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.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

"Lies," etc. attributed to Patsy

I recently challenged anyone reading here to list all the various "lies" and other statements or actions that have convinced so many of Patsy's involvement in either the crime or the coverup. Zed very cooperatively responded with a list of 25 items, to which MHN replied on an item by item basis. Since MHN's response includes the original points listed by Zed, I'll reproduce his (or her) response in full, with annotations of my own in bold (for some reason italics don't seem to be working here anymore). Thanks to both of you for your very thoughtful comments:

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?

I agree, MHN. There have been many attempts to apply "statement analysis" to all sorts of things Patsy said, but there is no real scientific basis for any of that. While studies along such lines have been done, they are strictly statistical -- i.e., a certain type of statement might be found in reports that have turned out to be lies some percentage of the time -- never 100%, though in some cases we see figures more like 70% or 80%. But there is no way to determine whether someone was being deceptive in any given situation, that's a completely different matter. And, as I believe CC will bear me out, "evidence" of that kind is not admissible in a court of law. In any case, Patsy was under extreme stress and could not be expected to provide every bit of information that might be useful.

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.

The notion that hanging up when Patsy did is some sort of indicator of guilt is typical of so many albatrosses that have been hung around her neck, based on little more than confirmation bias. Just because she failed to follow the expected protocol on this and other matters tells us nothing about her guilt or innocence.

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....

MHN sez it all, I have nothing to add.

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.

First of all, as MHN suggests, she may have had the letter in front of her and quickly skipped to the end. It's also possible that she and John could have gone over that note in great detail and argued about what to do. Patsy's version of what happened, as reported in the A&E documentary is totally inconsistent with their official version as reported elsewhere, so there is no question that deception was involved with respect to what happened prior to the 911 call. Is the fact that her version is different from his evidence that the two of them were colluding to deceive the authorities? Doesn't seem likely, does it? For more on this difficult issue, see my blog post titled White Lies

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...

Here we see an instance of something that can be interpreted in two completely different ways, either as a sign of guilt or a sign of innocence. While many prefer to interpret this as a sign that she'd been up all night, to me it's much more logical to see it as a sign of innocence.  If she'd been up all night, her clothing would have been a mess and she would certainly have changed and showered. 

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?

I have nothing to add to MHN's response.

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?

Without discounting MHN's response, which makes sense, I'll add that imo we can't uncritically accept their official version of what happened prior to the 911 call. See my comments under item 4.

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.

Again we find ourselves in the realm of amateur profiling. As I see it, confirmation bias is the only reason anyone has ever seen any "female" or "maternal" features in this extremely aggressive, in-your-face note. Warning someone to be "rested" is most likely something lifted from a movie, like so much else in the note. It has ominous overtones and certainly does NOT suggest maternal concern, that's ridiculous. I've also seen someone claim that the phrase "not particularly" is typically feminine, which is also ridiculous. The note is filled with words and phrases suggesting a technical background on the part of the author, and the movie quotes are from the sort of movies favored by men, not women. In any case there is no way to tell whether any document was penned by a man or woman and very notion that this could be possible is sexist. And by the way there are web sites claiming to be able to make this distinction. I've tried some and gotten inconsistent results. In at least one instance the ransom note was deemed most likely to be male. And one of my own blog posts was supposedly written by a woman, which I am definitely not. (At least when I last checked :-)

This is all I have time for now. I'll be continuing with this when I get some more free time.

Ok, I'm back. Time for a few more. This is fun.

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?

The fully qualified and unbiased "experts" hired by LE decided it was unlikely she wrote the note. The incompetents hired by Darnay Hoffman to nail her to the wall did everything they could to do just that. If you do a search here on "handwriting" you'll see why I have so little respect for them.

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

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

Yes, Patsy violated what you would regard as proper protocol. Does that tell us she was a partner in crime? Sorry, but I don't get the connection. Seems to me that if she were in on it she would have avoided doing anything her own note told her not to do -- including call the police. Otherwise why would she have included all those warnings in the first place? 

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?

Patsy was the one reported to have been hysterical with anxiety. It's John's behavior, not Patsy's, that is open to question, because under the circumstances we'd have expected him to go over to her and comfort her, which did not happen. My guess is that he was angry as Hell at her for making that call and spoiling his plan. But regardless, there is nothing in the behavior of either one that tells us anything about their involvement in the crime. Nothing but sheer speculation that is.

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.

As I've repeated many times, Patsy was a basket case for weeks after her child's murder. It was John who was working with the lawyers and calling the shots. Reportedly Patsy couldn't even feed herself. And even when she was feeling better, why on earth would she have wanted to challenge her husband, especially since he was claiming the police were out to get them -- and she was the one who hadn't been ruled out, so she needed John more than he needed her.

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.

Regardless, Patsy's fibers would have been all over JonBenet, so it's not surprising that they would have been transferred to the crime scene via the victim herself.

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.

More amateur profiling. It's been deemed from on high that such a phrase is a sure fire indicator of deception. Sorry I'm not buying it, it's just more c.b.

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

"Most likely." Yes. Sure. Whatever you say, Zed.

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.

Patsy did not maintain it. She went along with it. And as you well know she presented a very different version via A&E with John sitting right beside her, not correcting her. In that version SHE is the one who decides to make the call and tells HIM she's going to make it -- and then runs downstairs (i.e., away from him) to call. And sorry, MHN, but this has a great deal of evidentiary value, as it informs us that someone was lying about the decision to make that call and we should not assume it was John's decision.

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.

Relevance?

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.

No, nothing motherly about violating your daughter's body with either a finger or a stick; nothing motherly about strangling her with a "garrote," nothing motherly about dumping her in that cold, filthy little basement room. Nothing fatherly either, for that matter. Or brotherly.

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.

Yes. Archuletta didn't help the CBS case at all. She claimed Patsy changed her tone and said something that not even the "master detectives" heard.

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.

Excuse me, but we connect someone with a piece of evidence based on the presence, NOT absence of fingerprints. Or maybe you suspect she dipped her hands in disappearing ink before handling that note.

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.

He handled the note and his prints weren't on that either. It's not always possible to lift prints from any object. And therefore the absence of prints means little.

22. RN was written on her pad

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

That pad was sitting there for anyone to use. And why would she want to use her own pad when writing a note pointing away from her?

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.

More amateur "statement analysis." See above.

24. GJ indicted Patsy

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

No, it's not the whole story. As CC has reminded us, the indictment involved murder in the first degree, a term  that would not have been used if they suspected Burke. It's clear the jury rejected the intruder theory and that's ALL that's reflected in the indictments. It must have seem obvious to them that either Patsy or John committed that murder and the other assisted in the cover up, but since they could not tell who did what they indicted both on the lesser count.

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.

Actually the only one known to have used that phrase is John (see my blog post "Johnisms"). The Xmas message was supposedly written by both of them. So we can't assume that the "and hence" came from her. Patsy's style was informal and breezy, John's was formal and rather turgid. "And hence" fits his style better than hers.

Is that the best you got, Zed? I can think of a few examples that are a lot harder to explain. Anyone else got anything?

Let's continue this fascinating game on the next post.

130 comments:

  1. CC bears you out.

    She'd also like to add that for the first year and a half she posted here everyone thought she was a he. So much for statement analysis.

    My two cents on the 911 call: Those folks go through training designed to elicit maximum information in a minimal amount of time, and to keep callers on the phone until first responders arrive. This woman failed at every juncture. She didn't ask for the child's description, which would have enabled her to type out a BOLO while still engaged with Patsy. She didn't ask who else was in the house, or if the place was secure. And she never once said anything remotely resembling "Stay with me, Patsy, don't hang up, stay with me 'til the officer arrives". Doubtless that was Patsy's first ever 911 call. Why should she be expected to know the protocol?



    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi all! Thanks for the blog Doc, it's been my nightly reading for the last year and I enjoy it immensely. Been following the case since the day it happened and just wanted to throw some support to J, Zed and EG, whose theory/thoughts I agree with. i can't quite explain John's words "he didn't mean to kill her" unless it was his son to which he was referring in that traumatic moment. Burke certainly has issues, Patsy was a basket case and John was the handler, cool, calm and collected. Also, why seal B's medical records as a minor? My children are all in their twenties now, but as 10 year olds, there was nothing to see except well visits and immunizations, perhaps the occasional sore throat or cold. Why seal it? Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When/where did John say "he didn't mean to kill her?

      Heard of HIPAA?

      Delete
    2. The Ramsey's minister who was present at the house Dec 26th, stated John said that as he brought JB's body up from the basement and yes, I have heard of HIPAA. The question was, why seal a 10 year olds records? Most hold innocent information Sam

      Delete
    3. You're going to have to quote a source, Sam, as I've never heard or read that the good Rev said anything of the kind. By all accounts he was in the sun room with Patsy when John brought the body up from the basement.

      Anon makes a good point about HIPAA, enacted in August of 1996, which guarantees patient privacy. Even before HIPAA a child's medical records were off limits to subpoena, and, I'm guessing to any other intrusion.

      Delete
    4. Hi CC, source may have been one of the original detectives, I will certainly source when I have the time. Re B's medical records being sealed at the age of 10...my point was, as a parent myself of 2 daughters and 1 son, if my son were being looked at with the slightest suspicion in the murder of his sister, I would gladly offer his typical 10 yr old medical records for review if for no other reason than to show him as the "normal" child he was and to prove there was nothing in his background to support violent behaviors. If there were information in his files that supported a theory of guilt, I would seal. Granted, this is what I would do, but I think most parents with nothing to hide would throw them open and say have at it, there's nothing here. Sam

      Delete
    5. Sam, I'm sure you are aware of the various incidents that were reported involving feces and BR/JBR. Kolar links this behavior to SBP (Sexual Behavior Problems.) Plenty of armchair detectives automatically assume that this behavior is indicative of sexual abuse or neglect.

      Encopresis is the soiling of underwear with stool by children who are past the age of toilet training. Fecal smearing can be a symptom. There are two types of encopresis; involuntary and voluntary. Involuntary encopresis is cause by constipation and the child has no control over it. Voluntary encopresis CAN be a result of sexual abuse, but it certainly isn't the ONLY cause. As the name suggests, children with voluntary encopresis, do have control over it. That being said, up to 95% of encopresis is involuntary.

      My son suffered for years from involuntary encopresis. It is a very frustrating condition for both the child and the parent. It's embarrassing and extremely unpleasant (for many reasons.) Despite following all of the recommendations made by our pediatrician, a child psychiatrist, and finally a specialist, nothing solved the problem. Thankfully, my son finally stopped this behavior on his own volition.

      Not only were we concerned for his health, we also seriously feared what would happen if his classmates discovered his condition (he was still dealing with it in kindergarten.) Kids can be cruel and we could only imagine that he would forever be teased. Thankfully, that never happened.

      My (long-winded) point is that there certainly could be other innocent reasons for a parent not wanting their child's medical records released. We worried about the repercussions of a classroom of kids finding out. I definitely wouldn't want the whole world to know. (To be clear, this is not something I share with people who know my son.)

      Delete
    6. Thank you HKH - that was informative, and not long-winded! I appreciate the information.

      Delete
    7. HKH, I appreciate your point and it is taken as I am the parent of a now 26 yr old disabled child/adult. Can't remember quite honestly how much of the toileting issues were known publicly two decades ago and as a parent I certainly would not want my child subjected to ridicule. We also don't know for certain if the toileting issues were in the medical records as they have always been sealed Sam

      Delete
    8. Thanks, MHN.

      Yes, Sam, you are correct; we do not know if there is any mention of toileting issues in the medical records. I fully acknowledge that what I outlined above may not be the case. I was just pointing out that there are other possible reasons for not wanting a child's medical records released.

      Delete
  3. Source for the comment made by John..pg 88 of Kolar's book. The Reverend Holverstock was heating water in the kitchen and upon hearing the commotion, moved to the foyer and was there as John ascended the stairs with JB. Also, page 80 of PMPT, a victims advocate present as well stated she heard the same. Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for straightening me out on the pastor's whereabouts, Sam. I'd dismissed all that, probably because he couldn't seem to remember his exact words.

      What strikes me this morning about your quote from Kolar is that Rev. Holverstock was heating water in the kitchen - to refill a glass of tea, perhaps?

      Delete
    2. Excellent question, CC. Why would he be heating water, I wonder? Unless maybe he was preparing some tea? With a bowl of pineapple, perhaps?

      Delete
  4. Thanks Sam. Here's the exact quote from Kolar's book:

    "It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, 'I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket,' or that 'she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket.'"

    In other words, Holverstock wasn't sure what he heard. This is exactly why hearsay "evidence" is not admissible in court. What the victim's advocate thought she heard is equally questionable, as are many things various "witnesses" thought they heard or saw.

    How either of these statements refers to Burke beats me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What interests me is not only how unfailingly bad people are at remembering things, and how weak eyewitness testimony so often is, but how those words, even if true, can be spun to mean whatever we want them to mean.

      The fact that she was wrapped, along with the ransom note, might trigger John indeed to blurt out that a kidnapper hadn't meant to kill her. There was a ransom note and she wrapped warmly for being taken outside. What we all rush to infer is that something exculpatory is implied. Meaning the 'he' would not be the very likely male abductor, but Burke, or an oblique reference to himself.

      I don't see why it can't refer to the alleged abductor/intruder. It ticks the boxes.

      And if John's whole plan was to protect Burke and persuade LE there had been an intruder, well he sure picked a dumb opening gambit with THAT sentence didn't he?!

      Delete
    2. Apologies - I notice now, SM 1.44am has already made every point I've just made. Sorry SM!

      Delete
  5. Both the Reverend and the victims advocate stated they believed they heard John remark
    "he didn't mean to kill her...", independent of one another. That's a remarkable statement if he did, in fact say it, no? Granted, tremendous confusion and emotions running high in that moment, but two recollections shouldnt be so easily discounted. They were first hand accounts, first hand recollections. Could they have mis heard him? Certainly. But I've been an avid reader of all theories on this blog and most are based on logical inferences. If the Reverend and the victims advocate heard John correctly, my logical inference is the "he" that didn't mean to kill her, was Burke. Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not a logical inference, it's an assumption. A wild assumption, actually. You like BDI so everything you learn about the case is interpreted in the light of your pet theory. And all the many absurdities just glide right by you.

      Delete
    2. You're right Doc. As a JDI, I could "hear" it as John saying:
      "I didn't mean to kill her; I loved so much, have mercy on my soul later on when you hear my whole story."

      Mike G

      Delete
  6. Quite the contrary. Twenty yrs ago when the murder occurred , I was a firm JDI. That's what brought me to your blog. I have read all scenarios and theories and for me, BDI makes the most sense. I respect your theory but simply posted what are two sticking points for me. No need for condescension, was just posing food for thought. I will still enjoy the blog, have a good night all! Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Food for thought is good. And thank you for that. But unwarranted assumptions are another matter. Sorry, but I can't let them go un-noted.

      Delete
    2. Point taken. It is a statement open to interpretation. JDI's will consider it's potential meaning one way as BDI's will another and supposition is not fact. It's a small piece, but worthy of the ponderance

      Delete
    3. Sorry Doc, forgot to sign the above post. Sam

      Delete
  7. My interpretation of the "blanket comment": A guilty John is distancing himself from the crime, and is not pointing to Burke necessarily, just anybody other than himself. An innocent John is saying something that no father that I know would say after finding his strangled daughter dead in the basement.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! Why bring attention to Burke? I don't think it has anything to do with Burke.

      Delete
    2. That's the conclusion I've always drawn from his statement also. The same reason John can't bring himself to utter the words "murder" when referring to what happened to his daughter.....he's distancing himself.
      He isn't a "murderer" if it wasn't a "murder".
      He isn't culpable if JB's killer "didn't mean to kill her".
      Though, as we've learned, statement analysis is far from being a science - but if we are going to play this game, many suspect statements made by John certainly point towards his guilt, so do the BDIs really want to open up this can of worms?

      Delete
    3. You're absolutely right Ms. D. Statement analysis dooms JR if we want to go there. Last night, a detective on a crime show immediately suspected the first person he talked to because he wanted to know "why" anyone would want to kill his loved one, not "who" killed her. John NEVER gets effusive about wanting to know WHO killed JB; it's always "why" or "how" or, to end HIS suffering. He hires other people to find out "who"; never get's his own hands dirty trying to find out.

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. No, sorry, I don't care what John said, that's most likely just his style. What counts are the facts, the evidence and the logic of the case, period.

      Delete
    5. Why are folks not assuming that John was referring to himself if or when he made that comment?

      Delete
    6. I think he was drawing attention to someone else but inadvertently revealing that he didn't mean to kill her. Either way, he's a scumbag.

      Delete
  8. He may have meant an intruder didn't mean to kill her as she's wrapped in a blanket and was suppose to be kidnapped for ransom. He may have been trying to continue the idea of kidnapping gone wrong. I personally believe docs theory I think if patsy hadn't called 911 he would have staged a full kidnapping. Once the police were involved he had to back pedal and the new last minute cover up of kidnapping gone wrong was born. It's idiotic that he would say that in regards to Burke...why bring attention to it if you are covering for your son? -am
    Are you planning on watching the new documentary casting jonbenet? Hope there is a discussion on the blog once it's released on netflix! Very excited to watch it! -SM

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good work Doc. Just to clarify: when I say the identity of the person who decides to make the 911 call has 'no evidentiary value' I mean that only because we actually cannot know which of them did make that decision. The very different stories they have given are certainly important, but thanks to that we now cannot know, so as things stand this point is not 'evidence' as such.

    Very nice work on point 11, by the way. It's a husband's job to comfort a hysterical mother, not her job to be comforted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I mean, it has no evidentiary value against Patsy, or against John, until we know more. It tells us only that there are major inconsistencies that need to be taken into account.

    ReplyDelete
  11. DocG please shoot down this possibility of what went down, so to speak: Ramsey was with the victim and was in the middle of a "session," just outside the wine cellar door with his back to it, when Burke came down and caught Ramsey in flagrante, back to the wine cellar door. The flashlight waving, searching, startled the victim, who screamed, turned to her right to look back, while both blinded by the light, the crushing blow comes down. The rectangular point of impact to the skull appears to show a right-handed blow from the side and behind, not just from directly behind.

    At that point, all heck breaks loose, because the victim is essentially killed, and karma has caught up with Ramsey in a terrible flashpoint moment and he can't call the authorities because he can't explain the circumstances of why he is down there with his daughter at that hour, with likely a great deal of physical evidence of the "session" (and past sessions) being exposed as well.

    The first act is to assess the damage that the blow inflicted and Burke was either sent upstairs quickly or tried to assist in reviving his sister, including with the poke to her body with the train track. As time went on, Ramsey realized he was hopelessly compromised, and begins the cover-up, with the coup de grace, and your theory still holds as to the note and plan. Desperate chaos had been triggered by Burke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no way to prove it didn't happen that way, but of course it is pure speculation. I do think Burke knows more than he's been willing to share, but there is no reason to assume he was present during the assault.

      Delete
    2. Even if Burke was involved in the assault, as he got older, he would have come to realize that the public could have easily forgiven a nine year old boy who had lost his temper upon seeing his father and little sister naked and engaged in sexual acts. In fact, if Burke broke down tomorrow and confessed his crime, he would likely be regarded an American hero by a large segment of the population. A burden of guilt would be lifted from his shoulders for a mistake he made twenty years ago--a mistake he has paid for psychologically speaking, ever since.

      By exposing his own culpability and his father's lifetime of lies, Burke could be open to spiritually experiencing his sister's forgiveness for having killed her, and perhaps even her gratitude, for his having help stop an evil father from abusing little girls in the future.

      He might then go on to write an international best seller as a means to finish healing his emotional wounds and to avoid ever having to work again. He could take to the speaker circuit to promote and sell what would be titled, not The Death of Innocence, but the The Redemption of Guilt.

      "Oh, that dreams from speculations come be true,
      "In sleep our nightmares not undo."

      Mike G





      Delete
    3. Why the desperate need to involve Burke at all, Anon?

      Delete
  12. Ms D,

    "Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded."

    I think it's pretty clearly stated in the RN.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  13. If JR didn't mean for PR to call 911, then she would NOT have called 911. He would have convinced her that their daughter might be killed, if they called---especially those of you who think PR was gaslighted by JR. You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose where she was gaslighted and where she wasn't.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But actualy you can, because her medical and psychological state was transformed utterly, 100%, by the discovery of that body in the basement. She wasn't the same Patsy thereafter. The stakes changed, her brain chemistry changed, everything changed.

      Delete
    2. MHN

      No, I am sure she wasn't the same from the moment they found her daughter dead. However, that doesn't mean she would have gone along with what she knew were lies about windows, RN's, 911 calls, etc., unless she had a damn good reason too. Like protecting her son.

      And if she WAS controlled by JR, it would've occurred from the start, with the 911 call and JR would have been able to stop her. She obviously had a mind of her own and didn't care what JR said, IF that was the case.

      You can't say in one instance she had a mind of her own, and in the next say John controlled her. Which one is it?

      EG

      Delete
    3. As someone who has worked with abused women and had people close to me in those kind of relationships... it isn't black and white. Sometimes you find the strength to fight back. Other times you are bullied into submission. I don't think this is an inconsistency and as MHN said she was probably much different after the trauma of her death. -SM

      Delete
    4. Hmmm okay, so now PR was an abused woman? Okay, I give up. John was able to control Patsy in every way except for the 911 call.

      You have to know by now, I don't believe a word of that.

      EG

      Delete
    5. ""Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded."

      I think it's pretty clearly stated in the RN"

      It doesn't matter how clearly it was stated if she didn't read the entire ransom note, EG!
      You know this has been covered many, many times here on this blog.....it seems to be brought up almost daily. If you don't agree with Patsy's claim to have only read the first couple of lines, that's your prerogative, but why continue to act as though the only possibility that exists is that she blatantly ignored the warnings, when you are well aware that another, plausible scenario has been presented? If the response to your previous didn't satisfy you before, it's not going to satisfy you now, because the response is going to remain the same: "Patsy didn't read the entire note."

      Delete
    6. *previous question.

      Sorry, it's late! :)

      Delete
    7. Also we must ask: why would she ignore the warnings she herself placed in that note? If she were planning on calling 911 that morning the note would have been very different.

      Delete
    8. Abuse does not just mean fists! I actually hate that people assume abuse comes in one form. It can also be mental and emotional. Using coldness and manipulation to get what you want. I don't mean to over react but someone I care about found themselves in that situation. I won't claim Patsy was abused but I won't discount the possibility ever. You do not know what goes on inside a marriage.

      Delete
    9. I not only think she read the RN, I think she wrote it with JR's help.
      I think anyone would expect that to be the first reaction of any parent. To call 911. I would not have been suspicious of that. It's what they did AFTER that, that I take issue with and what leads me to believe the 911 call was planned.

      EG

      Delete
  14. That list is NOT a list of PR's lies. First off, the most LIKELY scenario regarding ANY fiber evidence in a crime scene is that the person whose fibers are all over the crime scene, was in all likeliness, in contact with that crime scene. NOT the other way around, inventing excuses. COULD the fibers be transferred to all those places ? Sure, they COULD have, but is it the most likely scenario ? Of course it is not, especially not in this case with all the places the fibers were found. I thought everyone here wanted the simplest, most logical answer ? Then when you throw in a lack of fiber evidence from the other 2 people who were in that house and had just as much or more recent contact with JB, it makes it all the more interesting. If you are going to bring up a list of PR's lies then why leave off all of the lies ? The Christmas Bear, BR's shoes that were bought by PR herself, the heart on JB's hand, The window and the concocted story to a tabloid about someone possibly trying to break into a door in the back of the house that Barb Fernie cut off ties to PR because of, all have to be at the head of the list as cold hard facts and all are very similar lies that she was caught in, to the one about the window, of which, none of the others include JR in any way. So there goes any gaslighting theory right out the window. There is a very obvious and similar pattern of behavior here and once you see it then it is not surprising she included Linda because she did pretty much the exact same thing in 3 or 4 other lies and thats a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right. I was surprised that Zed didn't include some of the more problematic instances you've referred to. I'll be dealing with them in my next post.

      Delete
    2. As for the fiber evidence, that sort of evidence is meaningful only if the fibers originate from someone who's never been in the house or never had contact with the victim previously. Patsy's outfit was made of material that shed very easily and would have been all over her daughter. It's a huge stretch to assume those fibers are a sign of her guilt. And John's fibers were found inside her underpants, which is much harder to explain.

      It's also a huge stretch to assume that Patsy would 1. know how to construct this sort of device simply because she had some experience with macrame; 2. be psychologically capable of strangling her daughter with this or any other means shortly after discovering her dead body.

      Delete
    3. First of all, no proof has ever been made public that John's fibers were found inside her underpants, but even if they were it's not "much harder to explain". Transference. Shared laundry. Why would one parent's fibers innocently be all over her, but not the other parent's? If somebody changed her underwear and wiped her down, fibers could easily have been transferred from another part of her body. I would argue that the duct tape fibers are actually harder to explain...

      Delete
    4. Shared laundry doesn't work because the underpants in question came straight out of their plastic bag. They were brand new. And indirect transfer seems unlikely considering the location UNDER her panties, not on them. And yes, John's fibers could have been transferred indirectly via the actions of her attacker when he or she was redressing her. But we then have to ask what sort of attacker would have needed to redress her. Not a woman certainly. Not a child. And an intruder would have had no way of locating the new, oversized panties. So again the evidence points to John.

      The duct tape fibers were very few and microscopic. And according to Steve Thomas's book, the tape wound up sitting on the blanket, so not even he was willing to claim they weren't due to indirect transfer.

      Delete
    5. How would the fibers from Patsy's jacket end up on the white blanket probably taken out of the drier and used to wrap her that night unless Patsy was the one who handled the blanket IN the jacket worn to the White's that evening? I was just about to thank you for solving that mystery for me, the mystery of the Patsy jacket fibers on the duct tape thinking that when John took the duct tape off and thew it onto the blanket that is how the "microscopic" fibers arrived on the sticky part of the duct tape over her mouth. But then you would have to answer the question if the blanket came directly out of the drier that morning (with the pink nightie stuck to it) how did Patsy's jacket fibers come to be on a freshly dried blanket. That night - or at the very least anytime after she wore that particular jacket evening Dec. 25. It's pickiune I know, but I can't buy the "transfer" idea, not that particular night.

      Delete
    6. Those fibers are no mystery regardless of the condition of the blanket. Because -- one more time -- fibers from Patsy's jacket would have been all over JonBenet herself. We're talking microscopic fragments here. And just because the blanket had been washed and dried does not mean that microscopic bits of fiber from previous contacts could not still be on it. In any case any contact with a foreign object makes it impossible to draw a positive conclusion in such a case. Those fibers are a red herring, no question. If they were dispositive, Hunter would have had a case.

      Delete
    7. If we are going to exclude Patsy's jacket fibers or include them as "transfers" then we must also exclude John's shirt fibers or call them transfers - in fact they were thought to be fibers from a bathrobe originally so no sense in bringing up fibers at all.

      Delete
  15. "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket,' or that 'she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."

    You would not be thinking that your daughter's killer really cared for her because he wrapped her in a blanket. Unless maybe if you knew who killed her.

    I am not sure how many people said they heard JR make this statement, or if any of them are right. However, if he did say it, and they are right, was pretty telling I think.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you suggesting John implied any degree of care? He's putting the blanket and the note together and suggesting they imply an accidental death. Not the her killer was a friendly old soul who meant no harm.

      Sometimes you have to read the lines, before you read between them.

      Delete
    2. MHN,

      It's difficult to believe that would be a parent's first statement regarding their child's murderer. But then again, everything these two said and did was peculiar--to me, anyway.

      EG

      Delete
  16. Sam,

    Excellent point about the medical records. If you had nothing to hide, why seal them?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, thank you EG

      Delete
  17. I'm not sure I agree with your facts or your thought processes here, EG and Sam.

    First of all, HIPAA would have made the children's medical records off limits by law, but the Rs could have released them voluntarily, and perhaps they did, but only to the GJ and not to the media or the general public. After all, Dr Beuf testified before that body, and had he been served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum he could have brought the records with him had the Rs signed off.

    Do you have any way of knowing for a fact that's not what happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only information I've read regarding B's medical records is that they were sealed. I can't speculate on what transpired during the GJ

      Delete
    2. Exactly my point. They were "sealed" as an operation of law, by HIPAA. No way of knowing what the Rs permitted the GJ to see and hear via the pediatrician.

      Delete
    3. Agreed CC, there is no way of knowing
      Sam

      Delete
    4. Good point, CC. We don't know what information the GJ was privy to. I wonder if we ever will.

      EG

      Delete
    5. If I represented CBS I'd sue to get those GJ findings, claiming they were essential to defend my case. Even if they turned out not to support BDI as their "docuseries" propounded, they'd have exclusive access to one helluva' blockbuster TV special.

      Delete
    6. I wish you were representing CBS, CC! I'd love to know what the GJ knew. And you're right, what a special that'd make.

      EG

      Delete
    7. Seems like the obvious next step to me, E, but I'm sure CBS employs shrewder legal minds than mine, and there's some logistical reason I haven't considered that stays their hand.

      Delete
    8. On further thought, if John is as nervous as he ought to be about the unreleased GJ findings since, after all, they did return two indictments against him, threat of such a lawsuit might scare the Ramseys into an early and very cheap settlement offer.

      Nope, I can see no downside whatsoever to CBS suing to get the GJ records released.

      Delete
    9. I agree, CC. I don't see this ever going to trial. They would settle first, I am sure. JR wouldn't want that info exposed. We just might be able to solve the case given the missing info.

      AH is the one that bothers me the most. Pandering to the Ramsey lawyers, leaking info to the press, sabotaging the case for LE, failing to indict. Was it for political gain down the road? Or was it just because he didn't have the backbone? So cowardly of him. Or calculating. I can't figure out which one it is. Maybe both?

      EG

      Delete
    10. Hunter is indeed a puzzle, and he bothers all hell out of me, too, both professionally and personally.

      He was said to have aspired to the office of Attorney General for the State of Colorado, but you'd think appearing to be a hard-charging, fearless DA in pursuit of justice for an innocent child would have been just the ticket to that office.

      I know for a fact he had little or no trial experience, none at all with homicide, and that his preference was for rehabilitation rather than retribution, which for the most part suited his hippie dippy constituents perfectly - right up until the Ramsey case thrust Boulder and its incompetent public officials onto the world stage.

      He's never been tarred with scandal or graft, and about the worst thing my law school friends still in Boulder can find to say about him is that he's too conciliatory to opposing counsel - as we saw clearly in the Ramsey case.

      Dunno, E. I was a hang 'em high type when an A.S.A., and Stan Garnett is as well. Alex Hunter is beyond my ken.

      Delete
    11. Thanks, CC! I have a bit more clarity, even if I'm still seething over his appalling behavior and inaction. He is the one I hold responsible for this child not getting justice. It must be especially frustrating for you and your colleagues to see something like this happening and not be able to do anything about it.

      EG

      Delete
    12. Drove me nuts for years. Things are better now - Stan Garnett is doing am excellent job, and has successfully prosecuted a number of cold cases. He's ordered further, more sophisticated testing of the DNA evidence, and has stated baldly that he knows who did it, and given some actual evidence, he'll indict.

      Not, I'm afraid, good news for you, Sam, Zed and J, EG, as Burke is now and forever unprosecutable. Not good news for Herc, either, as Patsy is beyond reach.

      That leaves only one suspect left standing. You're a bright lady with insight - sure I can't persuade you to revisit the evidence of prior sexual abuse, take another look at John?


      Delete
    13. CC, is it POSSIBLE Stan Garnett knows who committed this murder and will indict someone as "accessory" given enough evidence? Burke is unprosecutable, which only leaves John, agreed. But on what charge? I suppose time will tell! I will happily concede and eat crow if the charge is first degree against John...all I want is justice!! Remaining BDI for now :). Sam

      Delete
    14. John can't be charged as an accessory, the statute of limitations has expired. Patsy's dead and Burke can't be prosecuted, so clearly, Stan Garnett is speaking about John, and the charge is murder - how that escapes BDIs is beyond me. It's right there in black and white and isn't open to interpretation.

      Delete
  18. "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket,' or that 'she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."

    If John indeed made a statement similar to that --- that statement alone proves either he or another male family member or close friend killed her. No doubt about it. What father would be sympathetic to his daughters killer immediately upon finding her dead body?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No sympathy is implied. It's merely a deduction. And to say it 'proves' something is ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I've thought the same thing about the blanket -- that doesn't mean that I killed her or know who did.

      Delete
    3. "...that doesn't mean that I killed her or know who did."

      "I" as in you? You sure your last initial isn't R.? LOL. I'm kidding, John. Couldn't resist. ;)

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the kind words on the previous thread, H. Just now, belatedly, revisited and saw that.

      Delete
    5. Well, remember that "practice note" on the Ramsey's pad? It was addressed to "Mr and Mrs ('vertical line' - my keyboard doesn't have one, and when I copy/past one, it turns it into a capital I)", just as in John's moniker above! So perhaps it was a Freudian slip. Fess up, John.....you HAVE been awfully defensive when it comes to JR..... ;)

      Delete
    6. Well, isn't that odd? The capital I (with the line on the top and the bottom) changes to a simple, vertical line once my comment is published.....how very strange.

      Delete
    7. Not me! My last name actually begins with an I.

      Delete
    8. Don't worry....if you were really John Ramsey, you'd have had Lin Wood sue Doc already. :)

      Delete
  19. Imagine.

    You're John Ramsey. You've planned a faked abduction to cover up a sexual homicide you've committed. You've written a note to create the illusion of a kidnapper, and you plan to dispose of the body.

    But then your wife calls 911. The house is full of cops and family friends. You can't dispose of the body. So there is a ransom note, but also a corpse which you know will be discovered.

    How to square that circle....?

    "I don't think he meant to kill her".

    Suddenly it's an inadvertent killing in the course of an abduction.

    Can the BDI's not see how John's conspicuously odd, planted statement chimes absolutely with Doc's theory and his own guilt? He's taking charge of the narrative, insisting that there had been a kidnapper, but that it had gone wrong.

    That's why he said what he said. Burke? Nothing to do with it. John's simply trying to reinforce the crumbling narrative he had started in order to save his own skin. He's turning it from a kidnapping to a kidnapping gone wrong. It's the only option he has, literally. His words do so much to bolster Doc's theory I don't know why Doc is so keen to paint them as unreliable hearsay! ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHN..

      John IS guilty---he spent the wee hours covering up a crime his son committed. We KNOW why he would've made that comment.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Capitalize all you like. You don't know.

      Delete
    3. If he were covering for his son that's one statement he wouldn't have made. After all, half the people reading this blog seem to think it is clear evidence of a caring, remorseful, inside killer. Why on earth would John immediately give LE and anyone else listening such a clear clue that Burke had done it accidentally? This idea doesn't stand up even on its own terms.

      Delete
    4. I don't think John was giving them a clear clue that Burke did it. I think John was projecting guilt onto someone else and away from the R's totally with that remark. He was trying to say it was an intruder but not a stranger, someone familiar with JBR but not one of the R's. How else was he going to explain the blanket that they wrapped her in? A stranger wouldn't have done that.

      EG

      Delete
    5. EG, that's so convoluted, my apologies but I actually don't quite know what you're saying about John's intentions. He wanted with that one observation to cover for Burke but to implicate someone outside the family who cared about JB?

      That's some convoluted statement analysis there. I'd go so far as to call that "over-reaching".

      Delete
    6. What part of it don't you follow, MHN? You don't think everything the R's did was meant to project guilt onto someone else? I think they just about threw everyone under the bus, including good friends.

      EG

      Delete
    7. "How else was he going to explain the blanket that they wrapped her in? A stranger wouldn't have done that."

      Why would he have to explain the blanket at all? If John thought JB being wrapped in a blanket would point to a family member, why did he wrap her in it in the first place, EG? You, yourself agree he was involved in the staging, so surely he would have just omitted the blanket from the scene altogether if it concerned him....I'm so confused.

      Delete
  20. It's hard to think of how John could have seeded his plan b, the idea of an abduction gone wrong, any more clearly without his intention to do so becoming suspiciously obvious. As an attempt to do that his phrase was quite precariously weighted but just about all he could do.

    As an attempt, on the other hand, to complement a cover-up of Burke's violent killing of his sister it is more or less the worst possible thing he could've said. As the reaction of BDIs on this forum clearly demonstrates.

    And whatever else he was, John wasn't that stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think there was a Plan B at all. I think the R's intended for this to be a kidnapping gone wrong all along.

      If JR acted alone, and wanted to get the body out of the house, he wouldn't have wasted time re-dressing her etc. Why go to all of that bother? If he was cold and callous enough to strangle her and fracture her skull wide open, why not just throw the body in the trunk and head out the door. According to many here PR was so gullible, compliant and weak, she would've believed anything.

      The whole cleaning up of her body, re-dressing her, wrapping her in a blanket, staging a crime scene to me, screams parents. And that RN was dictated by JR to PR and she added her own lines here and there.

      I believe they were trying to steer LE in the direction of an intruder that was familiar with the R's and knew details like the amount of the bonus and how to get around the house easily, even quite possibly having a key.

      As I said many times, this is my opinion and it's not written in stone, but I'd need some really good evidence to sway me towards the JDI alone theory.

      Delete
    2. The above post was from me...EG

      Delete
    3. But to get back to what we were discussing, EG, you'd have us think that because JR wanted to point LE away from the family he would've immediately drawn attention to the careful and considerate wrapping up of the body? And to further dismiss any notion that a family member, eg Burke, could be implicated, he said "he" rather than "they"? And it's further your contention that John supposed the Boulder PD to have psychic abilities that allowed them to deduce that by this sentence he meant to imply someone male who cared but who wasn't a family member and definitely not Burke?

      You may be right, EG. You may be. I just don't think you are. But you may be.

      Delete
    4. "If JR acted alone, and wanted to get the body out of the house, he wouldn't have wasted time re-dressing her etc. Why go to all of that bother?"

      He wouldn't....he possibly did just wrap her up in the first thing he had handy - the blanket, which was probably in the basement drier, nice and close. The wiping down/redressing was done in the 90 minutes he went missing, once he realized he wasn't going to get to dispose of her body and his DNA was probably all over her. You keep saying she was "lovingly" wrapped in the blanket, or words to that effect, but what makes you think this? She was not in the blanket when John carried her upstairs, so no one can corroborate John's claim that she was wrapped up "papoose" style (is wrapping someone up in that matter even an act of tenderness? Sounds to me more like her killer was simply trying to hide the awful deed from view). At any rate, as I've noted before, there was nothing loving about the manner in which the scene was staged - she had a garrote around her neck, her vagina had been damaged and she lied dead on a cold, moldy, basement floor for a dozen or so hours.

      "If he was cold and callous enough to strangle her and fracture her skull wide open, why not just throw the body in the trunk and head out the door. According to many here PR was so gullible, compliant and weak, she would've believed anything."

      He would risk detection if he disposed of her body in the middle of the night - by neighbours, or Pasty (no one has claimed she is "gullible" or "weak"), compliant, maybe, but she wouldn't have covered for her husband if she saw him throw a bundle in the trunk, drive off in the middle of the night, then awoke to a missing child. That's what the RN was for, it bought him the time he needed to dispose of her body during the day, after sending Burke and Patsy away whilst he "took care of the ransom".

      Delete
    5. I see this "90 minutes he went missing" thrown around a lot. Can anyone actually substantiate that? I've tried.

      Delete
    6. Only from Arndt's statement that he was out of her sight for a period of time, and a tad histrionic ("I counted the bullets in my gun"). She was in over her head, so it's hardly conclusive.

      Delete
    7. I think she was wrapped in the blanket and placed in a far corner of the room just in case Patsy opened that door and peered inside. All she'd see would be a blanket in a corner. That's probably all Fleet would have seen if he'd turned on the light.

      Delete
  21. I believe, MHN, that JR started projecting guilt immediately within earshot of people as he was bringing her up the stairs and into the main house. He was planting that first seed, steering the murder away from the R's. I think I read somewhere that JR even told the detective on the scene that this was an "inside job." Not sure if that's true or not.

    I think PR was the one who cleaned, redressed and wrapped her in the blanket and also insisted on keeping the body there, as in kidnapping gone wrong. Maybe JR did want to get rid of the body, I don't know because he knew he'd have to explain away the way in which it was found.

    I don't suppose anyone has psychic abilities, and whether they do or not has no bearing on what I said. I do think, however, that the detectives who worked on the case felt that the RN implied someone familiar with the R's was responsible for the murder. If you want to call that psychic, go ahead. I call it having the brains they were born with.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  22. A couple of points: John was the one who found the body. It would have taken less than a second to remove it from the blanket that so strongly implies an inside job. The only reason we know the body was wrapped in a blanket is because John tells us it was.

    And then he said "I don't think HE meant to kill her, she was wrapped up warm in a blanket" or words to that effect.

    So remind me: was he trying to steer attention away from Burke, or... frame him? If John WANTED the cops to suspect Burke he could hardly have done more to facilitate that.

    The blanket and the 'he didn't mean it' - both of them from the mouth of John: you can't honestly say that those two things in combination suggest to anyone who has read a crime paperback, let alone to an experience detective, anything but a killer with a familial connection to the victim.

    In short, John does and says, to my mind, the opposite of what he would be doing if he was trying to protect Burke.

    You are happy to simply reiterate your unfalsifiable theories as to who did what and why, so let me do the same. What John did and said is entirely consistent with a staged kidnapping having to be suddenly re-scripted as a kidnapping gone wrong.

    He's almost literally coming out and saying that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The only reason we know the body was wrapped in a blanket is because John tells us it was."

      Fleet was right behind him.

      Delete
  23. Well since John didn't have a blanket in his hand when he opened that wine cellar door, it's safe to say the blanket was already in there. And even if she wasn't wrapped in it, I think it's safe to assume that she was laid upon it. Do you think John would have known the blanket was in the dryer? I doubt John ever went near either the washer or the dryer.

    I don't think John was trying to frame Burke at all. Would Burke have washed her down, changed her clothes and wrapped her or laid her on a blanket? John knew that eventually the police would be able to piece together what was done to the body.

    Are you saying that John was trying to frame Burke to save himself, rather than doing everything in his power (hiring lawyers, getting BR out of the house that morning, insisting that BR was sleeping, not cooperating with LE) to protect him?

    You're basing your entire theory on the fact that PR made the 911 call before the staging was done, am I right? Therefore he couldn't go forward with his plan, so he came up with plan b which was a botched kidnapping.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  24. Of course I'm not saying he was trying to frame Burke! I may be crazy, EG, but I'm not ... crazy!

    I'm saying that his comments draw our attention to Burke, rather than away from Burke. That wasn't his attention. I see the chief function of the comment as being to establish the accidental nature of the killing, and therefore walk any listener clearly through a link from the ransom note, now redundant, and the corpse. It's so obvious it's almost *too* obvious.

    I have to put two children to bed, I'll sign off for now. Nice discussing with you, EG. All the best.

    ReplyDelete
  25. wasn't his intention, not "attention", sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ahh okay, I see what you're saying now. You mean that the kidnapper accidentally killed her while trying to kidnap her, and that's how he ties it all in with the bogus RN.

    Hmmm I will think about that, MHN. You do make a good point.

    And I think this case has made all of us a little crazy at times. Nice discussing with you as well.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with you MHN. A clever person is interested in the conclusion one draws from what they say and do. They want it to be YOUR idea. Otherwise, they appear suspicious.

    For example, when John tells his older kids he found her body at 11:00, and they later find out it was really 1:00, what conclusion are they going to draw from that? John Andrew said the person who did this deserves forgiveness(so it looks to me like it worked).

    I don't know who did this but I certainly wouldn't rule out John. There are just too many examples of this subtle method of manipulation. Very suspicious.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am curious how anyone on this blog deducts that JR was molesting JBR because he was the "adult male" in the house. BR was the most likely to have been been experimenting and statistics would back that up. This is what JDI's hang their hang hat and theory on ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right....
      Cuz lots of nine year olds are more interested in sex than adult men

      Delete
    2. Actually, it's not what we "hang our hat on".....JDI holds up whether motive is proven or not. It's the only theory that does, in fact.

      Delete
  29. I'm also not suggesting John was deliberately trying to "frame Burke". But, I do believe he was directing the police in as many directions as he could that pointed away from himself, through the conclusions investigators would draw.

    If the police didn't buy the "intruder" theory, his only other option would be to confuse the police as to who in the family would do this. And he may have gone far enough to sow those seeds.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  30. 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.

    Relevance?
    Actually, the wall phone in the kitchen area could not have stayed connected after it was hung up (the effect of gravity). The likely phone used for the 911 call was in the basement; i.e., a table model that could be slightly off kilter for a few moments before the connection was broken.
    Daffodilgal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh?

      Neither John nor Patsy ever said she used the basement phone. Why in god's name go out to the foyer and descend an additional flight of stairs to call the cops?

      In the bad old days I had wall phones all over my office, and being always frazzled and in a hurry, seldom hung them up properly - Newton's law, my secretary's chidings, or no.

      Delete
    2. Well he disappeared long enough to be questioned about it. His answer was that he was looking for intruders through binoculars in Burke's room. Overlooking the same alley that had a trash can in it where he said he saw a suspicious van YEARS after the crime. Only when the intruder theory was being developed did he mention details that helped distance himself from the crime. What was in that trash can? My guess is that he didn't want investigators anywhere near it.

      Delete
    3. I found this part of the Smit 1998 interview with John. There is nothing there to indicate that he was being questioned at that point about disappearing or how long this took him to do, or even if he was alone at the time. He just mentioned seeing the truck in the alley at some point that morning.

      Delete
    4. Lou Smit was hardly an objective investigator. Why didn't John mention the open window or the suspicious van until the intruder theory was being developed years later?

      Delete
    5. Exactly, Zachary. The fact that John gave an alibi for his whereabouts that morning proves he was, indeed, AWOL as claimed.

      Delete
    6. That's not an alibi for his whereabouts (unless he mentioned the same story in some other interview where he was asked about his whereabouts that morning).

      Delete
  31. All you guys insisting that John, all along, has merely been a loving parent covering for his son, let's see if he takes the stand in his beloved son's defense should CBS v Burke Ramsey go to trial.

    Mike G



    ReplyDelete
  32. This is going to shock the socks off of some of you, as it did me when the revelation was revealed to me like a lightening bolt about half an hour ago (Zed and J will no doubt be tickled pink. Doc, not so much). I just read some information that "turned" me. It's all come together for me in one, epiphanous moment. I believe Burke did kill JB.....in fact, I'm certain he did. Stay tuned for more details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I can't keep up the charade, lol, it's too tragic a thought to even pretend it is true.....it's April Fools Day here in Aus, did you forget?! :D

      Delete
    2. Ms D, you're truly a little devil. You totally had me! I was trying to figure out what on earth you discovered. I'm still squarely JDI, but have been enjoying the lists, points and counterpointsof the past few days! Carry on...

      Delete
    3. Hahaha.....yes, Candace, I just couldn't resist!

      Delete
    4. Please tell us

      Delete