particular group of pixels on this image show dirt, dust or grime. No way. You're primed to look for it, and you're finding it.

    Aside from the red logo, the image is essentially monotone. Blacks, a range of greys, and whites. Jagged glass edges always - always - throw around shards of white light, grey and black shadow, especially under washed-out over-exposed lighting like this, (and I know that not only from casual observation, but from several months of painting painstaking portraits of broken glass in oils as observation training under a sadistic painting tutor in NYC.) I see nothing here in the edges of the glass that looks unlike the standard kaleidoscopic play of light and dark that occurs at the edges of broken glass. The tip of the shard is indeed very white, but this does not look to me to be evidence of dirt or dust. What about the sparks of white that punctuate the left hand edge of the shard higher up? Are they dust too? You can see from the photo that there is a harsh and bright light source, and what we see at the tip of the shard looks very typical of the way bright light refracts white through certain angles of a broken edge, especially when the image is being captured by not very good photographic equipment, leading to bleaching and over-exposure.

    You made such a song-and-dance about this image, and now we finally see it there's no way you can positively claim that it shows what you say it does, even though the dirt you want to claim is in only one tiny area of the image anyway. Taken alongside Doc's argument - that a thick layer of dust and grime would've enabled LE to dismiss this as an old breakage, but they could not do so, and so had to question the Ramseys at great length - this image demonstrates to me an even greater likelihood that the story was, as Doc thinks, a fabrication designed as an alibi for an otherwise painfully obvious staging.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apologies - I meant 'monochrome' not 'monotone'.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MHN, I am not sure what you expected to see, but I do humbly apologize that it lacked the appropriate amount of entertainment value to suffice you. I think the evidence is clear. I could return the same argument that you are seeing what you want to see. Does the inner lining of the glass need to be caked with grime in order to convince you? There only needs to be a small amount. A fresh break would contain NO, ZERO, ZILCH traces of dust, dirt, or grime. For goodness sake, open your eyes! Denial will not help you find the truth.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hercule, you are still firmly believe PDI, right?

      Just wondering how the window is important (or not important) in your theory?

      Delete
    2. Wrong again, Herc. I would in fact expect the window edges to be "caked with grime", and so should you.

      Boulder is one of the windiest cities in the US, with winds that often exceed 80 mph in fall/winter. According to an online table published by NOAA, there were 5 such "wind events" (their term) between October-December, 1996, with frequent, more routine winds of 20-40 mph.

      I lived there for 6 years, and it was nothing to come out in the morning and find my freshly washed car so filthy I had to hose down the windshield to drive to campus. I lived in a basement apartment a few blocks from 15th Street for one memorable semester, and my windows were much like the Ramseys, and always coated with a layer or two of grime.

      Delete
    3. Did you also have the yellow-green coating too from pollen? That will cover cars here overnight. I wouldn't think that below ground windows would get the same grunge as upper windows but thanks for letting us know your experience for the area.

      Delete
    4. Made no sense to me either, Lil, but I treasured what little light I got from those windows, and keeping them clean was a constant struggle. Some pollen, in the spring. Otherwise just stinging rock dust from the aptly named Rocky Mountains, dirt and whatever garbage the wind picked up and hurled - like packing peanuts. And in the winter, ice. Ice at 80 mph is an experience I could have lived without.

      Delete
  13. Ouch. Perception certainly varies. While Hercule did post about this picture Doc made as many or more comments about it and I don't think either was trying to influence what we each can see or not see.

    Yes, John was asked more than once about the window, as was Patsy. As they were about the cigars. Doc has dismissed the cigar questions as not important.

    In the end, investigators determined that an intruder did not enter or exit that way (not counting Smit and Hired Team Ramsey)

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMEOaMCJss

    excited to watch this documentary. Interesting idea and fits with all the different arguing that goes on in these threads. It asks why do people believe what they believe and why are we so attracted to other people's tragedy's despite often living our own. I know Doc's theory makes the most sense to me but part of that reason is my life experiences with several people close to me being molested by a father figure so I find it very easy to imagine John's motivation. Just some food for thought.-SM

    ReplyDelete
  15. One telling bit of evidence I don't think I've touched on before, comes from when John and Patsy faced local media.

    John said "on the day after the TRAGEDY".

    What?

    A parent, in that situation, would most likely say "On the day after the MURDER".

    The word tragedy tells us that the murder was not pre-planned...and something went horrible wrong that night (something unexpected). Which, to me, points to Burke again being involved in a tragic accident (or not an accident).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or their lawyers/PR person advised them to refer to what happened as a "tragedy." Better to distance themselves from the word "murder."

      Delete
  16. Another one I have never mentioned is Burke being interviewed as a kid. You know, the one where he makes the knife stabbing motion.

    Burke says "and he took a knife out and he WHOOPS like that".

    The "whoops" meaning the stabbing motion was accidental. He would never used that word for an intruder because it wouldn't be an accident. There would be no whoops.

    That is a very telltale word Burke used there...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remind me Zed, which knife was JB stabbed with, accidentally, by Burke?

      Delete
    2. You do realize that making a baseless assertion stemming from a bad case of confirmation bias is not the same as presenting evidence of guilt, don't you, Zed?

      Delete
    3. I certainly do, hence why I don't cite just a single word, or gesture, as evidence of John's guilt.....I'm not a psychologist, body language expert or a speech analyst, are you? You make outrageous claims of Burke/Patsy's guilt which are often based on nothing more than a "feeling" - albeit, you always state your opinions as "facts" - I prefer evidence over hunches. :)

      Delete
  17. Hercule, your bluster and rhetoric are dismal. I am not seeing what I want to see, and I am not in denial: I am asserting this: the image is not of sufficient quality for you to assert that one tiny patch of light pixels is, unlike the other tiny patches of light pixels, definitely dust or grime. The information isn't in the photo, there is insufficient detail for you to make that assertion. If you don't have the honesty - yes, I say honesty, because we can all see how low-res the image is, there is no denying it - to admit that, then it is clearly you who are seeing what you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Off topic - wishing good thoughts to Ms D and the others from Australia that all is well while the country gets through the cyclone.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Doc wrote:

    "John was most likely planning on wrapping the body in a garbage bag, which would have insulated any odors, fibers, DNA, etc. from the trunk. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?"

    Answer: because it's absurd!!! Your theory involves the most outlandish action, turn after turn. Here is a website you need to familiarize yourself with:

    https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Outlandish = hide the body in a disused dark room, get the wife and son out of the house, get rid of the body. Wrap it up and drive it somewhere.

      If you think that's outlandish then I can only presume I've watched and read too much true crime in my life.

      Delete
    2. Thanks MHN. I'm familiar with Occam's Razor, Zed. But that principal is often misunderstood. It's not the simplest theory that is to be preferred (e.g. Einstein's theory of gravity is far more complicated than Newton's), but the simplest theory that takes ALL the evidence into account. And when the evidence is complicated, the theory will have to be complicated as well, no getting around it.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your well wishes, diamondlil.

      Wrapping up a body and dumping it is usually standard procedure after a murder, Zed. If you think such behaviour is "outlandish", you clearly don't know as much about true crime as you profess to.

      Of course, finding your child unconscious then having the clarity of mind to make the decision to end her life rather than save it by fashioning a garrote, proceeding to twist it around her tiny neck until you've squeezed the life out of her, then go on to mutilate her vagina - even though you're staging a botched kidnapping, which clearly doesn't require genital mutilation (but why the hell not while you're at it, right? Just for good measure!) - then calmly compose a three page ransom note, all to protect a son that was too young to be prosecuted, even though, instead of resorting to murder you could have simply called 911, told paramedics she fell down the stairs, all the while sparing your son AND saving your daughter's life in the process (there's a novel thought, huh?)......yep, not outlandish at all.

      Good grief. I think you seriously need to rethink your idea of what "reasonable" is, because THAT scenario isn't it.

      Delete
  20. When I click on the picture, the glass at the top left side of the break looks like it has fingerprint powder on it. Maybe that's what is also along the other edges of broken glass?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting observation. I do see some smudging, yes. But it's mostly on the surface of the glass, not the broken edges.

      Delete
    2. Let's assume for a moment that Hercule sees the window correctly and thus it squares with Ramsey's story about breaking into his own home successfully in his jockey shorts and dress shoes the prior summer, despite the protestations of his three-times-a-week housekeeper who spent a lot of time in the basement during the intervening 6-month period, and that an innocent Ramsey (both parents that is, since as it turns out according to both their statements, they both knew of the earlier summer break-in supposedly) just was too distraught to suggest to the police that they check on that "entry point" when the police first arrived on the fateful morning after Christmas 1996.

      Question: Given that assumption, that is, the Hercule theorem, that the break was not fresh, could the grand jurors simply have concluded that both parents needed to be indicted on the lowest standard of simple negligence, for imperiling their daughter by leaving that window unrepaired for six months, and night after night going to sleep blissfully on the top-most floor of their mansion while a ticking time bomb existed in the basement with their children's bedrooms being in harm's way on the second floor, open to any intruder who could wriggle through that same basement window?

      If so, then, in a heretofore unconsidered take on the grand jury's thinking, those jurors may have taken the Ramseys at their word and actually believed the intruder theory, and held both parents responsible for leaving an entry point unattended while not setting a burglar alarm to warn of an intruder's having gotten into the basement, with their children being the first line of defense on the second floor. Could the indictment have been that simple? If so, why wouldn't Hunter bring that case? That was provable by the parents' own admissions.

      Regardless of whom to believe about the broken window, whether old or new, then Ramsey, being just the innocent stripper and contortionist (who knew?), should have said something about it right off the bat on the morning after Christmas when the police first got there. When you live there, and you've crawled half naked through broken glass to get into your own basement, perhaps more than once, you don't need to actually SEE the broken window again that morning to be reminded of that vulnerable entry point do you? Of course you don't.

      Then why else would the man of the house not mention it first thing? Was he ashamed of admitting the negligent failure to secure that entry point for six months (which would have to come out sooner or later from someone in the family if true anyway)? Or was it because he had just broken that window hours before in hopes of fooling the first reader of the ransom note when she got up that morning and didn't want to direct attention to the unfinished staging? Hmm?

      Whatever view of that window anyone might have, all of this back and forth about the window cannot reasonably deter DocG's "crux" of the case, which is the combination of (A) the purpose of the words in the ransom note, and (B) the fact that Patsy made the 911 call.

      Delete
  21. That looks exactly like Burke's fingerprint. Case solved

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm fighting an uphill battle here J :)

      Delete
    2. Sorry Zed…it used to bug me a lot more that people couldn’t see what I saw, but then realized that my personal goal was to figure out who did it. Motive, murder weapon were always questions I needed answered on this case, but there was one thing that most gloss over, that is a HUGE DEAL for me. That question is….How did JBR get downstairs that night?

      • This was always a big one for me. John waking her up to take her downstairs, abuse her and then murder her is just ridiculous. I am nervous to sneak downstairs and finish watching a basketball game without waking up my family. There is no way he takes that risk when he would have needed at least 2 hours to do all that he did. He was up against it time wise as well, since PR would be up by 6am and they would have a flight to catch. So, if he chose to murder her, he sure chose an extremely inconvenient night to do so. People on her might be sick of hearing about this, but Burke eating pineapple with the light on and JBR coming down to see what he is doing is just so much more logical. If she fell asleep on the way home and was carried up to bed by John, then it’s not hard to imagine that she could have woken up shortly after and went downstairs. Some may argue, but I will say that based on circumstantial evidence, the only person we can say was downstairs around that time would have been Burke. If you want to argue that it wasn’t pineapple or it was left out from breakfast, then please go look for the real killer in the OJ case. I am going to stick to logic and not some crazy theory about pineapple from 12 hours earlier being left out.

      The point of this post is not to discuss ANYTHING other than how JBR got downstairs that night. You either believe she was brought downstairs by John or an intruder OR she went downstairs on her own. Can’t be both

      -J

      Delete
    3. Good post. I agree it is ludicrous to suggest that John bought her downstairs. Or an intruder for that matter.

      So, JBR went downstairs by herself (with her pillow) after hearing Burke, or maybe Burke woke her and asked her to come down.

      Delete
  22. I'm still trying to picture John saying with a straight face to Lou Smit, that as he stood beneath that broken window beside the "out-of-place" suitcase, "I didn't look anywhere else, I was still trying to figure out how he got into the house".

    K

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Anonymous March 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM

    or JBR didn't need to go downstairs because in the first
    place she hadn't gone upstairs.

    The kids after returning home from the White's
    wanted to play some more with their
    new Christmas toys.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Something completely off topic. I have been heavily involved in the web sleuths forum and reading about the Avery case. I am really interested to hear what Zellner has in the way of evidence to prove he was framed.

    I am 100% convinced that Avery is guilty as sin! There was no framing or planting (maybe the key was planted...maybe...but probably not) and he killed Teresa and deserves to be behind bars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Zed, that interests me a lot too. I've been eagerly awaiting the test results ordered up by Zellner and have been wondering why it's taking so long for the results to be released. Given Zellner's past history of tweeting on a daily basis about this case, it's very odd that we've heard basically nothing from her since last December. My guess is that the results aren't coming out the way she hoped -- if anything that supported Avery's case had been discovered I feel sure she'd be twittering those results nonstop. Tweeting like a tweety bird!

      I agree that Avery is guilty, no question. Dassey confessed to his cousin and that in itself is enough for me.

      Delete
    2. Amen. I have a huge list of items that point to his guilt...and pretty much nothing in the "framing/planting" column.

      Delete
    3. High five, the two of you can agree on a case! (I'm not following that one so am clueless on it)

      Delete
    4. Zed, seriously? Bullets, key, blood are all in the framing column. Scott Tadich is the murderer....it will come out at some point. The police were set to pay Steven Avery a TON of money. Theresa being murdered gave them a lifeline to get out of paying millions. James Lenk is shady as hell as is Colburn. Too many lies and too many inconsistencies with the police work to believe any of it. Not to mention her car was moved which can't innocently be explained away.

      -J

      Delete
    5. I'm not used to disagreeing with you J :)

      Here is just some little tidbits for you to go over. And this doesn't even include Brendan Dassey who mentioned to his cousin what happened at his own free will. In fact, the info below is ONLY regarding a "potential planter". You should see how many lies Avery told about Teresa..about her not showing up, him not talking to her..the list goes on!

      - The planter or planters would have arranged to get TH's phone, camera, PDA and leave that in the burn barrel near SA's trailer, without being seen and without Bear the dog alerting to a stranger.
      - The planter(s) coincidentally arranged for SA to be seen dumping a bag in the barrel the afternoon of TH's disappearance, then arranging for a fire to be lit in the burn barrel.
      - Someone would have to get a hold of TH and kill her, wearing the clothes she wore while at ASY.
      - That person or persons would have to burn her body and get some of her remains intertwined within steel belts from burned tires.
      - Then her charred bones, tooth (or teeth) and other burned items (jean rivet(s) etc) would have to be transported to ASY, along with the melded steel belts that intertwined with some of TH's bones.
      - Then those charred bones would have to be spread in the burn pit outside of SA's trailer.
      - The planter felt it was important to put one or more of TH's larger bones in the burn barrel between SA & Janda trailers and did so without any detection or alerting by Bear.
      - This master planter would need to be at ASY long enough to do all this planting, without detection, having gotten past Bear the German Shepard, and also cause Bear to not bark at the stranger approaching with TH's remains.
      - The cremains were not just sitting on top in the burn pit, they were discovered underneath a layer of ash and dirt, so the planter needs to make that happen. It was coincidentally very helpful for SA to leave tools at the burn pit that would help the planter plant those charred bones and steel belts melded with some TH bones in the pit -- shovel, hacksaw blade, hammer.
      - Then the planter or planters need to make sure SA used his fire pit to coincide with TH's day of disappearance, knowing she had not been seen or heard from by anyone else from the time she was seen walking toward SA's trailer door.
      - The planter was able to make sure TH never used her phone again at the same time she happened to be at ASY and in the presence of SA.
      - Then the planter or planters had to make sure investigators found TH remains that were buried under the layer of ash in SA's burn pit. They didn't make it easy for her remains to be found -- it required a trained cadaver scent dog to alert on the burn barrel which ultimately led investigators to SA's trailer, burn pit and cremains discovery.
      - Then, in a master stroke of pure evil genius, the planter ensured that SA's nephew, the one who definitely helped SA clean a 3x3 area of SA's garage floor with 3 chemicals, staining his pants with bleach whilst doing so, and then helping his uncle start a large fire that burned for hours, felt traumatized to the extent that he talked to his female cousin and had her so troubled she seeked out counseling at the guidance counseling office at school, where she talked about blood, concrete, body being moved and her concern about her cousin.

      Avery is guilty as sin.

      PS. Making a murderer is very one sided as you can imagine...and they do a lot of "blending" of scenes and commentary to make something seem like it's not.

      Delete
    6. And, Zed, I'm not used to agreeing with you.....but I do wholeheartedly in this case!

      Delete
  25. I find it extremely humorous that it sounds ridiculous to the BDI's that John was able to lure JBR to the basement without being heard in a 15 room mansion. But it makes perfect sense that the parents would stage a crime including vaginally penetrating their own daughter for a crime their son wouldn't go to jail for anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachary, we don't know the state of the body when the parents found it. And what Burke had exactly done to her.

      We also don't know if Burke and JBR had ever experimented in the past.

      Plus these were parents that valued their "status" more than anyone. There is no way they would say that their son killed their daughter...that simply was not an option.

      Patsy had to be involved as I've ran out of fingers and toes for circumstantial evidence that implies she was. Same can be said for John. If both were involved, Burke is the best suspect. Given the other circumstantial evidence which implies Burke was involved, it all comes together.

      Just because you (and others) cannot imagine doing what the Ramseys did (to cover for their son) does not mean THEY would not do that.

      It's the only viable theory IMO.

      Delete
    2. And if people like James Kolar and Werner Spitz find it the best theory...then that just makes me feel even better given they know more than all of us combined about this case.

      Delete
    3. Why not stage it as an accident then? Maybe she fell down stairs. When you introduce the ransom note, garrote, and broken window, it becomes much more obvious. So John and Patsy trusted their son to leave the scene and not tell anyone? I'm not buying that. They'd keep their eye on him like a hawk. He was sent away because he didn't know anything.

      Delete
    4. Just a what if - if it was only the head wound then yes, one could say accident (until the MRI or autopsy showed different) but if the parents already find her with cord around the neck (no paint stick yet, just the cord) then THAT certainly does not look like an accident. So that would be a reason to stage it as an intruder.

      Delete
    5. That's an interesting idea, Lil. Especially as I'm convinced the garrote was intended to underline the "foreign faction" in the RN. But I question that a child would strike a blow in anger, wait 45 minutes plus and then coldly strangle by ligature - not an easy process, and one that takes some strength and 2-5 minutes of continuous pressure.

      Delete
    6. Hey Lil, would you really like to spend the rest of your life with a little psychopath in the house?

      Delete
    7. I've always maintained I believe the paintbrush was added later as part of the staging. I've also maintained that, the only way BDI could work, is if JB was already very obviously dead by the time her parents found her - the notion they would strangle their daughter to death rather than call 911 is ludicrous, and it also over-complicates matters for themselves, when all involved would clearly be better off if their daughter survives - including Burke. No murder scene would have to be staged and no murder investigation would be forthcoming if their daughter doesn't die. But writing a complicated ransom note with very clear instructions on delivery/pick up etc. only to negate the need for said ransom note by inviting police over to find the body in the house, thus ruining the staged abduction (and actually making themselves look a lot guiltier, as now they have a ransom note with no kidnapping), makes no sense of that scenario, so I'm not buying it. And no BDI here ever cares to answer my oft asked question: if the Ramseys are trying to PROTECT their guilty son, why on earth would they stage the type of crime that is most likely going to have the FBI brought in?! Not to mention - staging sexual abuse is not the best way to draw attention away from your son, is it?

      Delete
    8. Doc, that question you ask there is vitally important, and it definitely needs answering. Thinking of my own family dynamic as a father - which is the only framework I have - if my son did what was done to poor JonBenet I'd be hard-pressed not to murder him myself, let alone have all the world accuse me of murder in order to protect him. You'd spend your whole life wondering who he was going to attack next. If a chunk of pineapple was enough to spark a literally homicidal rage.... there's no telling. You'd WANT him institutionalized for his own benefit!

      Delete
  26. First of all, you're assuming that the R's would have found JBR with her head bashed in and then proceeded to murder her by strangulation rather than call 911.

    I am NOT saying that, because to believe that would be too much of a stretch and totally ridiculous. A parent's FIRST instinct is to protect their child. We do not know what the R's found that morning, and I do believe they found her in the morning, already dead and laying down there half the night. Had her head been bashed in, they WOULD have called 911, that's logical.

    I know it's difficult to believe an almost ten year old boy could do such a thing to his sibling, but you've only to research and find there are plenty of cases on record where children DO kill, and torture and commit heinous crimes.

    Maybe BR did it ALL. If you want others to believe JR, with NO records of every molesting anyone, chose Christmas night to abuse, then kill his daughter the night before a Disney cruise with extended family, why is it so hard to see the possibility of a disturbed child doing the deed?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Burke doing it all (other than the RN) is a very strong possibility. He knew how to tie knots and the train "prodding" indicates an inquisitive child trying to wake someone up. I cannot think of another explanation for the train track prodding.

      Ive even said on old blogs that the garotte may have already been down there. Maybe Burke made it ages ago or John did when teaching Burke. And we all know that kids put stuff over other kids faces (rugs, plastic bags...kids just think its funny and would never consider what may happen).

      And the fact that Burkes birthday presents had snippets of paper torn off, is another possible indication he was down in the basement. Maybe thats why Burke hit her...JBR tore at one of his presents or she was going to tell mum and dad that Burke was spying on presents. It could be literally anything.

      With Patsy being involved (which I'll argue to my blue in the face) and Burke being with JBR at the rough time of her murder....well you know what I think.

      Delete
    2. And Zachary, sending Burke away with friends was the less of two evils. Would you rather him there, with LE all around who were listening to every word the family said?

      Plus I'm not convinced Burke knew (at the time) what he had done. John may have told him to go to bed and JBR was ok. And then when Burke woke up he really thought an intruder took her...hence him saying "what did you find?" (Which could be him referring to body or RN).

      As I said, we cant guess what happened because there is so many ways that night could have played out. We just need to analyse the circumstantial evidence...which paints a picture clearer than day.

      Delete
    3. EG, Zed and J. You are painting yourselves into a corner. AKA going WAY out on a very long limb.

      If all Burke did was bludgeon his sister with the Maglite, or whatever, then as I think you all agree, his parents would have called 911 immediately for help and reported it as an accident. End of story.

      So then you are obliged to up the ante. To explain the sexual assault you have to assume Burke assaulted her that night by digitally penetrating her vagina to the point of drawing blood. But that isn't enough. To explain the prior abuse you have to assume that two children, aged 9 and 6, had been engaged in some sort of obscene incestuous relationship, under the eyes of both parents, aunts, grandparents, teachers, etc.

      But that isn't enough either, so again the ante goes up. To explain the garotte, then once again you have no choice but to assume he was capable of assembling this little killing machine (which goes way beyond just being able to tie some boy scout knots). And no, it wasn't assembled ahead of time -- her hair was entwined in the knotting.

      But that's just the beginning. Because you then need to convince us that both Patsy and John would have agreed to place themselves in grave danger, going to extreme lengths to protect an extremely disturbed child who could not have been prosecuted in any case - attempting to stage a kidnapping by having Patsy hand print a long, detailed ransom note, filled with dire warnings about calling the police, a note that might well have been used as evidence against them when the writing was analyzed by the forensics experts, especially since it was written on a notepad sitting on a kitchen table in that very house. And then decided to call 911 first thing in the morning, thus completely undercutting their kidnapping scheme, and willfully ignoring the dire warnings they themselves placed in the note.

      To protect the family name? Gosh, that didn't work out too well, did it?

      By insisting that BDI is the only logical solution to this crime, you are forced to go farther and farther out on a limb -- literally to the point of sheer absurdity. On the basis of what? Some fingerprints on a bowl filled with chunks of pineapple?

      Is such a bizarre and extreme coverup the sort of thing you yourselves would even contemplate after finding your beloved daughter bludgeoned, raped and strangled to death by your psychopathic son?

      Talk about stretching the evidence to fit your theory. C'mon folks, get real!

      Delete
    4. I think it is more than plausible that BR in the year leading up to the crime was experimenting out of curiosity on his sister. You throw out statistics all day about the adult male in the house being the most likely and though that might be accurate, it isn't always the case. It's not 100% of the time the adult male. You have not a single shred of evidence that John Ramsey was a pedophile or has sexually abused any person his entire life.

      Surely on an autopsy the sexual abuse would be discovered and would need to be explained away. Maybe John felt that he would be blamed even if it was Burke that did it. Regardless, if there was chronic sexual abuse of JBR then it would be found. So, even if the police believe the intruder theory, this would need to be explained away.
      You are choosing against all logic to believe that Patsy was involved in this case even though its more than likely that she wrote the RN. Keep screaming "she was gaslit" to the hills, but I won't take that leap with you. Patsy being involved = JDI is false

      -J

      Delete
    5. And as per usual, J, rather than addressing any of the long list of BDI absurdities listed in Doc's post, you just go with your usual rhetoric of why we need to look at Patsy. Nice deflection, but it's getting a little predictable.

      Delete
    6. Sorry Ms D - Im never going to kiss Docs ring. JDI has as many holes as swiss cheese. Just because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

      -J

      Delete
    7. Perhaps it does have holes.....but Doc's theory isn't the point here, is it? I'm talking about your pet theory and why you won't respond to the most crucial elements whenever they're presented, usually choosing to attack the JDI theory instead. I'm not suggesting you "kiss Doc's ring", or even accept his theory, I'm just asking you to attempt to give a reasonable explanation for the more baffling elements (such as the ones above) that make your theory almost impossible to swallow. I've noticed BDIs staunchly advocate their stance, but rarely defend it in any meaningful manner whenever glaring holes are presented, and instead resort to attacking other arguments, which is not an argument for BDI at all.

      Delete
  27. EG, Zed and J - I keep asking this, but none of you has seen fit to reply:

    Under the law, a child is incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit murder, yet the 1998 Boulder GJ indicted both Ramsey parents for aiding and abetting someone in the commission of first degree murder, a crime of which Burke, ipso facto, could not be accused.

    Surely you can agree that the GJ was privy to far more information than the general public and Zed' s vaunted CBS experts were permitted to see?

    How, then, can you continue to insist on Burke's "obvious" guilt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly CBS experts ARE experts in their fields. To say they arent is just jealousy or "taking the piss".

      Look, I'm not a lawyer and obviously you know more than me in that department. Obviously the GJ indicted BOTH parents...so already my theory is closer than Docs. But yet you continue to insist on Patsy being innocent. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

      And isn't it possible that the GJ knew someone in the house did it, and both parents were involved, hence the indictment they came up with?

      Thats the first time I have seen you ask that question so I apoligise if I missed it in the past. Sometimes I have a month or two off this blog. But my absolute confidence in what happened that night has not waivered even in the slightest after reading your question.

      Delete
    2. Plus theoretically, one of the parents probably did kill her...unexpectedly with the garotte. Ive only maintained that BSI (Burke started it)...with the headblow. What happened after is up for debate.

      Delete
    3. Had it been an intruder the GJ would have returned an indictment for first degree murder by a "person or persons unknown". Therefore, no intruder.

      Had it been Burke, the GJ would have returned only the first indictment against the Rs - child abuse, placing a child in a dangerous situation that led to her death.

      But they did in fact bring a second indictment: accessory to Murder One, a crime which Burke COULD NOT be found to have committed. Ergo, it wasn't Burke.

      EG? J? Any BDIer at all?

      Delete
    4. Please see my above post.

      Delete
    5. "BSI" with a parent commiting the actual murder doesn't work either. Had there been enough evidence to show Burke struck the blow and a parent delivered the coup de grace and one or both parents written the RN, Burke would have been institutionalized in a facility for troubled youth of some sort, or at the very least mandated psychiatric care for years, and both parents charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

      Delete
    6. Ok, I cannot agree with that.

      You are stating that if Burke delivered the blow then he would have be institutionalized in a facility? I've always mainainted that headblow was a fit of rage or instinct to stop JBR doing something (dobbing him in, yelling out to parents etc.). Burke did not mean to render her brain dead! Burke hit her another day with a golf club...why wasn't he institutionalized after that one?

      The GJ are saying that the parents aided someone...and it definitely wasn't an intruder. So it had to be they aided one another (John aided Patsy or Patsy aided John) or they aided Burke (which seems more logical). You are saying it couldn't be Burke so it must be the first one. As I said, this doesn't waiver my thinking of BDI in any way.

      Now, can you please answer my question about Patsy being completely oblivious to anything that took place that night. Despite GJ indicting her.

      Delete
    7. I don't think the GJ knew what to make of Patsy and so charged both, intending that the DA then indict both and hope one turned on the other. Not a bad plan, and one that often works, but Hunter lacked the nerve.

      Delete
    8. The golf club didn't cause unconsciousness and eventual brain death.

      Court-ordered psychiatric care for a minor, in or out of a facility, does not usually extend past the age of majority - 18 or 21, depending on the state.

      Delete
    9. Or maybe the GJ didn't know what to make of John and charged both.

      Delete
    10. Were it not for the prior sexual abuse, I would agree.

      Delete
    11. What prior sexual abuse?

      Delete
    12. Seriously?

      Doc was kind enough to let me write an introduction to a thread called "The Case for Chronic Sexual Abuse". You can find it in Doc's archives, September of 2016, I think.

      Delete
    13. CC - So, are you saying that nobody has ever been wrongfully convicted? I mean, prosecution and police are privy to way more information than we are, so is the right person always charged with a crime?

      -J

      Delete
    14. "The GJ are saying that the parents aided someone...and it definitely wasn't an intruder. So it had to be they aided one another (John aided Patsy or Patsy aided John) or they aided Burke (which seems more logical)."

      What is it you guys aren't getting? As you, yourself said, the GJ were privy to a lot more evidence than us armchair detectives, yet clearly they didn't think Burke committed the crime. The proof of this is, as CC stated: "Under the law, a child is incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit murder, yet the 1998 Boulder GJ indicted both Ramsey parents for aiding and abetting someone in the commission of first degree murder, a crime of which Burke, ipso facto, could NOT be accused."

      So you're telling us that the GJ, with all of their access to the evidence, obviously got it right by deciding to indict Patsy, yes? Well then, why don't you accept they must have also got it right when they decided Burke wasn't involved? If the GJs findings are to be accepted - which you're telling us they are - you will have to concede that they know Burke didn't do it.

      Delete
    15. "What prior sexual abuse?"

      See, it's comments like these that make it abundantly clear as to why Doc is thinking of throwing in the towel.....

      Delete
    16. What aren't we getting? With all due respect to CC - the law is absolutely not perfect. People are wrongfully convicted ALL THE TIME. So, the GJ was privy to more information, isn't that the situation with all trials and cases? The West Memphis 3 didn't do it, yet they were convicted. Are you saying the conviction is justified because they had more information? This argument isn't a good one for you

      -J

      Delete
    17. A shriveled hymen and larger than average vaginal opening doesn't necessarily prove prior sexual abuse by another person, but you could certainly say that it's possible or even probable. What it doesn't tell you is what may have penetrated her or who was responsible. But if the reason Patsy called the pediatrician three times in one day was because she was suspecting sexual abuse then we're back to Patsy actively being involved in a coverup because she claimed to know nothing about any sexual abuse. Unless somebody wants to claim that she was gaslit into that as well.

      Delete
    18. Also, how do you know the GJ decided that Burke wasn't involved?

      Delete
    19. "Also, how do you know the GJ decided that Burke wasn't involved?"
      Seriously, did you not read what CC posted, and what I re-posted? This blog is becoming exhausting.....I'll leave it up to CC to repeat the information, this is her jurisdiction (if you don't mind, CC).

      Delete
    20. The point is, J, you and Zed have used the GJ's findings in the past to bolster your BDI theory, when clearly, Burke was not even on their radar.

      Delete
    21. Yes, I read everything. Just because the GJ couldn't *indict* Burke does mean that they "decided he wasn't involved". Those are two very different things.

      Delete
    22. That's exactly what the very careful wording of those true bills means. Go back upstream to my postings late last night, please, and re-read.

      Further, had Alex Hunter had any evidence that Burke struck his sister a blow that put her in a coma and would have ultimately caused her death it's his duty as an officer of the court to remove that potential threat to society by whatever means available, yet he exonerated him in 1998.

      Delete
    23. CC - can't you still be an accessory to murder even if the killer is too young to be charged?

      And yes, but I wouldn't be the first to suggest that Alex Hunter may not have acted with perfect integrity.

      Delete
  28. CC - You obviously know more about the law than I do. I am just a true crime junkie obsessed with this case and a couple of others and I see your point. However, if that's the case, as you stated it, who did the GJ mean when they said aiding and abetting someone? No one else was in the house other than the 4R's. Would the R's have covered for a stranger coming into their house and murdering their child? That makes no sense.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See above at 11:09 re intruder and 11:50 re your other query, E.

      Delete
  29. Zed, J

    I agree with you that BR might not have even realized what he had done. I think he had issues and was a disturbed child always in the shadow of his sister. It would account for all of the unanswered questions that plague me. Why the R's would allow BR to leave without police escort? BR's prints on the pineapple bowl and the pineapple in JBR's stomach. The total lack of empathy shown at her funeral and in all of the interviews that followed up until the very last one on Dr.Phil.

    I don't know for sure, hell none of us do, BUT it makes an argument and a good one. I can't dismiss the possibility that BR may have carried the out the entire event. The parents found her dead, and knew they had to cover for their remaining child who would've spent the rest of his days in mental hospitals I am sure.
    They probably blamed themselves because they knew he had a problem that might have been escalating, and they didn't act. They might have felt responsible, for the lack of supervision and on and on.

    I am not saying this is what DEFINITELY happened but I think it bears considering and not dismissing so quickly.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree on all counts EG.

      Delete
    2. With respect to BDI, please see my lengthy post above.

      Delete
    3. Doc, please make sure you say "see my OPINION/THEORY ON BURKE" above. You act like its factual because its lengthy. Exhausting

      -J

      Delete
    4. re-reading my post above that came off way more a hole-ish then I intended. I just get frustrated when its always about referring to a previous post that is just a theory. You aren't the only one who does it

      -J

      Delete
  30. Question to Doc.
    At the time when the police had arrived but JonBenet was not yet discovered, Burke Ramsay was removed from the house and sent to the house of the Whites (this is according to the John Douglas account). Have you remarked previously about how it can seem quite deliberate to remove him from the house at that exact time in the sense that someone didn't want him seeing what they knew was about to be discovered inside the house.
    Also, has there been any dispute as to who called Fleet and Priscilla White and John and Barbara Fernie who came around to the house just after the police? There's been discussion of whether calling the police was a mutual decision or Patsy's initiative, but as far as I know, calling the Whites and Fernies was all Patsy's doing.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From all accounts it was Patsy's decision to call the friends. But we really don't know what went on between them that morning. I think it possible that John might have suggested that as an alternative to calling the police, and then, after calling them anyhow, she decided to placate him by calling the friends in as well.

      That's just a guess. We have no way of knowing for sure what was going on between them at that time.

      Delete
    2. If Patsy isn't involved, than her performance on the 911 call would be real, which means she was frantic! Which would make is absolutely incredible that when she came to within 7 minutes, her first thought would be to call friends over.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Not at all, J.
      Within seconds of hanging up the phone with my sister who had just informed me that my father had passed away, I was on the phone to everyone our family knew. I think it was a way for me to process what had just happened.....by saying the words out loud to loved ones, I didn't have to be alone in those moments whilst I was coming to terms with it. I was in shock and denial, but making those calls to friends and family was an automatic response, and I barely even remember it now. I don't find it at all suspicious that Patsy called friends that morning, and I never have, even in the early days when I believed John and Patsy were in on it together. Whether she had knowledge of her daughter's death or she honestly believed it to be a genuine kidnapping, her actions indicate neither guilt or innocence in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. Ms D - First off, my sympathies on the loss of your father.
      I want to be delicate here, but that call is a LOT different then if you were to wake up to your 6 year old daughter being kidnapped by a foreign faction demanding money or the kid will be beheaded.
      She acted on the call because it was all a part of their master plan. It was a scripted and fake 911 call.

      -J

      Delete
    5. "She acted on the call because it was all a part of their master plan. It was a scripted and fake 911 call."

      An assumption on your part - nothing more. Not a shred of evidence to suggest she "faked" it whatsoever.
      Everything about that 911 call happening when it did tells us it screwed up an otherwise great plan, so the notion of it being part of the "script" is a lot less plausible than accepting the call was genuine.

      Thanks for your sympathies. It was a few years back now, but it's still hard.

      Delete
    6. Thankfully I havent had to experience that kind of loss, so I can't even imagine.

      We also don't know that the plan wasn't to call 911. If you look at numerous sites on the internet they break down just how ridiculous the verbage Patsy uses on the call is.

      -J

      Delete
    7. Ms D...no there is not concrete evidence that it was a staged call. But there is literally 10 things in that phone call that make it stand out as being staged. I will believe pigs fly before believing that was a genuine call.

      Delete
    8. "Literally 10 things" that prove the call was staged? O.K then, break all of them down for me, one by one, please, if you don't mind.
      And, as we've discussed many times in the past, your personal "belief" regarding Patsy's demeanor during that phone call do not constitute as evidence of her guilt. I guarantee that if you didn't believe Patsy was involved, you would hear genuine panic in her voice as everyone else who doesn't subscribe to PDI/RDI does. That you don't hear it is because you had already made up your mind she was involved, therefore everything she says during that call seems suspect to you.

      Delete
  31. Doc,

    All the pieces fit in the BDI theory. All the questions are answered. In the JDI theory I can't explain away PR nor either one's behavior after the crime.

    If JDI (and it's possible he did), you expect us to believe that PR was somehow manipulated into believing and going along with every lie, every inconsistency without question? I know the woman had gone through chemo and was having health issues, but I don't think she lost her mind in the process.
    And the same goes for the PDI's. JR would not have gone along with it to cover for PR if she killed their daughter over bed wetting or jealousy, etc.

    The only reason two parents would ever cover up a crime would be for their remaining, disturbed son who they felt responsible for. JR may have felt guilty that he was never home, PR because she was ill or had done nothing about warning signs she knew pointed to molestation by BR towards JBR.

    It's unfortunate but kids DO kill.

    That is a valid argument. As I said earlier, I am not sure if BR even realized what he had done. He was and is totally without empathy or conscience. That's obvious in all of the footage and interviews from back then and now.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  32. All the pieces fit in the BDI theory? I frankly don't know how you can make that claim. The facts in this case are few and far between: one of them, perhaps the most significant, is the ransom note. You're arguing either that the parents covered up to protect Burke despite knowing that he was a monster who had sexually molested and garotted their daughter to death (can you imagine Patsy going along with that?) or that he struck her in a rage and rather than calling for an ambulance after an 'accident' they decided to stage a sex murder with their daughter's corpse and then to make the sex crime look like an attempted kidnapping by writing a two and a half page ransom demand? That's absolutely nuts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you also expect us to believe that Patsy then called 911 before the cover-up was complete? Before they had had time to engineer an obvious sign of forced entry to the property? WIf they are going to write a ransom note to cover up for Burke's killing of his sister, surely, SURELY they have to hide the body somewhere it won't be found, not leave it in the basement? NONE of the facts make sense with the parents covering for Burke.

      Delete
    2. They didn't have the time to hide the body or move it elsewhere.

      I think PR discovered the body when she got up to get ready for their trip. How could they know that the BPD would be so inept, so as NOT to have checked that room?

      What else could they do? They knew BR did it, they didn't have time to get rid of the body and maybe PR didn't want JBR thrown in a ditch somewhere. So they cleaned her up and wrapped her in a blanket instead. What STRANGER does that?

      Are you saying an intruder did it? You don't think the parents wrote that RN?

      EG

      Delete
    3. "What else could they do? They knew BR did it, they didn't have time to get rid of the body and maybe PR didn't want JBR thrown in a ditch somewhere. So they cleaned her up and wrapped her in a blanket instead."

      So you're saying they found her already dead, EG? Thus you believe that Burke himself was the one who made and used the garrote on JB after whacking her on the head?

      Delete
    4. Ms D...

      I struggled with that garrote for the longest time and still do. It was the only piece I could not accept BR doing. However, the more I looked into this case and the more I read about child murderers, it dawned on me that it could very likely have been BR who did it all, with exception of the clean up of the body and the staging and RN. I believe that's where the parents stepped in.

      I couldn't understand how two parents would allow their remaining child to leave their house without police escort when their daughter, at that very moment, was kidnapped and being held for ransom. WHAT parent would do that?

      I couldn't understand how two parents would not have done everything in their power to cooperate with the police.

      I couldn't understand the inconsistencies in their stories regarding everything from the RN to the 911 call to the window with the broken glass and on and on.

      This is only my opinion and it's not written in stone. I am willing to listen to others' views and respect them as well. I do not think people are nuts for having them. For me, it answers the questions that I want answered. And JDI or PDI doesn't do that for me.

      BR had a motive - pent up anger, jealousy and sibling rivalry X 1000
      BR had opportunity - access to JBR all night long, every night on a floor of their own
      BR's behavior afterwards - not what I'd consider normal - from the picture without his sister to the Dr Phil interview.

      EG

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

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

      Delete
    7. G - I do understand the reasons for this theory. It's appealing for various psychological reasons. It's non-confrontational, it reaffirms our faith in the decency of good white-collar parents, it excuses or explains the non-cooperation of the parents, and it recasts a hideous murder as an act of legally innocent negligence or naivety on the part of JonBenet's fellow child, rather than an act of unspeakable and knowing cruelty carried out on a child by an adult.

      I would love, for those reasons, to accept it.

      But I can't for the reasons I outlined in my previous post. And I notice you do not answer the fundamental questions: they either covered for a child who had just murdered and abused another child in an unspeakable macabre way, or else they themselves staged a hideous sex crime on their daughter's body to cover up a blow struck in rage that could more easily have been reported as an accident without attracting a single news headline.

      Both options are to me beyond belief. The latter, especially so. But you choose to believe they did one of those two things, and accompanied the sex crime with a ransom letter for a girl who was dead in the basement! Exactly how drunk are you suggesting they both were?!

      They didn't have time to dispose of the body? They had time to write that long ransom letter after one or two practice starts. They had time to begin the staging at the window.

      They had time to do WHATEVER THEY NEEDED TO DO - SIMPLY BY DELAYING THE 911 CALL. Once they 'discover' her missing they can later claim to have spent the morning searching for clues and debating whether or not it would endanger her life to have called the cops. The ransom note gives them leeway to take as long as they want to prepare the scene - UNLESS Patsy wasn't in on the plan. As Doc has repeated ad nauseam, Patsy's call changes everything, and that cannot be ignored. It has to be explained.

      If she's in on any plan, she does not make that call when she does. End of story. There is no other way to explain this.

      That's my take on it anyway. But then real life isn't always logical, and people sure as hell aren't. Would it shock the hell out of me to discover that Burke had definitely done it? Not really. The surprise would be that the parent or parents concocted such an idiotic and unnecessary scheme to protect him.

      Delete
    8. Your sixth paragraph sums it up perfectly, MHN.

      Delete
    9. MHN...

      They did NOT have time to do whatever they wanted to do. They couldn't delay that call. They had taken it as far as they could time wise. They had a flight to catch, they had a time range that was limited. They had to explain that they woke up at 5:50AM and first found that note. How much time did that leave them to do all of that? ( I think PR woke up earlier than that and discovered JBR was missing from her bed, probably more towards 5AM) They cleaned the body to ensure all traces of DNA, blood were gone. Then they wrapped, staged and wrote the RN. That took time.

      Of course PR had to call 911. How else were they going to get the show on the road? If they didn't call the police, were they going to dispose of the body in broad daylight with people up and about? Were they going to leave the body there and go on vacation without JBR?

      I don't understand why you think PR wouldn't have called 911. Most people who murder family members DO call 911 when they "discover" the dead body. Are you saying only innocent people call 911?

      EG

      Delete
    10. One more thing...they obviously didn't care about endangering her life. They did exactly what the RN told them NOT to do.

      EG

      Delete
    11. But wait. . .according to you and your tribe the Rs collaborated on the RN, did they not? How, then, could they be endangering her life by failing to follow their own bogus instructions?

      Pretzel logic, EG; the head spins.

      Delete
    12. And PS - how could they be endangering her life if she was...well, already dead?

      Delete
    13. CC..

      That's my point exactly. They KNEW it was bogus and they were NOT endangering her life or BR's by letting him leave without police escort and by calling every friend in the neighborhood to come on over. IF they took that note SERIOUSLY, they would NOT have done either of those two things.

      EG

      Delete
    14. Mum's 6th paragraph above makes more sense, EG. It was a private plane, pilot and flight. They could have paged the older children in the Minneapolis airport to go on to Michigan on a commercial carrier. There was nothing to stop them from delaying as long as they needed to cover up their alleged crime.

      Delete
    15. Not Mum's, MHN's. Damned auto correct.

      Delete
    16. I do understand your point and it's a good one, but I don't agree with it. I think had they waited any longer, it would've looked more calculated. Most people's first instinct would be to call the police. And in MOST cases when it's a kidnapping, an undercover car is sent over and the FBI is called in. I wouldn't fault anyone for calling 911 in this type situation. However, I would have to take issue with calling friends, clergy, etc when your house is being watched and they're going to behead your daughter if you talk to a stray dog.

      I also think a frazzled call to the police would be more convincing, than a delayed call telling police you had been looking for clues and therefore didn't call immediately. Most parents would INSIST on the FBI going into action immediately. Amber alert (not sure that existed then). APB looking for a blonde girl etc.

      EG

      Delete
    17. John would have called the pilot saying he had to take care of an urgent family matter, so he was cancelling their flight. He could have told JAR and Melinda JB had been kidnapped, that the note demanded he didn't call the authorities and he had to take care of the ransom, so they should go on ahead to Michigan without them. Patsy and John would then have had the entire day to dispose of the body and complete the staging. The countdown didn't begin until Patsy made that call, which pretty much guarantees she was utterly clueless when she dialed those three numbers. I just can't see any way around that fact.....no one staging a crime calls the authorities until *after* the staging is complete.

      Delete
    18. "I also think a frazzled call to the police would be more convincing, than a delayed call telling police you had been looking for clues and therefore didn't call immediately."

      They weren't "looking for clues" though. They were delivering the ransom money exactly as the kidnappers had requested - that NO calls to the authorities be made. This is why the dire warnings of the gory repercussions awaiting JB if authorities were called feature so heavily in the RN - to secure the alibi John was going to give to police as to why they DIDN'T call LE immediately upon finding the note!

      Delete
    19. That's a big assumption. Maybe the dire warnings were just put into the RN to make it look like a "typical" ransom note like in the movies.

      Delete
    20. "Maybe she thought it was."

      Seriously?
      She wasn't aware her daughter's dead body was still in her home?! John neglected to inform her that he hadn't yet finished the basement staging (ie the window)? If they were working together, you'd think they'd have gotten these two key details sorted before agreeing to call 911!

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

      Delete
    22. CC, MsD and MHN..

      I see your point and it's well taken and something to consider. MHN, I especially liked your opening paragraph regarding the BDI theory and your understanding of it. Maybe you're right, I don't know. And I agreed with your last paragraph as well. I wouldn't be surprised if JDI or PDI either. This case is both baffling and frustrating.

      And yes, JR would've done this, and JR could've done that, BUT that house, on that morning, must've been complete chaos. They had to think on their feet with their daughter laying dead. Maybe he didn't want to make phone calls to anyone. He knew that one phone call to police would get the ball rolling. He THOUGHT they did enough in the way of staging. If the window break fell through, well then keys were given out to various people, and without the alarm being set, they could've walked in and out without too much trouble. All they had to do was cast a shadow of doubt and with the RN added to the mix, it worked evidently. He is still walking around a free man. And so, the choices they made that morning, were spot on, I'd say.

      EG


      Delete
    23. Ms D

      Deliver the ransom where and to whom? JR would have to provide information in way of a contact, etc? How was he supposed to arrange that? There would have to be a phone call or a follow up note? That would get REAL messy, REAL fast.

      EG

      Delete
    24. "Typical" ransom notes aren't three pages long.
      "Typical" ransom notes are not composed in the home of the victim.
      "Typical" ransom notes "like in the movies" consist of three lines: "We have your daughter. If you call authorities, she dies. Wait by the phone for further instruction."
      The mistake too many people make is believing the long winded RN was full of "filler" just for the sake of it. With every line written, the author further ran the risk of being discovered - he wrote it in the victim's home, after all - therefore, every line in this note must have been included for a very specific purpose, a purpose that was integral to the author's plan.

      Delete
    25. "He THOUGHT they did enough in the way of staging."

      Then why was he doing more staging with LE right upstairs that morning? Isn't that proof that his staging had been interrupted by Patsy's 911 call? If both of them had made a unified decision to call 911, what could possibly be left undone to the point where John feels compelled to put himself at such a great risk of discovery by continuing to stage the scene after LE arrived? The two of them would have been absolutely certain to take care of those details *before* making that call, quite obviously.

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

      Delete
    27. This is what I mean about assumptions. Why are you stuck on the assumption that getting rid of the body was ever part of the plan? Why do you assume that the RN writer would know what a convincing ransom note would look like or that the RB writer anticipated that they would figure out it was written in the house. This is all hindsight. People who lie actually commonly embellish their stories with lots of extra detail in order to try to make it sound more convincing. It doesn't have to be anything more that that. And you don't know John was doing more staging with LE right upstairs. That's another assumption.

      Delete
    28. Ms D..

      We don't know for sure what JR was doing that morning. He said he was down the basement looking for JBR before Fleet went down looking. Then they both went down together and "discovered" her body.

      You can't say he WAS down there staging, because we don't know that. PR said JR was there reading the note which he placed on the floor when she was on the phone. You know, the note, they read but didn't touch, or was it touched, but didn't read? I can't keep up with the inconsistencies.


      EG

      Delete
    29. "And you don't know John was doing more staging with LE right upstairs. That's another assumption."

      It's not an assumption. There is photographic evidence showing items in the basement had been moved/removed at various points in the morning. John admits to having been down in the basement that morning. John is the only person whose whereabouts were unknown for 90 minutes. It's not rocket science.

      Delete
    30. How do you make the leap from "items in the basement moved" to "John was doing more staging"? You *assume* it. And your evidence that John's whereabouts were unknown for 90 minutes? I hope it's not Linda Arndt. All she said was "I did not watch John Ramsey the entire time". If you want to assume that John was doing more staging, be my guest, but don't pretend that it's not just an assumption.

      Delete
    31. EG I can only go so far with you on this: it's easy in retrospect to say that what they did worked, because they got away with it; but the fact is most of us in the JDI school can't for the life of us see how that happened. A locked house, one faked point of entry that John first tried to ignore, and then told a hilarious fable about in an attempt to say, "That staged point of entry? No, no, I used to strip off to my undies and clamber into the house that way after every business trip, honestly!", a ransom note for a girl who is dead in the basement, lovingly wrapped up.... I used to wonder if it had all been deliberate attempt to squirt ink into the water, cloud every issue, but the fact is I don't buy it. As you say, stress levels must have been enormous (unless John is technically an actual psychopathic personality) and in those situations it actually takes a calmer head to think of such incredibly nuanced subtleties. ("I've sexually murdered my daughter. How to evade justice... I know, I'll stage an entry point then claim it wasn't an intruder who broke in there, but me, in my underwear, after a business trip; and I'll write a long ransom note, but leave my daughter dead in the basement.... that should really fox the cops..." I don't think people in that stressful situation operate with this level of cool tactical irony.)

      The plan that Doc outlines is to me the simplest plan that explains the preponderance of the evidence and the facts: she was sexually abused and killed, the body hidden, a ransom note written by someone in the house to deter with great and reiterated insistence the intended reader from calling 911. The purpose of the note was simple but brilliant: to allow John to take control of the house that morning, and to buy him the time and the pretext to cancel the flight, and take the car out to a destination known only to himself.

      The call ruined everything. I still don't know in what circumstances he allowed Patsy to make it. If I were John I would've cut the phone-line before leaving the note. I have no doubt that had she found JonBenet missing and called the police without having seen the letter, John would've quietly disposed of that too, if he could. As it was, because of the 911 call he ended up with a forced entry point where clearly no entry had taken place, and a ransom note where clearly no kidnapping had taken place either.

      You say that what he did worked, because he got away with it. I think that was an inadvertence. He got away with it despite what he did, not because of it. Don't forget, a different DA might have acted on the Grand Jury recommendations...

      Delete
    32. That's the first original thought I've seen since HKH posted a real zinger six months ago, M: the phone line. Why the bloody hell didn't he cut the phone lines? And I'm an advocate of premeditation, yet that simple expedient never occurred to me. Now It's going to drive me crazy.

      Delete
    33. MHN....I can't go with the premeditated thing. I think it was an accident/incident that escalated between the kids, that unfortunately ended in a tragedy.

      And there ya go--why didn't JR just cut the phone lines, although no doubt PR had a cell phone. Not sure if we all had cell phones 20 years ago. I can't remember that far back.

      I wonder If LE checked BR for scratch marks anywhere on his body. I bet that's a no.

      EG

      Delete
    34. But no. If he cut the phone lines how could he pretend to receive the call from the kidnappers?

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

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

      Delete
    37. Exactly, CC. Which is why if I'm John then the letter is a lot clearer. We have your daughter. We are watching you. Your phone is dead. Get your wife and son out of there by 10am. We will visit you once they are gone to collect $118,000 and tell you how to collect your daughter. If you are not alone in the house she dies. We are watching. Southern Baptist Terrorist Corps. Victory!

      Delete
    38. MHN I would think most parents wouldn't want others to think of their child as a monster. Better to blame a small foreign faction then have it look like a family member could go to the extremes.

      Delete
  33. DocG has formulated a most logical and convincing argument for JDI. I am almost persuaded. IMO, however, the ransom note is the most significant piece of evidence in this case and it was penned by a woman, a woman intimately acquainted with JR. Was that woman PR? Perhaps. None of the handwriting experts were able to rule her out as the note's author.Was the writer of the ransom note a female with whom JR had an affair, a woman scorned and extracting revenge, someone he had taken to the Ramsey home while PR was away and who was familiar with the layout of the Ramsey's house? Truth is, we don't know who wrote that lengthy ransom note or who killed JBR, but we can attempt to evaluate the information we have and come to our own conclusions. The note begins, "Mr. Ramsey." There is no indication here as to the gender of the writer, but toward the end of the ransom note the writer begins to refer to JR as "John." This is a much more personal and intimate term. Of course, a male might do this as well. Still, I tend to think "female writer" when I read phrases such as "Use that good southern common sense, John"; "It's up to you now John"; and "Don't try to grow a brain, John." When contemplating these parts of the ransom note I am reminded of old song lyrics: "I'm leaving it all up to you. You decide what you you want to do. Now do you want my love, or are we through?" The author of the ransom note may be saying, "You hurt me, now I've hurt you. Deal with it!" Connotations of a troubled love relationship are all over this note. And look at the maternal concern that is expressed in the lines advising JR to be well rested and to carry a large attache case. Also, the word "delivery" is used 3 times and scratched out a 4th time: "instructions for delivery"; "the delivery will be difficult"; "an early delivery"; and the final usage of the word is scratched out and replaced by "pick up". "Early delivery", and "difficult delivery" are terms frequently used in reference to pregnacies and induce me to highly suspect the writer of these sentences is a woman of child-bearing age. She may have had help from a male accomplice (the ideas from movies, etc.) but that is a topic for another day.
    -- Agatha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Delivery" is important. So we're looking for either a mother or a UPS driver. That should make things easier. If we can find a woman in Boulder who had worked for FedEx and had children, or was a midwife, then I think we need to examine that person very carefully.

      Delete
  34. "And look at the maternal concern that is expressed in the lines advising JR to be well rested and to carry a large attache case. Also, the word "delivery" is used 3 times and scratched out a 4th time"

    I might have agreed with you except for the fact that the murder victim was viciously garroted, her vagina penetrated and her body left on a cold, moldy, concrete floor....that doesn't scream "killer with a maternal instinct" to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me hold that hammer for you Ms D, you must be tired from absolutely hitting the nail on the head. Couldn't have put it any better.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, MHN, though I'm at the point where I can think of a better use for that hammer! JK.....of course! ;)

      Delete
    3. Does the killer have to be the same person who wrote the ransom note?

      Delete
    4. No, John I, they don't and in this case, wasn't. IMHO of course.

      EG

      Delete
    5. LE certainly believed the author of the ransom note was the killer, and I can't come up with a convincing scenario as to why anyone else would willingly cover for the murderer of a much loved, six year old child.

      Delete
    6. Patsy told Steve Thomas on Larry King, that yes, she agrees the author of the ransom letter is the killer.

      Delete
  35. I think the possible previous sexual abuse is key. The erosion of hymenal tissue by a 9 yr old boy, who wouldn't know what the heck he was doing, would probably be painful. If JonBenet had been hurt in that way by Burke, I don't think she would feel safe going to his bedroom to sleep, which she was known to do. I also think an adult abuser that she loved would be better able to convince her to keep quiet about it..up to a certain point. Just my opinion.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. K

      We also don't know who was abusing her. Don't forget about JAR who slept in the room next to her when he'd visit on weekends. From what I've read she visited the school nurse on Mondays after he spent the weekend. It could've been him too. JAR's friends at school said he was obsessed with JBR. We can't just assume it was JR.

      EG

      Delete
    2. "We can't assume it was JR".

      No, but the fact she had been penetrated shortly before her murder, I think the only logical inference that can be made is that her abuser is her killer, don't you think? And we know JAR was nowhere near Boulder that night, so that certainly rules him out as her killer, thus making it unlikely he is her abuser either. No need to over complicate things regarding this matter - she was sexually abused, then murdered shortly thereafter, by the very same person.

      Delete
    3. I don't think it's actually known whether the acute vaginal trauma happened before or after she was dead.

      Delete
    4. O.K - she was abused shortly after, or shortly before she was murdered. It doesn't matter, as it still doesn't change the fact that it was her murderer who defiled her that night, which means it was almost certainly this very same person who had previously sexually abused her. To suggest she had multiple abusers is really clutching at straws.

      Delete
  36. Ms D - I don't think we can assume anything. We don't know if JBR was abused by JR, BR or JAR or anyone else for that matter. The autopsy was inconclusive and couldn't say whether or not the abrasions were from the deliberate insertion of an object or from heavy or rough wiping, from what I've read.

    You're right, John, was inconclusive. They said the abrasions, etc could have been caused by rough wiping, which could happen as body was being wiped down.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well said, MsD. I agree. Also, JonBenet was said to be an outgoing child, comfortable talking with adults, so I think she would have said something at some point. Some children are more timid than others. Don't think she was.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  38. Correct John I. We do not know whether the acute vaginal trauma happened before or after she was dead. To be honest, a lot of people preach that previous sexual abuse DEFINITELY occurred. There is no concreted evidence to support that. I'm not saying it didn't...and if it did, it could have been from John, Burke, JBR herself or someone else. And IMO John is the least likely, although Doc will state he is the most likely as he is a male adult.

    Also, in reply to MHN who wrote:

    "They either covered for a child who had just murdered and abused another child in an unspeakable macabre way"

    If Burke killed her and was responsible for the garotte, how do you know he abused her and killed her in an unspeakable and macabre way???? This is what I keep getting at but everyone continues to ignore. We don't know what happened after the headblow.

    In fact, I would never say Burke killed her on purpose. This was an accident and kids don't know how to handle accidents. After the headblow, he probably prodded her, dragged her around and tried to get her to stand up. She wouldn't respond. Maybe the garotte was already down there (which I've explained before) and he put it around her head a mechanism to try and lift her up. In doing so and trying to get her to stand it tightened.

    If Burke did do everything, the JDIers think Burke hit her on purpose, made the garotte and tightened it with all his might with a big smile on his face until he knew she was dead. Yes, that is absurd and I agree that did not happen.

    Or, maybe Burked delivered the headblow and nothing more. Yes, WE GET IT that you don't think the parents would stage that way...but I don't find it hard to believe at all. Thousands of people around the world who have looked into this case don't find it hard to believe at all. LE and detectives who know this case more than all of us combined don't find it hard to believe at all. Simply google "parents staged kidnapping" or "parents killed child" and you will see some BAD SH*IT happens in this world. And people make all kinds of crazy decisions when under extreme pressure...especially when their kids are involved.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm hurt, Zed. Clearly you didn't read my guest post from last September that made "A Case for Chronic Sexual Abuse". A group of nationally recognized experts (and I know how you love experts), including forensic pathologists and preeminent child sexual abuse docs, were shown slides, tissue samples and photos from the autopsy. Six found clear evidence of prior, chronic sexual abuse. Of the three dissenters, one said he didn't have enough information to make a determination, one said he'd expect to see bruising where the child was forced (never an issue), and the third misunderstood the definition of child sexual abuse altogether.

    Name me one expert, you or Herc or any of the naysayers - just one - who saw the case material (Spitz did not, btw) and found it didn't occur, and I'll eat all the humble pie you can dish up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why didn't the medical examiner say anything about prior sexual abuse? After all, he was the only one who examined the actual body.

      Delete
    2. We're talking about the same guy who didn't arrive at the scene until 5 hours after the body was found, and then didn't take a liver body temp, making it forever impossible to determine time of death. The City of Boulder apparently thrived on incompetence, at least when it came to violent crime.

      Even a detective at the autopsy, Jean something, untrained in such things, observed what she characterized as obvious signs of abuse.

      Delete
  40. Oh boy. Jameson aka Susan Bennett has started a gofundme in the case, and apparently has the blessings of John's third wife. So the topix is abuzz. Wow. I have considered doing something like that for my dad's property taxes and medical bills but haven't.
    Fb link to the third Mrs and her promoting Susan
    https://m.facebook.com/The-Coldest-Case-Who-Killed-JonBenet-Ramsey-515086932014631/
    *Note- in no way am I promoting this. Donate to your local animal shelter or food bank in memory of Jonbenet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Topix thread Susan startedhttp://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TFN3P1AUBHNRFE53J

      Delete
  41. It's fascinating to read all this back and forth discussion featuring, in this corner, weighing in at 9 years old, the plucky Burke Ramsey -- and in the opposite corner, weighing in at GUILTY AS HELL, his father, the manipulative John Ramsey.

    The discussion has been very useful but at this point seems to be going nowhere. So what I suggest is that all those who feel Patsy HAS to be involved list all the things that make you suspicious of her. However, PLEASE: no amateurish attempts at profiling (as in "I could just tell by the look in her eye'); no "statement analysis" (as in, "an innocent person would never say blah blah"). Just anything Patsy ever said or did that came across to you as a lie, or something deliberately deceptive.

    Please, no assumptions, no insinuations, just factual material that strikes you as consistent with guilt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I promise I will Doc when I get some spare time. It's a long list! :)

      Delete
  42. Ok, here is 25 things for now. Yes, I'm sure you can argue a lot of them away. But this is 25 things off the top of my head and all together, it's very hard to imagine Patsy not being involved. Nearly impossible to imagine IMO.

    1. Patsy never mentioned her daughter’s name on the 911 call…that is very suspicious.
    2. Patsy hung up the 911 call instead of staying on it with the operator…one would want to hold onto any help they can get in a time like that
    3. Patsy states “What?” when a simple question caught her off guard on the phone call..that wasn’t in the script
    4. Patsy only quickly scanned the letter and then immediately dialled 911…yet she remembered the acronym SBTC perfectly with all letters in the correct sequence
    5. Patsy was wearing the same clothes which is very odd. Indicates she may well have been up all night
    6. Neighbour heard a female scream from the house. Most likely not JonBenet as the headblow would have rendered her unconscious immediately
    7. Patsy never really checked-in on Burke after finding the RN (just a quick peak into his room)…a parent would not be letting the other kid out of their sight!
    8. The RN has many words/phrases that sound like a woman (I will not list all of them)
    9. Handwriting experts believe Patsy wrote the letter (I know not all of them do…but she was considered a much better prospect than John and Burke/Intruder certainly didn’t write it)
    10. Patsy immediately invites friends over to flood the house with people
    11. Patsy hardly speaks with John. Yet she was upset and crying, but you would be leaning on your husband for every ounce of support you could get
    12. Refused to co-operate with Boulder police. Yes, John may have been calling some of the shots but Patsy was a grown woman and should have been doing anything to help
    13. Red fibers were found on the duct tape, most likely from Patsy’s jumper
    14. Patsy opening the 911 call with “we have a kidnapping”…a strange way to start the phone call, very matter of fact.
    15. Patsy stated she tore at Burkes birthday presents in the basement to see what was inside…hmm ok. Most likely a deliberate lie to distant Burke from being in that basement.
    16. I know it’s up in the air, but Patsy maintained that John told her to call 911 (Patsy didn’t just make this decision on her own)
    17. Patsy stated she slammed the receiver back into the phone on the wall…..no she didn’t
    18. JBR’s body was wrapped in a way that was very motherly…John was hardly the father to tuck the kids in at night given his work commitments
    19. The 911 operator, who had dealt with many calls like this, said something was off and just didn’t seem like the call was true
    20. Despite finding the RN, her fingerprints were not on it
    21. Her fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl…I actually don’t think this means anything as fingerprints don’t come with a timestamp and we know who else touched it. But John certainly hadn’t handled that bowl
    22. RN was written on her pad
    23. Patsy does not use the words “missing” or “taken” in the 911 call…she uses the word “gone”.
    24. GJ indicted Patsy
    25. Patsy used the words “and hence” in a Xmas card

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two most obvious signs to me are 1. Calling over lots of people other than a best friend or heeding the warning completely. 2.Patsy's June 98 interview as I stated before. She well and truly dropped herself in it, answering how she knew there was a red heart drawn on jbr's hand. She replied she saw it the next morning after christmas. She knew she slipped up. After the break likely talking with her lawyer, she needed to clear something up and said she may have read it somewhere.

      Delete
    2. Good point about the heart Evej. I do recall that. This from the same person who said she didn't read the autopsy report, didn't watch the news, got rid of the tv sets in the home, they stopped taking the newspaper...

      Was she ever asked if it was normal for Jonbenet to go to bed wearing a necklace, rings, and bracelets?

      Delete
  43. Zed, wasn't both Burke's and Patsy's DNA found on the pink nightie stuck on the blanket in the wine closet?

    Two news stories this month involving cords and scarves and strangulation. Both boys. First one was a 4 year old, his hoodie strings got caught on a coat hook in a dressing room and he died.

    The other was 5 and the 1 year old dog pulled on his scarf while outside in the snow and he died.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/pennsylvania-boy-dies-after-accidental-choking-involving-dog-scarf.html

    So could a almost 10 year old pull tight enough with a cord or scarf (the Ramseys were also asked about scarves) on a tiny 6 year old to cause marks on her neck and cut off oxygen, yes, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Zed, to add to your #1 Patsy never gave a description of what Jonbenet was wearing, or height, weight to operator.

    Description of Jonbenet's clothing to officers at the house changed as well by Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed, goes with handwriting, as Patsy said she did not recognize the handwriting in her own family photo album on the captions.

      Delete
    2. 1. Patsy never mentioned her daughter’s name on the 911 call…that is very suspicious.

      And you base this on which exhaustive study of missing child 911 call transcripts please?

      2. Patsy hung up the 911 call instead of staying on it with the operator…one would want to hold onto any help they can get in a time like that

      You have no idea what 'one' would do in a time like that. As has been explained by one call-handler, some parents hang up because they mistakenly believe they have to get off the line before the dispatcher can communicate the info to the responders.

      3. Patsy states “What?” when a simple question caught her off guard on the phone call..that wasn’t in the script

      Seriously? That's a point? That in a moment of panic and chaos she said "what?" Please, come on, Zed....

      4. Patsy only quickly scanned the letter and then immediately dialled 911…yet she remembered the acronym SBTC perfectly with all letters in the correct sequence

      When I listen to that segment of the call it's clear she has the letter right in front of her. No memory involved.

      5. Patsy was wearing the same clothes which is very odd. Indicates she may well have been up all night

      Or she threw them on before intending to shower and select new clothes. Hardly proof of murder...

      6. Neighbour heard a female scream from the house. Most likely not JonBenet as the headblow would have rendered her unconscious immediately

      It's the weakest sort of evidence. And what if she screamed before the blow? What if the scream was the reason for the blow?

      7. Patsy never really checked-in on Burke after finding the RN (just a quick peak into his room)…a parent would not be letting the other kid out of their sight!

      Unless they were more concerned about the missing child than the child safely asleep in bed. I would do exactly the same. What would you do?

      8. The RN has many words/phrases that sound like a woman (I will not list all of them)

      I think this is frankly a load of old nonsense.

      9. Handwriting experts believe Patsy wrote the letter (I know not all of them do…but she was considered a much better prospect than John and Burke/Intruder certainly didn’t write it)

      You mean she wasn't ruled out? That's not quite the same thing is it?

      10. Patsy immediately invites friends over to flood the house with people

      You're inferring a motive. You shouldn't.

      11. Patsy hardly speaks with John. Yet she was upset and crying, but you would be leaning on your husband for every ounce of support you could get

      People are different. I agree that this point, at last, is interesting. But people are different. Marriages are different. Some aren't great. Some are pragmatic arrangements. Maybe she didn't love him much, maybe she knew he was a cold fish. Maye that's why she asked friends to come over and support her. Are you claiming she suspected him but chose to stay silent for years?

      Delete
    3. 12. Refused to co-operate with Boulder police. Yes, John may have been calling some of the shots but Patsy was a grown woman and should have been doing anything to help

      She was the chief suspect on the handwriting basis. And they held her daughter's body hostage, illegally. She hated their guts. Simple. Yes, she should've cooperated fully, no doubt. But we can deduce non-guilty reasons why she didn't. John, resentment, and lawyers.

      13. Red fibers were found on the duct tape, most likely from Patsy’s jumper

      Going to need more than a "most likely". Give us a forensic match and you'll have demonstrated that the tape may have been put on the back of the toy it came from by Patsy.

      14. Patsy opening the 911 call with “we have a kidnapping”…a strange way to start the phone call, very matter of fact.

      You'd have preferred a different phrase. I understand. But this was supposed to be about evidence of guilt or dishonesty. They did have a kidnapping. There was nothing matter-of-fact about that call. She's on the verge of absolute panic and I don't think she's faking it.

      15. Patsy stated she tore at Burkes birthday presents in the basement to see what was inside…hmm ok. Most likely a deliberate lie to distant Burke from being in that basement.

      #Confirmation bias

      16. I know it’s up in the air, but Patsy maintained that John told her to call 911 (Patsy didn’t just make this decision on her own)

      Choose a version, make it mean whatever you choose. This has no evidentiary value as far as I can see.

      17. Patsy stated she slammed the receiver back into the phone on the wall…..no she didn’t

      At this point the judge is advising the jury he is dismissing all charges, Zed. It's not going well.

      18. JBR’s body was wrapped in a way that was very motherly…John was hardly the father to tuck the kids in at night given his work commitments

      I have work commitments. It means that when I get the chance I tuck the kids in and do it as lovingly as I possibly can. Besides, we'll never know exactly how lovingly wrapped the body was. As was pointed out in an earlier post, there is nothing motherly about where she was left or what was done to her.

      19. The 911 operator, who had dealt with many calls like this, said something was off and just didn’t seem like the call was true

      She also spouted some vague nonsense, and recalled things being said that were not said, as evident from the tape of the call.

      20. Despite finding the RN, her fingerprints were not on it

      It's nonsense to presume that any and all contact with any substance results in a nice clear fingerprint. Certain types of paper are crap for fingerprints, and I believe fewer than half of all murder cases yield a single testable fingerprint.

      21. Her fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl…I actually don’t think this means anything as fingerprints don’t come with a timestamp and we know who else touched it. But John certainly hadn’t handled that bowl

      I wasn't pineapple in that bowl, it was red herring.

      22. RN was written on her pad

      At least she didn't sign the RN 'Laterz, Patsy x"

      23. Patsy does not use the words “missing” or “taken” in the 911 call…she uses the word “gone”.

      And your point is? One minute you're suggesting the efficient and calm "we have a kidnapping" is evidence of guilt, and now the perfectly accurate "gone" is also evidence? When something is missing we often use the word 'gone'. Seriously, Zed, this is a murder case. It's serious.

      24. GJ indicted Patsy

      That's true, but it's not the whole story is it?

      25. Patsy used the words “and hence” in a Xmas card

      I'll give you that one. The question would have to be, how many others also use that phrase? If it's very few, then that's something. It's not a lot, but it's a little tiny something.

      Delete
    4. All the stuff about what she did and did not say in the 91 call rather misses the point: the point of the call was to get the police to come urgently to the house. There was no point giving them a description or a name over the phone, it was not necessary: we've had a kidnapping, our daughter is gone, there is a ransom note, our address is - get here now please. End of story.

      Delete
    5. Time for you to take that hammer, MHN.....you're pretty much nailing it with your retorts. As for your answer to 21 - very witty - and your response to 22 made me laugh out loud! It's good you have a sense of humour, as the list is laughable, and aside from one or two points, doesn't deserve any real consideration.
      I do hope you're never on a jury in a murder trial, Zed.....you have a major problem when it comes to differentiating between real evidence and baseless assertions born out of a terminal case of confirmation bias.

      Delete
  45. After reading this blog very intently for the past week, I have to say that most of the JDI on here are doing some huge twisting of facts and logic to get the result that they want. The window being held by the blog holder as some mountainous piece of evidence because "maybe" Johm lied is almost humorous when compared to the amount of lies that PR was caught in red handed by LE. PR including Linda in her lie would NOT be her FIRST dumb lie she told where confirmation of said lie could be confirmed, and WAS !!!! The story is nothing more than a repeat of 3 or 4 other lies she told ...she did the same exact thing !!!! Smell the coffee! Yet JDI act as if "OMG" PR would never say that because she would know Linda would be questioned ! SHE DID IT MANY TIMES ! DUHHHHHHHHHHHHJJJJ ! The lawyer posting as if the charges levied by the grand jury could not put on the Ramseys because they thought BR was guilty is humorous and assinine. Is one to believe that because the GJ does not know who is culpable then they just charge everyone ? I have to question the lawyers lack of knowledge and even common sense here. Stan Garnett already came out and said that the Grand Jury was looking at BR. This is a fact not a JDI falsehood. In the context of this blog I suppose JDI will now claim Stan Garnett is the latest liar in this case, all in the spirit of keeping their off the wall, downright assinine theory intact ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you on one point, anon; the argument that because a lie was tactically stupid and easily disproved, we should assume that it wasn't a lie - that has always struck me as nonsense. Some people are bad liars in pressure situation. And one of the things they do when they lie is give too much detail in order to buttress the lie. They believe it makes it more convincing, whereas in truth it merely makes it more checkable. Next time I murder someone I fully intend to give answers as brief and terse as possible. The aim when lying to the police should not be to convince, but to give them as little rope with which to hang you as possible. After all, it's the evidence that will count, not whether they thought you sounded kinda plausible.

      Delete
  46. NEWSFLASH ! All of PR's "other" lies DID NOT involve JR in any other way at all, just an FYI for all those JDI on here who so obviously did NOT know that. She made them up all on her own, to create that mystical intruder. Continue on now with your mythical story and obviously very misconstrued "logic", if you want to call it that.

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

      Delete
    2. And you would know this - how, exactly?

      NEWSFLASH! You don't!

      Delete
  47. Eh, technically did Stan say that? Here is a snippet of Stan's appearance on CNN by a topix poster. A third person, but no names.
    http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T4J81SR7679EHS0G3/p1

    ReplyDelete