Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Friday, March 31, 2017

More "lies," etc. attributed to Patsy

I was surprised to learn that the items cited by Zed didn't include any of the more troubling instances mentioned so often by those who insist that Patsy must have been involved. To be thorough, I'll now add as many of them as I can think of to Zed's previous 25. But before I do, I want to emphasize two important points.
  • There is a distinction to be made between an untruth and a lie. Someone may assert something that is not in fact true, but for a perfectly innocent reason: confusion, faulty memory, "gaslighting," etc. I would not call that a "lie."  And in the context of a criminal investigation, an untruth is meaningful only if the untruth is relevant to the case and the suspect has something to gain by asserting it.
  • There is a distinction to be made between a statement that is deceptive and a statement that implies guilt. For example, someone might be deceptive regarding some question about his bank account because he fudged a bit on his taxes. That doesn't necessarily mean that he embezzled any funds.
Now to continue with the list:

26. Patsy spotted a "Santa bear" in a photo from JBR's room and insisted that she'd never seen it before, suggesting that it must have been placed there by "the intruder." As it turns out the bear was an award given to JonBenet in a recent pageant, which tells us that Patsy lied.

To evaluate the above accusation, we need to ask ourselves what Patsy expected to gain if she was consciously aware of the source of this item but willfully lied about it. Of course she was obviously eager to find anything that might be traced to an intruder, not necessarily because she was guilty, but because she was under suspicion of murder and desperately wanted to find any evidence that might clear her. If that item truly didn't belong in the house, then it must have originated with "the intruder" and she would be off the hook. And that holds regardless of whether she was actually guilty of anything or totally innocent, but under suspicion. Therefor, to me, it looks as though she saw what she wanted to see and "conveniently" forgot about the actual source of that toy. It's a form of confirmation bias and not at all uncommon. To assume she knew the truth and deliberately lied to throw the investigators off the scent, we have to ask what good that could have done her. If she knew that the item was awarded during a recent pageant, then she would also have known that the truth would come out sooner or later, once the people who ran the pageant found out about it. As it turned out, that's what happened and it became a serious embarrassment -- as she would certainly have been able to anticipate if she'd been deliberately lying. It seems to me that Patsy's memory, affected by the heavy medication she'd been under, was unreliable, and that, coupled with her strong desire to find intruder evidence, was what led her to believe an untruth. I see no reason to treat this as a lie, because there was no reason for her to be deceptive regarding something that could so easily be checked.

27. Patsy claimed she knew nothing about the fact that Burke had at one time owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots with a compass on them. It's hard to believe she didn't know what sort of footwear her own child owned, so she must have been lying.

Here there are two possibilities. Either Patsy truly knew nothing about these boots, possibly because they were a gift from some other party, maybe an aunt or grandparent and Burke didn't wear them very often -- OR she was being deliberately deceptive because she so badly wanted to support Lou Smit's theory that the Hi-Tec print found near JBR's body must have come from the "intruder." In neither case can this be seen as evidence of guilt. Finding intruder evidence would have been important to Patsy whether she was guilty or not.

28. Patsy changed her story regarding the little red "heart" found drawn on JBR's hand, first claiming that she had seen it "that morning" and then correcting herself later when she realized that she could not have seen it that morning unless she had seen JBR's body prior to its discovery by John.

As seems clear to me Patsy just got confused. It's possible that she thought it was still morning when the body was found by John. And it's possible she just had a memory lapse, due to the medications she was on. What leads me to doubt that this could have been a lie is the fact that she would have had nothing to gain by it. If she herself had drawn that heart on her daughter's dead body, as has so often been assumed, she could easily have "confessed" to drawing it while putting her to bed that night, while still very much alive. Why draw suspicion on herself by saying something that implied guilty knowledge when lying about it would have been so much easier?

29. Patsy lied to Barbara Fernie about a damaged door that she knew had been broken into in the past, implying that it could have been due to a recent breakin attempt by "the intruder."

This incident was reported in James Kolar's book, p. 327. Barbara had apparently noticed damage to a door in the Ramsey house and Patsy had reassured her that this was old and probably due to John breaking in at some point after forgetting his keys (man, the guy was incredibly forgetful about all sorts of things). But Fernie recalled an advertisement in a Denver newspaper, "placed by Ramsey attorneys and taking up at least half of the page of the newspaper, [purporting] that this may have been a possible point of entry used by the kidnapper of JonBenet." Due to this obvious attempt to mislead the public, the Fernies "severed their contact with [the Ramsey] family. . ."

Note that there is nothing in Fernie's story, as reported by Kolar, that tells us Patsy lied about that door. What was deceptive was the ad taken out by the attorneys, and we have no way of knowing whether Patsy had anything to do with that. Very possibly it was prompted by John without any input from Patsy at all. He does seem to have been the one actively working with the lawyers, while Patsy seems to have taken a more passive role. While we have no way of knowing what role Patsy might have played in that very deceptive ad, the commonly held notion that she lied about it to Barbara Fernie is clearly not true.

30. Patsy's descriptions of what happened prior to the 911 call are contradictory regarding both the sequence of events and the question of whose decision it was to make that call. There is no question she lied about at least some of the details.

As I've often argued, we have no reason to believe anything they said regarding what happened during that period of time. In one interview Patsy said that calling the police was her idea, and that she ran downstairs to make it while John went to check on Burke. But in their book she presents a very different version, in which they are both in the kitchen together and he tells her to make the call. While we have no way of telling what really happened, as I see it the call must have been her idea -- and John must have manipulated her into changing her story to make it look like it was his idea. This hypothesis, based on certain facts and logical inferences based on those facts, is a central tenet of my theory of the case, as extrapolated throughout this blog and in my book. If my theory is correct, we have a case of a lie told by an innocent person in support of another lie told by a guilty person she believes to be innocent. Two lies, told for completely different reasons.

31. Patsy claimed she cleaned up broken glass in the basement after John broke in several months prior to his daughter's murder. Either the incident actually happened, which seems highly unlikely, or Patsy was lying to support John's fabricated story.

Of all the purported lies by Patsy, this is the toughest one to explain, admittedly. But now that we've had a chance to review all the other alleged "lies," it should be clear that this is the ONLY such case, all the others being relatively easy to account for. I've gone into this issue at length in some recent blog posts so there's no need to pursue it yet again.  As I see it, 1. given all the evidence pointing away from Patsy as either the murderer or an accomplice, it's hard to believe she would suddenly decide to deliberately lie to support someone she knew to be guilty; 2. there is no easy way to explain her testimony as either the truth OR a lie. If it were true, then why wasn't her story supported by the only independent eye witness, Linda the housekeeper? And if it were a lie, then why would she include Linda in her story, knowing that Linda could not have been there and would have denied it. As I see it, this leaves us with no choice but to conclude that she must somehow have been manipulated into telling this story, in a manner similar to the way she was manipulated regarding the 911 call. "Gaslighting" comes to mind, but there are simpler methods of implanting a false memory that might have been used.

Of course, if I had wanted to avoid the touchy issue of false memory, and make it easier on myself, I could have claimed that an innocent Patsy eventually awoke to the truth that her husband had killed her daughter, but nevertheless decided to stick by him, as he was her sole support, both financially and legally. That would make it easier to explain Patsy's deceptive story, but given everything we know about her and her relation with her daughter, I refuse to accept it. If she had ever learned the truth about John's involvement I feel sure she would have left him, and reported him to the authorities.


257 comments:

  1. CC.. from the prior thread..

    Ditto what Sam asked. Could John be indicted for being an accessory?

    As for coming over to the JDI side - I have trouble with the sexual abuse because there is no prior history, no evidence, not one person came forward to say John had sexually abused them. His other daughter said he was a wonderful father. I do believe JBR was sexually abused, but I just don't know by whom.
    I admit it's logical to think JR, as the adult male in the house, would be the abuser, but without concrete evidence I am not prepared to convict him of it.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be an unfortunate situation where JBR was his first victim. There's no proof, but it could still be the case. Regardless, it wouldn't hold up in court.

      Delete
    2. Zachary,

      Anything is possible, I suppose but it's a stretch for me to believe he became a pedophile all of a sudden.

      For me, the BDI theory answers most of my questions, but the garrote still nags at me. The fact that her hair was entwined in the knot itself is troubling. Also, to me it's indicative of sexual sadism/asphyxiation and while I believe Burke killed her by accident, the garrote and the way it was used, makes me think otherwise.

      EG

      Delete
    3. This is a murder case, not an abuse case. In court, it would not be necessary to prove John had been abusing her, only that he is the only one who could have murdered her. While abuse can't be proven, the likelihood that he was abusing her could be used as part of a circumstantial case.

      Delete
    4. The abuse issue is why so many refuse to finger John as the killer. They'd rather believe that Patsy killed the daughter she doted on than believe it was an isolated case of sexual abuse. But let us not forget that John has a history of beauty queen fetish.

      Delete
  2. Ms D..

    I am shocked that you're coming over to the BDI camp. OR are you about to shout out, "April Fools"!! :)

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be shocked no more......

      "April Fools!"

      Tsk tsk.....as if!

      Delete
    2. I knew it! :) You did have us going there for a moment.

      EG

      Delete
  3. Sam and EG: Sorry, guys, no. The statute of limitations has long since run on accessory and conspiracy to commit. It's murder or nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmmm so that leaves JR as the last man standing, so to speak. This should be very interesting. I can't wait to see/hear the evidence they have. Until then, I'll stick with BDI.

      It's just that damn garrote that has me thinking adult male--sado/sexual. However, it could have been Burke playing some innocent game that turned into an accident somehow.

      The R's behavior after the fact, for me, is what nails them.

      EG

      Delete
    2. See my previous post, and the post just above.

      Delete
  4. I am completely on the same page with EG, but, as I said on the last page, I am not a "right fighter" and will happily concede and eat crow if I am wrong! My interest is in justice, but for now I am still BDI :) Sam

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your thoughts on #29,the damaged door, make sense to me. This was an issue that had always concerned me. But, it's not hard to believe some decisions were made by the "team" without Patsy's involvement.

    K

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. About Patsy's lies...mho:
    Patsy lied because she was either protecting someone else or she was protecting herself.
    If she was protecting someone else rather than herself, for which she agreed on a plan to cover up for x person, we must be able to answer why police was called in before the scene staging to mislead police was complete.
    Also, if she had written or collaborated in the writing of the ransom note she would have known, all the bases were covered for her and she was excused by the said note to make that call.
    If the 911 call had not occurred at that precise time JBR would be probably a missing person to this day. And the story would be completely different.
    So, one can't help but thinking that if she really was in on it together with John she was a terrible partner in crime.
    But she surely lied. We, JDIers, can not or will not deny it. So, if she didn't lie to cover up for someone else, because she was oblivious of John's actions the previous night -and I am sure it never crossed her mind, Burke was involved whatsoever, why did she lie?
    She was the only suspect for BPD and they were after her. Imagine the head spin if you know that you are innocent but at the same time you are the one experts couldn't rule out. John was ruled out, Burke in her mind was incapable....an intruder...not probable and almost discarded by LE.
    So, she was really protecting herself. I can sympathize with her and understand the fear of being charged for a crime she didn't commit. So, I think that, when confronted with or asked about some controversial evidence pointing to her or to the idea of an inside job, she would turn on the self defense mechanism to protect herself and lie. As Doc said, she lied, but for a different reason.

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another alledged lie is when in the 1998 interview with BPD, she said she knew nothing about possible sexual abuse prior to the night of the murder. She said she was shocked to hear about that. She stated she lacked some information since she had not read the autopsy report and that she was extremely surprised. This is interesting because the year before while sitting in another interview, she heard John talk about the possibility of chronic abuse, which he denied having any knowledge of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not stating an opinion or a theory, merely asking a question: does anyone here have any information on how wives respond to allegations of sexual abuse (unproven) against husbands? I know the information would be merely general and statistical, but it might be interesting nevertheless. How many wives typically might choose to resist or reject any accusation of alleged abuse against the man with whom they have chosen to build a marriage, an idyllic home and model family, unless and until the evidence becomes undeniable?

      From everything I've read in true crime forums and literature, I believe the proportion of women prepared to reject any such allegation and lie to themselves about this subject if at all possible, is probably higher than we would like to imagine. At least once a week we can find in the news a woman prepared to overlook, cover-up, excuse, or even collaborate in a male partner's vile abuse or cruelty towards a child. It's hideous but it's true.

      And I do wonder whether the veneer of affluence and respectability blinds us to the possibility of that being true in this instance.

      Life events can trigger changes, can destroy inhibitions and move certain actions from the realm of suppressed fantasy into concrete reality. Every paedophile has a first victim, and a long list of previous relatives or acquaintances who will insist that there was never any sign of such behaviour. There is always a first time, a first victim.

      Maybe she was the offender's first and last victim. It's possible.

      Delete
    2. Marcela, there is a difference between a discussion of the possibility of abuse and being confronted with evidence of abuse. Patsy claimed to be shocked when told that there was evidence of abuse, which is only to be expected. A discussion of a possibility is another thing entirely. What's interesting is that she apparently never tried to follow up on that evidence with the authorities. So I do think MHN is on the right track. When it comes to married couples, see no evil, hear no evil speak no evil is very often the rule. Until one day everything explodes in your face and you have no idea why.

      Delete
    3. I've given that some thought as well, MHN, and decided that had JBR been alive and the abuse ongoing Patsy would have had to make a difficult conscious decision to see/hear/speak no evil.

      As it was, denial was easy - abuse was just another ugly, unfounded accusation by the BPD, which she was sure was out to get her entire family for the murder of her child.

      Delete
    4. And as I recall, in the interview Patsy kept saying, "Yes, I'd be shocked to hear about it (the abuse). I want to see where it says that." (Meaning she wanted to see actual proof that the abuse took place.) But of course the interviewer didn't offer up any proof and let the moment slip past. It probably just confirmed Patsy's fear that the police were trying to trick her and were making things up.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I agree with you Doc and the rest that replied to my comment. I just brought it up as another example of Patsy's inconsistencies that have been mentioned in this blog.

      Delete
    6. "But of course the interviewer didn't offer up any proof and let the moment slip past. It probably just confirmed Patsy's fear that the police were trying to trick her and were making things up."

      Actually they never followed up with any suggestion that John (or Burke) might have been responsible for the abuse, but immediately switched topics to question HER as to whether or not she'd been abused in the past. More evidence that John was simply off the radar -- they wanted the goods on HER.

      Delete
    7. absolutely the same argument, the hear no evil see no evil bit, could be made if Patsy suspected her son was doing something to her daughter, only it wouldn't be "sexual" given his age. Certainly 9 year old boys have curiosities, but if Burke was interfering with his sister it would be an act of inappropriate play, or possibly even at the level of anger, and so called "interference" rather than child abuse, molestation, incest, although it is all of those things. Not in the mind of a 9 year old though. More like interfering. Her hymen was damaged, her vaginal opening was enlarged, that happened most probably on more than one occasion. That JB had many trips to the Pediatrician that is true - some were for her sinus infections, but many involved infections of a vaginal nature. It seems to me that Patsy could have been on a fishing expedition, hoping her Pediatrician could shed some light on it, without telling him directly her suspicions, as that would have required that he report it. It may have even led to them having to remove her "from a dangerous situation" and where else have we heard that. If she suspected anything, be it her husband or her son, she would have turned a blind eye, first wanting definitive proof before taking action, I would assume.

      Delete
  10. Off topic, for those familiar with the Arizona case of the 6 year old abducted from her home 5 years ago, the remains of Isabel Celis have been found.
    https://ktar.com/story/1513948/body-tucson-girl-missing-6-years-found-arizona-county/amp/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Happy April Fool's Day, I suspect I may the the fool for returning here but you all are so good. That is to say every argument you make for or against any particular person is compelling. Certainly for the last 20 years I have not researched this case in any particular detail, I've read at least at last count, 7 books pertaining to the case but until I ventured in here I really did not consider any of those details to which I have since coming in here 7 months ago.

    Lately I have leaned back toward Burke because I can't rule out Patsy as accessory. I cannot get past that she was not supposed to call 911, that the note was for her to startle her into leaving the house so that John could remove the body - and he's upstairs not sitting on her so she won't make that call? And if she is involved, one could rightfully think that she wouldn't be protecting her husband from the murder of her child, but that she would be protecting her other child from murder. And, incidentally, not because she necessarily wanted to but because it was discussed in those early morning hours with her husband that that was what they needed to do.

    And not for family name, or status. But because what such information when coming to light, would do to his business. And ultimately their status, financial and social. But then there are problems with this and that is Burke the man. How could he carry this secret with him for 20 years. Was he sent back to bed only suspecting he had done something but not sure that something was murder? Rather hard to fathom, really. Why hasn't he cracked? Doesn't want to send his father to prison for being an accessory to murder?

    Zed, I appreciate the way you keep swinging. You do have backup, you have EG and J. But help me out here. Unless John pulled that cord himself, how would that be helping Burke; was Burke so resentful and mean that he wouldn't think strangulation with that much force wouldn't kill an unconscious prone child; and how does he work out such knowledge in his own mind for 20 some years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inquisitive,

      "how does he work out such knowledge in his own mind for 20 some years?" Does the question imply there must be some level of remorse on B's part? If anyone can demonstrate any expression of sorrow or regret by B, be it at 10 or 30, at JB no longer being alive, it would be helpful in attempting to answer that question I would think.

      Sam

      Delete
    2. A good point, Sam.

      I wonder what it might do to a young boy's psyche if he knew the father he loved and whose approval he sought was abusing and had, ultimately, he suspected, killed the young boy's sister?

      He might unconsciously decide there and then that the sister was written-out of the family story, out of the picture, not to be mourned.

      The father has power and uses it. The sister had none and is gone.

      Delete
    3. MHN,

      Very good point as well. The problem I have with attempting to answer that question is that there has never been a shred of evidence that J ever abused anyone and without abuse, there is no motive for murder. Fratricide is unfathomable to well adjusted people, yet it's been documented from the beginning of time. If B had been 14 at the time of the murder would it be less of a stretch to believe he did it? I will say that if time should bear out that J was responsible and not B, your above reasoning would make the most sense to me as to why B is so detached.
      My question to you is this..if that were the case, do you suppose B reasonably feared the same fate could befall him and if so, can anyone demonstrate any expression of fear by B and if not, why?

      Sam

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry Sam, I didn't see your email from last night. I meant if Burke killed his sister how would he work out that knowledge in his mind for 20 years. It makes me wonder how he was "returned" to bed that night. This was just not a normal family. To not say anything to him about it until dad gets him up at 7 a.m. and send him over to the White's is really appalling.

      Delete
  12. And Doc - please clear something up for me. You mentioned microscopic fibers from Patsy's jacket she wore to the White's on the sticky side of the duct tape as possibly getting there perhaps when she was getting JB ready for bed (which you stated long ago). You also mentioned on a recent page here that since the duct tape was taken off her mouth (by John) and thrown onto the white blanket that the fibers may have ended up on the duct tape via that route. And for a minute I thought yes, he cleared up the jacket fiber issue for me. However, if that blanket was taken from the drier (with pink nightie stuck to it) that night to wrap JB in it how would Patsy's jacket fibers from the jacket she wore to the White's end up on that blanket taken directly from the drier that particular night unless she handled the blanket that night. Either the blanket was already taken from the drier earlier by Patsy while wearing the jacket she wore to the White's that night, or she handled the white blanket while still wearing that jacket or handled it and gave it to John. In which case it makes her an accessory. My question was a little more clear on the page previous to this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inq,

      Welcome back! It's good to see you posting again. Maybe we can get you to come over to the BDI side?. :)

      EG

      Delete
    2. EG - thank you -

      Before I had thought Burke would have to be a sociopath on the one hand, to have done such a thing, but not necessarily. I think he was likely the center of his mommy's world with an absentee father who by all accounts (from the disgruntled housekeeper LHP) wanted the kids kept out of his hair and quiet around him until a few years into his sister's life when Patsy's attentions and "project" changed to her. And the grandmother too. He would have been resentful but being a kid, not have taken his resentments out on his mother or father, but on the object of everyone's affection, the star of the family - his sister. There may have been taunting, teasing, prior to anything physical. But I'm mystified as to how he returned to bed that night - knowing he had done something very bad. Could the two melatonin have been given to him by John. John telling half truths, almost playing with the police. Burke says he laid in bed that morning fearful, playing with his micromachine or some such toy. But if he was told his sister was kidnapped or overheard his parents talking about a note and a kidnapping he may have wondered - kidnapped? That's odd. Both parents up all night discussing how to handle it, she's dead, each blaming the other - John accusing Patsy of knowing her son was troubled but continuing to focus all of her attention on her daughter, the pageants, all of it, Patsy accusing John of leaving everything to her and putting all of his attention in his business and not enough on the children. Finally coming together to fix it by staging an event to point to an intruder, John breaking a window, Patsy and John spending too much time on a note, running out of time as the police would have to be called and they were scheduled to leave town. So yes, I can see it. Just so very baffled as to how Burke could still carry this around with him for 20 some years. And I don't rule John out for as Gumshoe 2 suggested, tightening the noose to bring about death, finishing what one started. Pretty audacious of Dr. Spitz to flat our accuse him on national television though don't you think? So we'll see what comes of it, if anything.

      Delete
    3. The thing that really bothers me with BDIs, is that most - if not all - believe John ultimately killed JB. Why would John need to "finish the job"? We know the head blow Burke supposedly delivered didn't kill her, so he didn't need to save his son from a murder charge (not that he could have been charged anyway), so really, what was his motive, and do you really think Patsy would have said "sure, John, let's not try and save our beloved daughter, better to choke her to death and stage a kidnapping instead. We don't want the cops buzzing around, asking our son questions. We'll sacrifice his sister instead, it's a perfect plan". Even BDIs concede it was John - not Burke- who ultimately ended JB's life, so this alleged motive of trying to spare his son being charged with murder doesn't fly.....there was no murder until John made it so, therefore they need to do one of two things: commit to their theory 100% and say Burke did the lot of it, or, come up with a plausible motive for why two parents kill a child they could have saved.

      Delete
    4. Ms D, For what it's worth, I believe Burke responsible for all of it with the exception of the ransom note and wiping down of her body. Of the three family members in the home that night, he is the only one with known behavioral abnormalities. His interview with the child psychologist 13 days after the murder was chilling, not drawing JB in the family photo, "getting on with his life" etc. Indeed, twenty years later he gave the Dr. Phil interview and appeared bored with the subject, incredulous that it still generates interest and had the audacity to use the phrase "flaunting it" when asked about his sister (I believe it was a question re the pageants). Burke was legally still nine at the time of the murder, but in his tenth year, a few short weeks from his 10th birthday. I go back to the case of Jamie Bulger and the two 10 year olds that tortured and murdered him. Truly shocking and beyond belief, yet it happened. I realize I am in the minority, but I believe it possible B did the lot of it, Patsy woke earlier than she stated, went looking for her baby and found her downstairs in the horrific state, hence the scream heard by the neighbors. Of course this could be completely wrong and the JDI completely right, but for me it is what makes the most sense. As I said in a prior post, should the new DNA evidence prove JDI, I will happily concede that everyone on this blog, beginning with Doc, was far more intuitive than I. - Sam

      Delete
    5. Sam

      I am with you all the way. I think I posted this earlier, that to think PR and JR would not have called 911 for a head blow is ridiculous. I, too, believe they found her dead. I believe that Burke did all of it except the RN, staging, cleaning, etc. I am not sure how it happened, and I hated to think an almost ten year old could commit such a heinous crime, but I have read several cases where kids kill and torture kids. It does happen.

      EG

      Delete
    6. Inq,

      I agree that the house was in complete chaos that morning once Patsy discovered JBR wasn't in her bed. She ran first into Burkes room looking for her, then screamed for JR. I believe they both ran down to the basement and found her there, dead for hours already.
      I am sure they argued back and forth and no doubt questioned BR.

      As I said, I am willing to hear all theories and find one that answers all of my questions the way BDI does.

      Until then, I am BDI all the way.

      EG

      Delete
    7. Sam and EG, though I highly doubt Burke killed JB, I respect your more logical version of the BDI theory. I have no respect for BDIs who want it all ways (Yes Zed and J and the plethora of other BDIs who want to cover all their bases: Did Burke do it? Did John do it? Did Patsy do it? Or did both John AND Pasty do it? Make a decision, commit to it, and defend it in a rational, cohesive manner - something I've yet to see. Stop glossing over the "second act" - the garroting - as though it was a mere afterthought and not the actual deed that took her life) and always take the coward's way out by fleeing the discussion every time they're asked to present a logical explanation for why two parents who had no motive for wanting their daughter dead decided to kill her anyway, because your theory hinges on John and Patsy's motivation and so far, I've not heard a single, logical argument for motive.
      And, no, the very notion that they "thought she was already dead" is not a plausible explanation. There are sure-fire methods to check for signs of life, and parents of a much loved child would be sure to perform them before opting to twist a garrote around her throat. So, either Burke strangled his sister to death, or John or Patsy did - and it was intentional. This bullshit "accidental strangulation" is not credible, why does anyone use it?

      Delete
    8. I agree MsD, the why, the how and the who is still up for grabs. No matter who struck the head blow those in the Burke camp really do not know, no one knows, whether she might not have been tied up first since the coroner is even confused about sequence. Head blow would have killed her, strangulation did. Was she already tied up, perhaps loosely at first. I think it's interesting what Burke says about his two knives: Burke, 1998 interview with Det. Dan Schuler:

      "Schuler: you have two knives?
      Burke: I have one that says my name on it - it has Switzerland on it.
      Schuler: uh-huh.

      Burke: That one has a big knife, small knife, saw, corkscrew, screwdriver, flat head screwdriver, toothpick and tweezers. And I think that's it. And then I have another one that has a saw, scissors, its got this little hook thing that you tie knots better with. Um, I said saw? A cork opener."

      Here's what Mike Kane said July 2003 MSNBC:

      "Kane: I don't know where this came from that these were 'sophisticated knots'. I don't know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots,(referring to the garrotte and cord tied around JonBenet's wrists,) but the police department had somebody who fit that category. And that was not the opinion of that person. We seem to have very simple knots."

      I doubt anyone who came upon JonBenet that night would think her already dead, take a pulse, and decide she wasn't so finished her off. No, that's a stretch. I think she was completely dead. Still, no matter who the why of it is baffling.

      Not the work of a little sociopath, but someone with a personality disorder, who was taken to a psychologist where he dutifully went for two years, and likely put on some kind of medication. Medical records sealed. Looks to still be afflicted to this day, although most likely still on medication, working in some remote area from where others work.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. Up above there EG, don't think Patsy discovered JB not in her bed that morning. Believe she knew where she was soon after she was killed. Up all night with her husband as a note was written. Hard to swallow that she, with a small amount of time before the flight would "just get up", put on her Christmas outfit, re apply makeup, comb her hair, not get the kids up, saunter downstairs to make coffee or whatever and suddenly find a note on the stairs. She keeps telling the 911 operator "we just got up" wanting it on record that they just got up rather than having been up. We just got up we just found a note, there's a note, over and over. John wants to direct the officer to the note, that's very important, that's the whole clue there, the note, the note says what happened to her, focus on that note. They just got up, found a note. I imagine John did the dirty work concentrated in the basement and so needed a shower, but neither of them just got up.

      Delete
    11. putting it together using a theory Anonymous, something I don't believe you are able to do. But thanks for sharing.

      Delete
    12. Hmmm very interesting, Inq. Now who does that sound like?
      I rest my case.

      And I agree with you as well MsD. That was the one area in which I struggled and wavered back and forth. The garrote and who did what. I couldn't buy that two parents who came upon an almost deceased daughter, wouldn't have called 911 to try and save her. However, if they found her dead already, then they could very well have orchestrated a cover up. Burke is the only one that both parent would cover for and protect.

      BDI answers all of my questions, especially the bizarre behavior of the parents afterwards.

      EG

      Delete
    13. And the bizarre behavior of little Lord Fauntleroy as well.

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

      Delete
    15. Come on Zed, prove me wrong just once - that you're not avoiding the difficult questions - and answer me this time, how about it? J and yourself run for the hills every time I bring up the subject of motive on the part of John and Patsy (a motive to cover up a murder their son committed doesn't fly as he didn't commit murder - they did, according to your very own pet theory - so give us something we can actually work with). I see you've been on here since I posted my last comment, so I know you're intentionally avoiding the matter, yet again. You're becoming all too predictable......if you're so confident in your theory, it shouldn't be so difficult to defend. So let's hear one that might actually give us pause to think.

      Delete
  13. wasn't something in the case suppose to happen yesterday, March 31st?
    A deadline for one of the sides? Can't find anything on the internet.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  14. MHN...

    I tend to agree with you regarding some women turning a blind eye to their husband's indiscretions or in some cases, abuses, whether physical, mental or otherwise. I think sometimes pride comes into play. The woman doesn't want to admit that the man she chose as a life partner hasn't lived up to certain standards, ideals or expectations.

    I'd like to be able to say that women would draw a line when it came to their children and although they themselves would tolerate such abuse, they wouldn't allow their children to be a victim of it. However, we all know that's not true and I am sure we all know women who we felt were in abusive relationships and have remained there.

    I don't believe PR was an abused spouse, BUT I really don't know for obvious reasons.

    As far JR being a pedophile and JBR being his first victim, I guess you could be right. There is always a first time. Statistically speaking, I wonder how often it happens where fathers suddenly become pedophiles later in life. Maybe if I saw it in black and white, and knew it actually happened quite often, I might believe it. Until then, for me, it's a stretch to think JR was an abuser of children, sexual or otherwise.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi EG, listen, I know what you mean. For some reason, John strikes almost everyone as the last person in the world who would've been doing that.

    I'm not immune from that conviction myself.

    But then. I have a friend, a good old friend. (She visited today as it happens) She met a man. Had two beautiful kids with him. He seemed a good sort, good company, slightly quiet and reserved maybe, but amiable in his own quiet way.

    They moved away from London, to Oxford. Then they moved away from Oxford, to the countryside, to the middle of nowhere. She kind of dropped of the radar. He slowly moved her away from friends and family, and quietly took control. By the time they split up years later the following had taken place:

    He had arranged to have her wages paid into a 'joint' account to which he alone actually had access. He claimed to have his own income, but this turned out to be a lie. He claimed her inheritance from a deceased relative had all been swallowed up paying their joint debts, then shortly thereafter bought himself a car. He told her they couldn't socialize and that she shouldn't argue with him because he had regular hospital appointments for a serious heart problem - that turned out to be fiction. He even tattooed a scar and claimed it was from an operation to fit a pacemaker. He took out credit cards and got government money in her name fraudulently. She told her he was from Ireland, he was not. It took several years before she became suspicious. When she finally kicked him out it transpired he had a past conviction for fraud, and another for kidnapping. It took her years to admit to herself what we could all see clearly: that she was being maneuvered away from her own life and into isolation where this pathological liar could control her.

    She didn't - or wouldn't - see it.

    She has a PhD from Oxford. She is literally the smartest, sharpest, cleverest lady I know. And this obvious charlatan absolutely bamboozled her. Why? Because they had kids and a home. And she was happier lying to herself than losing that.

    I don't know, EG. I really don't. John is a closed book to me. He comes across as a shop window. A neat and tidy display, a facade. And that troubles me. Especially given the contrast with the razor edge of mind-destroying grief that Patsy often appears to be treading in interviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHN...o

      I recently watched something where they could've been talking about your friend. He had her so brainwashed that she believed every word he said and he was robbing her blind for years. They also had a child together and she was in deep. Not until she literally saw it with her own eyes, when law enforcement got involved, did she finally believe it and come to terms with it. So I do know what you mean and I do agree with you that it happens, and far too often unfortunately.

      And you're right about John. He is one cool customer and definitely ruled the roost in that house. That is one of the reasons I don't believe he didn't know PR was going to call 911. However, I believe PR got her way as far as the body being dumped. I don't think she would've allowed that, and that's why the body remained in the house. And I do believe PR's grief was real, she had lost a child and was living with a horrible secret she knew she'd have take to the grave.

      Again, this is just my opinion and I'd be more than willing to change it to JDI because it would make more sense. He was the only adult male in the house, had access to JBR and a motive if she had threatened to tell all. It's awfully easy and it's the logical conclusion to draw based on just that. However, without a shred of evidence to back this up, I can't get from point A to point B.

      BTW - I hope your friend is doing well after having gone through that. Hard to trust anyone as it's a total betrayal and I am sure you question yourself and wonder how it all happened and why you didn't see it.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Thank you EG. She's actually remarkably fine with it all now. Now she's out she can see everything, and she has two beautiful kids. Kids are always suppliers of perspective :)

      Delete
    3. "However, I believe PR got her way as far as the body being dumped. I don't think she would've allowed that...."

      Hence why John made sure to include the dire warning in the RN that, should the authorities be called, JB's body would not be delivered for "proper burial".....you honestly think that rather specific inclusion was mere "filler"? John was COUNTING on the fact Patsy would have desperately wanted a proper, Christian burial for her daughter, so that line was perhaps more important than just about any other line in the entire ransom note. Surely you don't think the author included it just for fun?

      Delete
    4. Ms D, good point.

      But...

      I'm not a grammar-nazi, and heaven knows my own posts always contain at least three mortifying typos that I fail to notice until it's too late. But.... as it's highly topical to this blog - the 'why' is redundant after 'hence'. Hence in this sense basically means 'and that's why'.

      I just thought I'd mention it because there are people who think that only Patsy Ramsey ever misused the word 'hence' and that she therefore wrote the RN.

      Not that I'm accusing you, Ms D.... ;)

      Delete
    5. You know what, I noticed it as soon as I re-read it, but had already published it, as is so often the case!
      You got me though.....I was the writer of the ransom note. What are the odds that two people on a planet of billions could ever possibly make the same grammatical error??? (sarcasm) ;)

      Delete
    6. "And hence" is a very common phrase, but it's found more often in formal rather than informal discourse. The notion that this phrase, as used in the Xmas message, originated with Patsy is a myth based on confirmation bias. John is the only one of the two known to have used that phrase in another context. And since his discourse tends to be formal, while hers is distinctly informal, it makes sense that this phrase in the Xmas message originated with him, NOT her. But no one wants to hear that, because John is and has been off the radar for a very long time.

      Delete
    7. How is that confirmation bias ? It was reported by Priscilla White that the writing in the Christmas card was PATSY's NOT Johns. Unless you of course are going to claim that Priscilla had conformation bias as well, which would not shock me here whatsoever, considering how JDI's twist and turn everything on this site towards JDI. Now we know the reasons for why PR lied so many times and have excuses for every single one ? The pyschic ability of blog owner is AMAZING. The 911 call is as fake as it gets. Other than PR clearly being upset (no faking that part) that call is clear PR had knowledge of what occured, anyone who can be so easily fooled of the obvious loses all credibility.

      Delete
  16. Ya'll are so smart that I hesitate to submit my
    thoughts, but here goes. Have ya'll ever researched what psychic mediums have to say about the death of JonBenet? I don't put much faith in their ability to actually connect with the dead, but some of them have helped solve a few missing person and murder cases. I have had what I like to think of as phychic dreams, and shortly after little JonBenet was found brutally murdered I dreamed about her. In the dream I saw a young woman sitting on the edge of a bed and JonBenet was standing a few feet away. The woman had straight, shoulder length dark hair. She wore a calf-length skirt and black boots along with a dark sweater. She was saying something to the child, but I couldn't hear her. JonBenet seemed to be a bit wary of her. Suddenly a man appeared from behind a curtain at the back of the room. JonBenet looked startled and afraid. She screamed once, then the two adults grabbed her by each arm and hustled her out and down some stairs. At this point in the dream I woke up. The man in the dream was young -- not older than early thirties. He was not very tall and was lean, had on jeans and a jacket. His hair was short and brown.Both adults appeared to be caucasian. This was only a dream. But perhaps if a genuine phychic could visit the house in which the Ramsey's resided at the time of JonBenet's death, he or she might be able to gather some valuable insight. Ya'll think it might be worth a try?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      I believe I read on acandyrose, that they did call in a famous psychic who had helped solve another case where a child was missing. I believe they created a sketch based on her description but don't think it generated any leads, etc.

      That's about all I know. Perhaps someone else here who knows more on this subject would care to elaborate?

      EG

      EG

      Delete
    2. My answer to your question would be very brief.

      Delete
    3. My answer even briefer:

      "Seriously?"

      Delete
    4. Ms D, my answer would be two letters long! The ball is in your court.

      Delete
  17. To me, PDI hinges on two things. It makes absolutely no sense that Patsy would write a note on her own pad. And her supposed motive. Bed wetting? She doted on JB too much for me to believe she suddenly snapped. Meanwhile JR has not shown an ounce of respect for his daughter in the last 20 years. He claims that the case has been a death of innocence but in regards to the media, not that his 6 year old daughter died.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "red heart" on JonBenet's palm. I was unaware until this evening that the STOP IT NOW organization which is dedicated to education and prevention of child sexual abuse uses a logo with a red heart on the palm. This organization began in the early 1990's, but I do not know when they adopted the logo.

    Maybe totally irrelevant, but certainly caught my attention.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  19. Correction..upon looking at their website it is a heart on the palm, though not red. Sorry about that.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  20. found this.......How can a persons DNA be found at the crime scene? one of the most valuable tools in criminology is the ability to test evidence for DNA samples , a positive DNA match can place the suspect at the scene of a crime even when there are no witnesses, making the investigators job more much easier, someone may leave DNA at a crime scene in many different ways , depending what occurred there.
    BODILY FLUIDS: One of the most common sources of DNA at a crime scene is bodily fluid, Sweat, Blood, Saliva, Urine and Semen as can just about any other substance secreted or excreted by the body, depending on the nature of the crime scene one or more of, these fluids may be present and investigators can collect the material for Analysis , skin cells or hair are other ways in which a criminal may leave DNA evidence at a crime scene.
    Anyone who enters a CRIME scene could potentially (Contaminate)it with his or her DNA,"unquote"

    look at the stupid thing JR had done? planned or deliberate to remove tape , tried to untie the rope , kissed her , touch her, he said "she was cold" all of these things BUT... there is a still a chance of proving who committed this crime whether they are dead or alive as long as they can find a DNA profile. my two cents... the children played in basement ,(probably not wine cellar) if Burke was at crime scene and helped his father or his mother its possible his DNA was there,

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's a reply to Mrs. D at 9:09AM above:

    First, it is ironic that DocG combines the Ramseys into one unit at the point of discovery of the head blow when he says: "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."

    True enough, but if John were the only parent present when the head blow occurred, in the basement, while in "session" with the victim, who was blinded and startled by Burke and turned to the right to look back over her shoulder from the wine cellar door where she and Ramsey were "in flagrante" with his hand clasped tightly around her shirt collar, then a chaotic series of events was set in motion.

    The rectangular blow, from the back but also from a right SIDE of the victim's skull is indicated. John knew he couldn't explain why he was there, and couldn't trust Burke in the frantic moments just after the blow to not confess the details of what he witnessed when he caught them "peeking at the unwrapped gifts" (the lure to the basement in the first place perhaps). Plus who knows how much evidence of the "session" was needing massive clean-up, which took time, during which it became apparent to John that the blow was lethal as the victim was in extremis.

    Some attempts at reviving took place, including the poking by either Burke or John with the train track, and shaking of the victim causing the brain bruising mentioned by Cyril Wecht.

    DocG's theory on the ransom note still holds true, except that just prior to the 911 call, John's intent was to give a "proper burial" to the victim in the coffin of the suitcase as best he could, and only the head blow was extant at that point.

    After the 911 call, the rest of the staging (to cover two points on the victim, i.e. the neck mark and sexual deviancy) took place. It explains John's disappearance for an hour that morning, including tearing the tops of the gifts, to explain later to his wife why he was down there and witness to the head blow. She thus was recruited only later. John was covering his abuse, and his wife was covering only for her son's violent act of rage or whatever motivated him to strike the blow. His stabbing motion in his interview was the train track poking recollection.

    Don't discount the use of a golf glove or two in all this.


    ReplyDelete
  22. What over and over Inqy? She said it once, just once. You still grappling with basic facts & multiple theories in spite of all 7 books and 7 months in here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What are the facts? 1) That John was molesting his daughter? is that a fact? 2) That John wrote the note? 3) That John was hoping Patsy wouldn't call 911 so he was upstairs despite his warnings in the note not to call?

    There are basic facts. Yes. That John and Patsy changed their stories, that she was hit on the head and strangled, etc, etc. there are basic facts. But if it were such a simple case of being able to say who did what when and where it may have been solved 20 years ago, and we wouldn't be in here "grappling" for four years. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable. There are people in here who think Burke did it but are not sure of the sequence of events, there are people in here who think Patsy played an active role and wasn't gaslit, there is at least one person in here who thinks Patsy killed her daughter, and several who think John killed his daughter but wonder why he wouldn't have disposed of her body earlier and hoped a note would remove Patsy from the house - or that he was busy molesting, murdering and staging all night while Patsy didn't notice he wasn't in bed. So yeah, I'll continue to grapple until someone gets arrested or until the wonderful Stan G. reopens the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been a while since I repeated my mantra but here goes -- one more time:

      I think it safe to say that almost all reading here don't buy the intruder theory, so let's rule that out from the start. Once that's out of the way, then the only ones who could have written the ransom note are John and Patsy.

      FACT: the ransom note is a ransom note. (actually a truism)

      LOGICAL INFERENCE: since there was no kidnapper (see above), the purpose of the ransom note could only have been to STAGE a kidnapping.

      COMMENT: No one in the history of crime has ever staged a kidnapping gone wrong. As I see it, such an attempt makes no sense for several reasons: if a kidnapping had gone wrong there would be no reason for the kidnapper to leave a note; and there would be no reason for the kidnapper to wrap the body of his victim in a blanket and hide it in the most remote room in the house; any attempt to stage a kidnapping without first removing the body of the victim is going to look extremely suspicious and very likely backfire -- so what would be the point of writing such a note in the first place? And we can add the inconvenient fact that the note was written on paper from a notepad in the house, making it especially difficult to accept that an intruder could have written it. If the plan had been to buy time to dump the body on the following night, the pad could have been destroyed at that time and no one would have been the wiser.

      COMMENT: If you aren't planning to remove the body, then report it as a home invasion, and if you want to create the impression that your daughter was murdered by someone with a grudge, then prepare a taunting, sarcastic note, NOT an obviously phony ransom note that's going to backfire on you.

      COMMENT: Of course, it's possible that a real kidnapper might hide the body to create the illusion of a kidnapping, so he could collect his ransom before the body was discovered. I've already discussed this as a possible alternative intruder theory. However, if this sort of scenario was what the Ramseys had in mind when preparing their note, then to my knowledge they never said a word about it. Nor did their enthusiastic advocate Lou Smit ever, to my knowledge, bring up such a possibility. If that's the scenario they had in mind, you'd think they'd have been shouting it to the rooftops. But, judging from their behavior, I don't think it ever occurred to them.

      Continued on my next comment . . .

      Delete
    2. FACT: Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning, shortly after discovering the note.

      LOGICAL INFERENCE: Since calling 911 with the body still in the house totally undercut the whole point of the staging implied in the note, we can conclude that she could not have been involved in that staging and thus could have known nothing about the real purpose of the note.

      LOGICAL INFERENCE: since Patsy would not have called 911 if she had been involved in either the murder or the staging, and, as we have agreed, there could have been no intruder, then the only remaining possibility is John Ramsey. We can therefore conclude that John must have, at the very least, written the "ransom note" without the knowledge of his wife.

      LOGICAL INFERENCE: Since we can safely rule out Patsy, then the only ones who could possibly have murdered JonBenet are John or their son, Burke.

      LOGICAL INFERENCE: If Burke had committed this crime then both parents would certainly have known about it, and both parents would have either reported it immediately to the authorities or, as many now assume, collaborated in an attempt to cover it up. Since clearly Patsy knew nothing about either the note or the kidnap staging, there could have been no such collaboration, and thus we can safely rule out Burke as the killer.

      CONCLUSION: the only remaining possibility as both murderer and writer of the note is John Ramsey, acting alone.

      COMMENT: The above is what I see as the fundamental logic of the case. One can argue forever as to why John allowed Patsy to make that call, why they presented contradictory versions of whose idea it was to make the call, why Patsy didn't change to a different outfit, why John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, why so many "experts" decided Patsy must have written it, why Patsy came up with so many "lies" (see above post), etc., etc.

      Regardless of all the so-called "evidence" supposedly pointing to either an intruder or Patsy or, now, Burke, the above logic is, in my view, absolutely fundamental, and every other aspect of the case must be considered in that light. The alternative is what we've seen for the last 20 years, exemplified by the continually changing interpretations offered by our diligent friend "Inquisitive": a futile process of going around endlessly in circles and getting nowhere.

      Delete
    3. ADDENDUM: If anyone might want to claim that it was John who was the innocent dupe, and Patsy called 911 only at his insistence, then we need to consider the following:

      If Patsy had written the note and staged the kidnapping, there is no way John could have forced her to make that call -- she would certainly have pointed to the many warnings in the note and refused to obey. And if John insisted nevertheless, then there would have been nothing to prevent HIM from picking up that receiver to call 911. In fact, under the circumstances, if John had truly wanted the police called, he'd have insisted on making the call himself, from the start, since Patsy was hysterical and could hardly get her words out.

      Delete
    4. Agreed on everything above DocG, but with a caveat and question: Why is it a given that both parents knew of Burke's head blow (if it occurred from Burke) at the time of the Patsy 911 call?

      Those who believe Burke struck the blow, including the CBS experts it appears, just can't fathom that the father would pick that night to purposefully and with malice aforethought strike his daughter viciously in the head to murder her. It is just so repugnant.

      The cover-up by John with the ransom note was to have no body be autopsied that could reveal the fresh and/or chronic sexual abuse.

      Had Patsy known of the head blow before she called 911, then the Burke culpability in that blow would not work, since you are right in that she would not have hesitated to call an ambulance if she had discovered the head injury either on her own or with John.

      From your post above, i.e. "LOGICAL INFERENCE: If Burke had committed this crime then both parents would certainly have known about it, and both parents would have either reported it immediately to the authorities or, as many now assume, collaborated in an attempt to cover it up. Since clearly Patsy knew nothing about either the note or the kidnap staging, there could have been no such collaboration, and thus we can safely rule out Burke as the killer."

      The foregoing inference is based on an assumption that both parents had to have discovered the head blow, which is not necessarily true, is it? You are combining the Ramseys as a unit, which is a no-no.

      Regards,

      Delete
    5. My inference is based on the extreme unlikelihood that BOTH parents would not have become aware of what had happened. If you're trying to imagine a scenario in which Burke struck her, John discovered it and then decided to hide it from Patsy, you'd have to ask yourself why. If John were innocent, he'd have no reason to keep it from her.

      Also, the ONLY reason why so many are convinced of BDI is that it's the only way to explain why both parents would want to get involved in a cover up. That's why it's "the only theory that makes sense," no?

      If only one parent were involved (see above), then BDI explains nothing, it's just another theory. And not a very good one, considering the bizarre nature of the ensuing cover up.

      Delete
  24. I think Stan Garnett has his hands full right now. He can't be bothered re opening the JB Ramsey case as he's been selected to join a group of prosecutors from across the country who will advise the Trump administration on policies regarding marijuana. That's where his priorities are currently.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are far better sleuths in here than I Doc. And thanks for calling me a friend :) but here goes. I'd like to take a stab at what you typed above. It would be easier just to say "I agree with everything you say". I'd rather hear from Hercule, so perhaps he will jump in here again. But here goes. You said:

    I. The purpose of the ransom note could ONLY have been to STAGE a kidnapping (since there was no kidnapping, operative words being "only" and "stage").

    A. The note also bought time. As well as took the direction of the investigation out of the house. So it had multiple purposes.

    B. We do not know the exact time of death. Hence we don't know how much time a discussion ensued over what to do about it, come up with a plan, and compose a note - all of which would have taken hours, not minutes.

    C. If the original plan was to get rid of the body, time likely ran out, making it an impossibility. There would be no "tomorrow."

    II. "Report it as a home invasion."

    A. Neither Patsy nor John would have stood up under questioning reporting it as a home invasion, or as an act of revenge by a vengeful employee, housekeeper, or friend.

    B. The victim was sexually assaulted, enough to draw blood. What kind of home invader assaults his victim with a paint brush handle or a gloved finger after murdering her. That makes as much sense as a kidnapper who also sexually assaults and leaves his victim in the house.

    III. "Fact: Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning shortly after discovering the note." (continued)...

    ReplyDelete
  26. continued...

    A. Yes, Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning but is it a fact that it was "shortly after discovering the note?" The note was written (could have been) at any time after the murder. However, the call had to be made shortly some time before they were to leave for the airport. That is the second fact. The call had to be made. Logically it should have been made before even earlier than when it was made but time ran out.

    So why leave a bogus note - a staged kidnap for ransom note, at all. I suggest it was the idea they came up with and although not perfect, ended up working as it bought time, sent the investigation off outside the home as the body is allowed to decompose so that evidence found could be disposed of, degrade and time of death would be more difficult to discern (which it was).

    That's all I got. Perhaps John did act alone. But Patsy's inconsistencies clearly show involvement to me, and if we rule out an intruder, thankfully we do, she would not help her husband cover up the murder of her daughter but together they would cover up for an accidental or intentional killing of their daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  27. left off "by their son" at end of sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How did it buy time? Time for what? And no it did not send the investigation anywhere. And it certainly didn't make the body disappear so what would be the point? And no they would not have been pressed for time. They could easily have cancelled their travel plans, and any delay could have been explained as hesitation due to the warnings in the note.

      Delete
  28. FACT: Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning, shortly after discovering the note.

    LOGICAL INFERENCE: Since calling 911 with the body still in the house totally undercut the whole point of the staging implied in the note, we can conclude that she could not have been involved in that staging and thus could have known nothing about the real purpose of the note.

    Doc - the above logical inference is a load of trollop. You like thinking this because it supports your theory. Her 911 call was staged and there is plenty of reasons for ringing 911 with the body still in the house. In fact, me (and many others) think it made sense for that call to be made whilst the body was still inside. This is where your entire theory comes crumbling down and you then move onto gaslighting and other unbelievable tangents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Plenty of reasons for calling 911 with the body still in the house".

      List them please. Plenty of them.

      "It made sense for that call to be made whilst the body was still inside."

      Please explain why.

      Delete
    2. "You like thinking this because it supports your theory."

      Whereas you never like thinking things that support your theory? Cut the bull.

      I've listened to that 911 call dozens and dozens of times. I'm 99% certain it's not staged. I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I'm not going to say that it's trollop and you "like" thinking thoughts that support your other thoughts, because it's just an asinine thing to say.

      Delete
    3. Well you are 99% sure its real. I'm 99% sure its staged. Maybe the word trollop was being a tad too harsh, but it seems like this blog is stating logical inferences when they are anything but.

      Yes, we are all tied to own our theory for various reasons but at the end of the day, unless someone comes out and states what happened (John on his death bed or Burke after his old man passes away), we will forever be going around in circles in this blog.

      There is no evidence that points to a person DEFINITELY doing this. I guess from the circumstantial evidence that we do have with Burke and Patsy, I have landed on what I believe to be the only logical theory. I'll just leave it at that.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough Zed. I sadly agree, I think we'll never know.

      Which is why I get puzzled when people react to Doc's theory with such antagonism.

      Delete
    5. "Yes, we are all tied to own our theory for various reasons but at the end of the day, unless someone comes out and states what happened (John on his death bed or Burke after his old man passes away), we will forever be going around in circles in this blog."

      Not true Zed. If Doc would ban you from this site, John Ramsey would proceed directly to jail without passing GO and collecting two hundred dollars.

      cc: EG, J, and a slew of non-JDI's hiding behind anonymity.

      Mike G

      Delete
    6. No one is getting banned from this site. Zed is one of the people who make this fun.

      And speaking of Zed:

      Zed, the logical inferences I presented are not based on some arcane process of formal logic. They are, very simply: just plain common sense. And yes, sometimes common sense is wrong. And yes, I could be wrong.

      But if you want to challenge my logic you have to do better than simply dismiss it, claiming that I'm just trying to "support my theory." That's what we are all trying to do. I could just as easily dismiss you as someone unwilling to give up on your own pet theory. So please let's can the empty rhetoric and have a reasonable debate.

      You say it made sense "for that call to be made whilst the body was still inside" -- and "This is where your entire theory comes crumbling down": but I'm sorry, I don't see how Patsy calling 911 knowing that the body of the victim is still in the house makes any sense at all. Not after having reported to the police that her daughter had been kidnapped -- and showing them what is clearly a ransom note. My theory comes crumbling down because, in YOUR opinion, it makes no sense? You need to do better than that.

      Delete
    7. Hi Doc, yep I realised that after I posted. That's why I replied to MHN (below somewhere) which should be what you're after.

      Delete
    8. Did Patsy stage her being sedated for weeks after her daughter's death?

      Delete
    9. No of course not R Smith...I never said otherwise.

      Her sedating herself can be looked at from two different angles:

      1. A grieving, innocent mother
      2. A grieving, guilty mother

      Her sedation after that night doesn't really mean anything to me.

      Delete
  29. not a golfer know nuthin ' about golf , I had been shopping and picked up a putter , its felt quite heavy , I have just asked my husband if anyone was struck on the head with one...? before I could ask anything else He said "you're done"....
    It doesn't matter what was used to bludgeon JonB it could have been the flashlight , or the bat, or a poker from fire place,which with tremendous force cracked her skull which caused a 8-1/2 inch injury AND it had to be a strong male with a lot of anger,
    I have noticed in the autopsy photo it looked like a hole , so that is why I was thinking a Putter may have been used , ,I also thought of another scenario that it could have been that whoever killed her picked her up and smashed her head against the concrete wall? did I read where M.E. said she had been strangled first and then 45 minutes later bludgeoned, my concern is.... who the #%^#$* latched the door of wine cellar , had my daughter been missing in the house I am positive I would have found her immediately.. he kept putting it off, delaying ,when French came up stairs I would have asked " Did you check wine cellar? certainly he did not , he would not contaminate the crime scene while police were there, he knew Jonb was in there , I believe he still had plans to dump her body , but gave in, because he had to get the body out of there because of decomposition his hands were tied ,but if JR committed this murder ? which in my opinion it all points to him he fooled everyone, they played in his hands , "got away with Murder" the ransom note if Patsy wrote it why would she call 911 seemed unaware what was in the note if she had written it certainly she knew the instructions , who planted nicely on the stairs , I think JR did this to frighten her, he knew she would come across it while in the shower gloating.
    Speculations) we were not there we do not know anything all we know is the lies that spew continuously from JR, hopefully DNA will get a match, someone knows something and if DNA does not give us the answer ,waiting for a confession , my last comment .


    ReplyDelete
  30. And to answer your above questions MHN:

    Firstly, why get rid of the body when there was no need to? Getting rid of the body just meant the parents were at more risk of getting caught, simple as that.

    John and Patsy were not criminal masterminds...they had never been in a situation like this before. They knew if they transported her body to their car, then there would be a good chance some kind of evidence or dna would be transferred/found. Plus cavader dogs would have got a hit on the vehicle.

    And then on top of that, they would have to find a location to dump/conceal the body and do this without being seen by anyone. Plus they would have had to make up an excuse to their family why they couldn't make it anymore, without sounding suspicous or giving anything away.

    And lastly, this was their little princess...her death, I firmly believe started from an accidental clobbering over the head. They didn't want to just dump their daughter somewhere.


    To me, this sounds WAAAAAY more logical then the theory JDI offers. So the 911 call does not rule Patsy out...not even the teeniest tiniest bit. Hence why Patsy was never ruled out by authorities (who I am sure have much more evidence on her being involved than we know about).

    Plus, they couldn't just ring 911 with a body in the house the way it was (no ransom note/staging)...they would have been arrested on the spot. So instead, they concocted a ransom note which immediately put an intruder in the house and distanced them from the crime. Of course, the body was still in the house so obviously something went wrong during the kidnapping (maybe this is why it's reported the Priest and others heard John state "he didn't mean to kill her"...to get this point across). So, yes in esence it became a kidnapping gone wrong or a failed kidnapping (or whatever you want to call it). I don't care if there is 0 cases of this ever happening before, there is a first for everything and everything I have wrote sounds completely logical. Of course, all the JDIers will disagree and that couldn't possibly happen...well let me put a question to you for once, why could that not happen?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good point about cadaver dogs and the car, Zed.

      But on the other hand, you say they weren't criminal masterminds: would that risk have occurred to them? Of course, almost any type of DNA evidence could be explained away; DNA places member of family in family's car! It's hardly damaging is it, unless it's blood; and bodies can be wrapped. A cadaver dog on the other hand, now that would've been a risk - but what's the legal admissibility of such evidence? It's usually prohibited as evidence in court isn't it? It can only be used as an investigative tool if I remember right.

      And on the *other* other hand, if either John or Burke committed the deed, surely there was a real risk of forensic evidence being found on the body that would tie the crime to the perpetrator? It would be the first time in criminal history that someone staged a kidnapping gone wrong, complete with ransom note but no point of forced entry, and also the only time I can think of (since the advances in forensics, anyhow) where the killer/s have decided that they have more chance of getting away with a killing if the police have early and full access to the freshly killed body.

      That's a couple of complete outliers in criminal history, Zed, a couple of freak events and historical firsts.

      Why could that not happen? Well, it could. Sure, it could. I'd rate it as having a probability slightly above the intruder theory, just.

      Can I ask you one more thing: you're happy to believe they together staged a kidnapping gone wrong: a ransom note coupled with a body. Doc says it was intended to be a staged kidnapping, minus body, but the plan was wrecked by the call. The fact that she was killed and found dead in the basement, and that a basement window had been broken, and a suitcase placed beneath that window - yet nobody had entered or left through that window - does not give you even the slightest pause? Does that not make you think, even for a second, yes - interrupted staging. Maybe Doc has a point? You see, I agree with you, we'll never know unless someone talks. So I can't and won't say your scenario didn't happen. But I find it slightly less probable because the incomplete staging at the window absolutely complements Doc's theory of a staged kidnapping interrupted. Even if you're planning to stage a kidnapping gone wrong, you still need an entry point for the kidnapper/killer, and they clearly didn't have one, not a complete one anyway. And then John kept quiet about the window, he even closed it himself. To me the window tips the balance of probabilities towards John, and Doc's idea..

      I'm not dogmatic about it, and I don't feel any animosity about this; if Burke confessed and said J and P were both covering for him I'd be surprised but nothing more. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

      Delete
    2. Fair enough and thanks for a decent reply. I would also love to see closure on this case, even if that meant John confessed. At the end of the day a little girl was killed and with all these documentaries (Netflix now on board), I think sometimes that may be forgotten.

      In regards to cadaver dogs, I am not sure where they stand in a court of law. I know cases have been successfully solved by them in the past but I really can't comment on that because I don't know. CC may reply on that one.

      In regards to the window, I'm not sure what to think. John most likely made that story up because maybe it dawned on him that evidence would prove no one entered through there. So he initially staged it and then changed his mind. John can be heard in multiple interviews stating a door was unlocked so it's not like he stopped trying to find other ways an intruder may have gotten in.

      Delete
    3. "And lastly, this was their little princess...her death, I firmly believe started from an accidental clobbering over the head. They didn't want to just dump their daughter somewhere."

      It doesn't matter where it "started", it matters where it "ended", Zed: Death by asphyxiation, not "an accidental" blow to the head . Something BDIs don't like to discuss, because it's the point in their theory where they have to concede that someone else - not Burke - murdered JB.....which pretty much negates their entire premise (that Burke "did it"). No, you don't believe that at all, you believe that these two parents made a mutual decision to kill their LIVING child. To strangle the life out of their "little princess", why would that be? To save Burke from a murder charge? No, that can't be because, even assuming The Ramseys weren't aware he was too young to be prosecuted, he didn't actually *kill* JB, did he? So a murder charge was never on the cards, so they must have had another motive.....what was it? It's time to stop avoiding this question, Zed and J. Their son didn't kill JonBenet - they did.
      Why?

      Delete
    4. "It's time to stop avoiding this question, Zed and J. Their son didn't kill JonBenet - they did."

      In case I didn't make myself clear, I mean that from a BDI perspective, not my own. BDIs believe both John and Patsy ultimately ended JB's life - as a JDI, I obviously don't accept that notion.

      Delete
    5. Ms D, firstly how it "started" is of the upmost importance. If you cant understand that, then I'll take everything you say with a grain of salt.

      And you must not follow my posts very closely...Ive always said BSI (Burke started it) although BDI is most definitely possible.

      In fact I have also said that with BSI, Docs theory actually (minus a few things) actually aligns with the BSI quite nicely. Thats all I will write for now because otherwise I am just sounding like a broken record as all of your questions have already been answered previously.

      Delete
    6. "So instead, they concocted a ransom note which immediately put an intruder in the house and distanced them from the crime."

      It did no such thing. IF the note had been believed, then yes it would have accomplished these things. But as soon as the body was found it became clear that the note was phony -- meaning that an intruder was unlikely and THEY were from then on the prime suspects. Why you think this note "distanced them from the crime" is beyond my comprehension. If that were the intention, then the police would not have been called until after the body had been removed.

      And yes, dumping the body would have been a very risky and distasteful business. But the note is meaningless unless it was part of such a plan. If they had some other plan in mind they would have written a very different sort of note. Or no note at all.

      Delete
    7. Doc wrote:

      It did no such thing. IF the note had been believed, then yes it would have accomplished these things. But as soon as the body was found it became clear that the note was phony.

      My reply:

      I am sorry Doc but I can't entirely agree. Yes I agree it was a "phony" in regards to JBR not being kidnapped, therefore the RN is a phony.

      However, it does not mean it's a phony in regards to it's original intent and the author. Even though the body was still in the house, the kidnappers could have left that note before something "went wrong" and it didn't automatically mean a Ramsey had written it.

      I mean, over a decade over this incident occurred, the DA apologised to the Ramseys for considering them suspects...indicating the RN was not a phony on that particular level.

      Delete
    8. And, it distanced them from the crime because the RN was the ONLY evidence that an intruder had been in the house. So yes, in the Ramsey's mind, this distanced themselves from the crime (or at least confused the heck out of LE). I've already stated my reasons above as to why the body was not removed...and no one has answered my question why that is not logical.

      Delete
    9. Agree with you Zed, that ransom letter (and a few other items) had Mary Lacy, author and FBI profiler John Douglas. Lou Smit all believing it as well as a few others.

      Delete
    10. No, Zed - *a* note may have distanced the Ramseys from the crime y pointing to an intruder, but not *the* note they went with (it actually had the opposite effect), so that couldn't be the point of the ransom note left on the spiral staircase that morning, sorry.

      Delete
    11. *by* pointing to an intruder

      That damn "B" key again :P

      Delete
  31. Doc is dead on about John breaking that window to stage an intruder then attempting to unstage as it looked too obvious. But to exclude Patsy from any of it - if any of the Ramseys were responsible then what are the chances all participated in some way. Patsy's failure to wait for help from law enforcement to arrive - which it did in a matter of minutes, before recklessly filling her house with friends brings into doubt her belief in the authenticity of the ransom note. As well, why did Patsy not take any notice when the kidnapper failed to call? Does that seem like the behavior of one who didn't know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Does that seem like the behavior of one who didn't know?"

      To be honest, Inq, I don't think Patsy's actions that morning imply guilt any more than they do innocence. I don't think any conclusion can be made in regards to her decision to invite friends over......you conceded yourself not too long ago that John was a cold fish and not going to offer her any emotional support, so maybe she felt she really needed support in the form of friends. That is not difficult to understand at all.

      Delete
    2. it could have had a two fold result but with all of the dire warnings in the note, if she so much as looks at a stray dog, beheadings etc., they are being monitored and she calls? Must not give the note much authenticity. Must know it's meaningless jibberish.

      Delete
    3. She couldn't have taken the note seriously or think it authentic if she is ignoring it's dire warnings and calls all of her friends over to the house when the note says their house is being monitored. It gets to be 10 a.m. and the kidnapper hasn't called why take no notice of that?

      Delete
    4. If she'd been acting, she'd have taken the warnings in the note VERY seriously. While inviting her friends over might not have been what you would do, that does not mean she's guilty and actually can be taken as a sign of innocence. If she was the one who placed those warnings in the note, why on earth would she have ignored them?

      Delete
    5. "She couldn't have taken the note seriously or think it authentic if she is ignoring it's dire warnings and calls all of her friends over to the house when the note says their house is being monitored."

      Inq, it was only a few, short weeks ago you were very satisfied with Doc's answer to that question, and now you're acting as though you're not even aware that alternative exists. You conceded yourself that Patsy didn't read that note in full! So why the sudden change of heart again? I'm sure you said you were utterly convinced *this time*, and you were going to remain steadfast in your conviction, didn't you have an epiphany of sorts due to a comment your grandson made?

      Delete
    6. "Must not give the note much authenticity. Must know it's meaningless jibberish.....She couldn't have taken the note seriously or think it authentic if she is ignoring it's dire warnings and calls all of her friends over to the house when the note says their house is being monitored. It gets to be 10 a.m. and the kidnapper hasn't called why take no notice of that?"

      Come on, Inq, stop being obtuse. You answered your own question just last month (March 3, 2017 at 3:55 PM):
      "As for the call.....we haven't heard her tone changing, have we? This is what the 911 operator says but I didn't hear that, did you? She could have suspected something about John, and knew he would be of little support, so called over friends not to add confusion, but for support. And good that she had it, John remained separated from her all day, not comforting her at all."

      Delete
  32. But didn't doc or someone state on this blog before that after John staged the window break, it was possible that he overheard LE talking that no one entered through that window, with John deciding to say he broke in before. If john and patsy were in it together the same could apply?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but as we know (see above) they were NOT in it together. So all John's phony story tells us is that HE was the one doing the staging, not her.

      Delete
  33. The admissibility of scent dog evidence varies from state to state, and in most only raises what's called a reasonable suspicion - other corroborating evidence is necessary to reach the level of probable cause for a search or arrest warrant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides using cadaver dogs, there is also the LABRADOR machine that has been used to help find buried remains. If you're familiar with the Body Farm, it was developed there.
      They have a newer version of it, it was used last year. I won't comment on what state and for what cases as they are still open.

      Delete
    2. CC and diamondlil - thanks for the information. I hadn't heard of the LABRADOR machine, I'll enjoy digging up (if that's not an inappropriate phrase) some more information on that.

      Cadaver and blood dogs Eddie and Keela were famously used on another dead/missing child case where it is strongly suspected one or both parents staged a kidnapping to cover up something more domestic, the Madeleine McCann case. Confronted with the clear canine findings that a body had been behind the sofa and in a wardrobe of the holiday apartment, the reaction of the supposedly frantic parents was not to demand more information or testing, but instantly to seek to denigrate the reliability of such dogs. That in itself spoke volumes about them and their guilt or innocence.

      Delete
  34. How do we know whether or not the R's planned to dump the body and then had a change of heart? Perhaps that was their initial plan, but when they finished writing the note PR couldn't go through with it. At that point, they had little time to spare and so JR quickly staged the scene for a kidnapping gone wrong and in his haste, made mistakes.

    They most likely decided to have PR make the 911 call because she had acted in pageants as part of the talent contest and so was the better choice. Not to mention, JR being incapable of expressing any type of emotion, so couldn't have done a convincing job of it.

    An analysis of the 911 call shows deception and not the typical call from a mother whose child is missing. I won't go into details, but it's easy enough to find and it makes sense to me.

    I know that many of the JDI's feel that PR making the 911 call proves her innocence. I think after a frantic night and a chaotic plan, she called the police in a frenzy and played the role of a lifetime. She was, after all, saving her only son's life, as her daughter was forever lost to her.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How do we know whether or not the R's planned to dump the body and then had a change of heart?"

      By reserving your brain for logical inferences and changes of heart for salad toppings.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. EG - ignore Mike. You are spot on.

      We dont know what conversations John and Patsy had that night or what the plans were and how the plans changed.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Zed....and I agree, we don't know what conversations they had and how many times they changed their mind or their plan before coming up with the final one.

      Mike who? *L*

      EG

      Delete
    4. EG

      Spot on, imho :-)
      To reiterate, the only timeline of morning events have been given to us by P and J. It could well have unfolded earlier than 5.

      Sam

      Delete
    5. You know what tells us the plan hadn't changed?
      The fact that the staging remained incomplete for starters. Pretty simple really....but round and round we go.

      Delete
    6. BDIs often lean heavily on the chaos and frantic confusion scenario as a kind of smokescreen that covers a multitude of logical improbabilities in their case, as I see it.

      The RN is rather neatly written. It is carefully considered, full of apt movie references, lays out its case in great detail, there is nothing ambiguous or muddled about it. (That's not to say it's convincing, not at all, merely that it betrays absolutely no sign of panic, chaos, confusion, or hysteria. It is stone cold.)

      And there were practice runs, false starts, rough drafts.

      When I watch old John and Patsy interviews I have absolutely no doubt in my head whatsoever that only one of them composed that calm, structured, considered, articulate, emotionless note.

      If Patsy was acting during the 911 call, having been sufficiently calm, collected, and emotionally cool to collaborate on the RN, then we mustn't forget that her act did not end with her attempt to hang up on the 911 call handler, her act continued long afterwards.

      About the letter. It's accepted by all that the ransom letter is about 4 times longer than a real ransom letter, and is fleshed-out with borrowings from Hollywood ransom notes. In short, it is an attempt to write the Ultimate Ransom Note. It's clearly the Most Ransomy-Kidnappy Ransom Note in Kidnappy History. Ever!

      As Doc says: the only reason for a ransom note is that a fake kidnapping was the plan. But I think he undersells his point somewhat: this isn't merely a ransom note, it's the Proust of ransom notes, it's the Rabelais of ransom notes, it's His Imperial Highness of Ransom Notes. If ever any letter in the history of ink was designed to accompany a very definite kidnapping for ransom, ie the forcible and illegal removal and imprisonment of a person until such time as monies are paid for their release, it was this letter.

      To spell it out one more time: it's the most kidnappy ransomy ransom note ever! EVER!

      To go to those lengths, only to then decide to change the plan to kidnapping-gone-wrong, you have to ask yourself what happened that such a definite course of action, already well underway, was changed. What would cause them to change the plan so riskily and radically?

      The plan goes from - kidnapping for ransom - to - kidnapping interrupted by a scream and a blow to the head hard enough to fracture the skull, (because a hand or tape over the mouth just wouldn't cut it), followed by sexual penetration and garrotting to death.

      Seriously, what the f....? That's not a kidnapping gone wrong. You can't 'plan' to tell the police that the sexually penetrated and garrotted corpse of a child was a kidnapping gone wrong. Unless you want to go to the electric chair...

      If the BDIs are serious, they need to realise that so would John and Patsy be. They were attempting to get away with murder. They were attempting to get away with child murder.

      That's as serious as it gets. Yet you have them writing a ransom note, breaking a window, changing their minds, but leaving the ransom note in place and the staging incomplete, while insisting that the house was secure and locked.

      These contortions and speculations are insane given the gravity of what they were attempting, in your theory, to achieve.

      Delete
  35. Inq,

    I agree with you. PR kept repeating how they just got up and there was a note, a note, a RN. She was more concerned with establishing a time when they both got up and JUST discovered a note. It's BS, as far as I am concerned. She never mentioned her daughter's name and when asked who she was, she said " I am THE mother". Who says that?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am THE mother". Who says that?"

      Mary said it to the centurions that she and her Son might exchange good-byes. Patsy said it to the 911 operator that she and her daughter might exchange theirs.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. You had to go back to the days of Christ to find those words spoken in just that way. I rest my case. :) and you've proven it for me.

      PR was placing distance between her and her daughter because she already knew she was dead.

      Thanks, Mike G.

      EG

      Delete
    3. If they changed their minds and decided not to stage a kidnapping after all, they'd have destroyed their original note and written another. Or just reported a home invasion.

      Delete
    4. That is a good post Doc and I initially thought this also.

      However, as I have stated, the Ramsey's knew there was no evidence of an intruder. So they needed a note so at least there was some kind of evidence of someone else being in the house. And despite the length of the RN, I still think this note served it's purpose. I see no reason why a new one had to be written.

      They then made sure their prints were not on the RN (despite Patsy and John both handling it) or the flashlight...which basically said "hey, look, it can't be us!!"

      Delete
    5. EG: No search was required; you led me directly to them by your use of capital letters. You know....I AM that I AM--the Alpha...the Omega? Or are you a deiphobe?

      Mike G

      Delete
    6. EG, when Patsy made her other morning calls asking people to come to the house, she also did not tell them it was a kidnapping or a note left. Irrc, Fernie originally thought John had had a heart attack, Fleet apparently got the gist that Jonbenet was missing.

      Delete
    7. Tell me, Zed and EG: if the Rs were in it together they had four months between the murder and their first LE interviews to get their stories straight. How is it, then, that at first their versions of whose idea it was to call 911 did not conform, and Patsy included Linda in her glass clean-up?

      Delete
    8. "And despite the length of the RN, I still think this note served it's purpose. I see no reason why a new one had to be written."

      "Despite" the length? How can you simply dismiss the length of the RN when it is a complete game changer? Your theory requires a ransom note that only requires three lines. The length of the note means everything, it cannot be dismissed simply because it hurts your theory. The fact that every, single, line in that note just happens to buy time, along with a fool proof alibi, is sheer coincidence? Come on now, surely some common sense must prevail at some point. The ransom note's purpose is spelled out in every, damn line, it cannot be dismissed so easily.

      Delete
    9. Ms D, your posts get more frustrating by the day.

      JDI requires only 1 line, so dont preach to me about the length of the RN.

      Delete
    10. By the way, Im still waiting on any JDIer to answer my question. Anyone? Maybe you are struggling to draft a response...

      Delete
    11. "JDI requires only 1 line, so dont preach to me about the length of the RN."

      Come on Zed, you know that isn't true.
      Whether you accept John is responsible or not, you know very well why he would have needed to include all of the specific instructions. NO ONE else would bother to include such minutiae except for a person whose sole purpose for writing the ransom note was to buy time, along with an alibi and to scare the reader enough so they would heed the warnings.
      Believe what you want to believe, but don't play dumb. You know very well John could NOT have done all that in one line.
      Give me one good reason someone staging a phony kidnapping would have written such a damn epic if it was all just fluff, when logic dictates that the more they write, the more they risk discovery?

      Delete
    12. I have your daughter and will be in touch tomorrow morning. If you contact the authorities she will die.

      That may be a line and half.

      And I'm not answering any more questions whilst you so conveniently ignore mine.

      Delete
    13. Ahhh, you're a feisty bastard, Zed....I like it! Two, Aussie pit bulls fighting to the death! :P

      Sorry, which question are you referring to? I scrolled back and couldn't find it.

      Delete
    14. "I am THE mother". Who says that?"

      Who says that?

      911: OK, what’s your name? Are you...

      PR: Patsy Ramsey... I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.

      If you have read too much of the pseudoscience of statement analysis then sure, incriminate her on the basis of the grammar she uses while breathlessly, desperately summoning police assistance from a complete stranger after finding her daughter missing, knock yourself out. But here's a challenge to keep you honest: find 20 transcripts of 911 calls from mothers in similar situations and analyze every answer using this same pseudoscience, and come back and tell us just how guilty all of those parents were by these absurd standards.

      Would you have been happier had she replied,

      "Patsy Ramsey, I'm her mother and I really love her!"

      Let me ask you what would be wrong with this reply, bearing in mind how brief, to the point, and desperate Patsy's answers are in this call:

      Patsy Ramsey, I'm the mother *of the missing girl*

      She answers the questions, she keeps it brief, because she evidently didn't phone for a nice emotional chat or to talk about her daughter's best qualities, but to summon the police as quickly as possible.

      What's your name? - Patsy Ramsey
      Are you - [anticipating the question] I'm the mother

      She was asked, she answered, as briefly and quickly as possible.

      There is nothing to see here.

      Delete
    15. "I agree with you. PR kept repeating how they just got up and there was a note"

      "She was more concerned with establishing a time when they both got up"

      She does not "keep repeating" that she just got up. That's 100% not true. You need to do better than this. She mentions that fact precisely once during the call, and does not repeat it.

      911: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
      PR: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my God. Please.

      She mentions it once, once only, in answer to a specific question.

      Care to acknowledge that?

      Does she mention the ransom note a few times? Yes, of course, and I would do the same. I would expect LE's first assumption would be that a kid was hiding or had wandered off. I would want to stress the point repeatedly - she's gone, we have a ransom note, we need help urgently.

      It's not an everyday event to receive a ransom note for your daughter. It had probably stuck in Patsy's mind, as a mother, She probably thought it worth mentioning..... which she did, three times. a grand total of three times.

      Delete
  36. I have a question for those more clear on the facts of this case than me: I know that the note was written on paper from a pad in the home, but is there conclusive evidence that the note was written (by which I mean literally produced, not necessarily "conceived of") on the night of the murder and not before?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No there is not. Doc posted the following back in May 2012.

      "The observations about the light and the scream are only two of a great many pieces of "evidence" in this case that might or might not mean something. All I can say is that they were very thoroughly investigated, and as with so many aspects of the case, were ultimately deemed "inconclusive." Which is why I tend to stay away from all "evidence" of that sort and concentrate largely on what we actually know for sure."

      When the note was conceived, like "the light and the scream" falls into the category of "evidence" of the sort to stay away from. It may have a bearing what charges are brought against John---first or second degree murder---but either way, if convicted, John will die in prison.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. The charge can only be first degree murder, Mike, as it takes 2-5 minutes to strangle someone, meaning John had at least that long to form the intent to kill - thus premeditation.

      Delete
    3. Can there be lesser charges filed or have those expired too? Like tampering with evidence, abuse of a corpse.

      Delete
    4. Statutes of limitation have run on all but murder, Lil.

      Delete
    5. Thanks CC. I think Dylan Redwine's mom helped get a bill passed last year in Colorado having to do with remains (only about 2% of Dylan's bones have been recovered) but it's been awhile since I read about it.

      Delete
    6. To answer the original question, I've considered the possibility that the note was written (by John) ahead of time and imo that cannot be ruled out. For details do a search on "premeditated."

      Delete
  37. I cannot remember if this has been brought up on this blog or not.

    But do you know that the Ramsey's owned books about dealing with sexual violence in children or something along those lines.

    The books were bought by Patsy's parents for them. Some of the titles (off the top of my head) were: The Hurried Child, & Why doesn't Johnny Know Right From Wrong? I can't remember the others, maybe someone else does??

    I also think it's a good chance that Burke looked up the word incest in the dictionary after his parents or grandparents spoke to him about it.

    I know it doesnt mean anything (dont shoot me!) but it's very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed, the books have been discussed at websleuths and forums for justice where a few members tracked them down for the content. Irrc, it wasn't anything that made any go "a ha!". The titles threw some but once looked into, it didn't seem to lead anywhere. But it has been awhile since I read those threads.

      Delete
  38. Ms D...this is a repeat of my post with question at the end:

    And to answer your above questions MHN:

    Firstly, why get rid of the body when there was no need to? Getting rid of the body just meant the parents were at more risk of getting caught, simple as that.

    John and Patsy were not criminal masterminds...they had never been in a situation like this before. They knew if they transported her body to their car, then there would be a good chance some kind of evidence or dna would be transferred/found. Plus cavader dogs would have got a hit on the vehicle.

    And then on top of that, they would have to find a location to dump/conceal the body and do this without being seen by anyone. Plus they would have had to make up an excuse to their family why they couldn't make it anymore, without sounding suspicous or giving anything away.

    And lastly, this was their little princess...her death, I firmly believe started from an accidental clobbering over the head. They didn't want to just dump their daughter somewhere.

    To me, this sounds WAAAAAY more logical then the theory JDI offers. So the 911 call does not rule Patsy out...not even the teeniest tiniest bit. Hence why Patsy was never ruled out by authorities (who I am sure have much more evidence on her being involved than we know about).

    Plus, they couldn't just ring 911 with a body in the house the way it was (no ransom note/staging)...they would have been arrested on the spot. So instead, they concocted a ransom note which immediately put an intruder in the house and distanced them from the crime. Of course, the body was still in the house so obviously something went wrong during the kidnapping (maybe this is why it's reported the Priest and others heard John state "he didn't mean to kill her"...to get this point across). So, yes in esence it became a kidnapping gone wrong or a failed kidnapping (or whatever you want to call it). I don't care if there is 0 cases of this ever happening before, there is a first for everything and everything I have wrote sounds completely logical. Of course, all the JDIers will disagree and that couldn't possibly happen...well let me put a question to you for once, why could that not happen?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course it's possible; nearly anything is.

      Now you and EG please answer my questions from 12:58 this morning.

      Delete
    2. "... well let me put a question to you for once, why could that not happen?????"

      It's not that it couldn't happen, it's that it makes no sense. Which is why logic is so important in assessing the evidence in this case.

      "everything I have wrote sounds completely logical"

      Yes, I have no doubt it sounds logical to YOU -- but that doesn't change the fact that it ain't.

      You stage a kidnapping and something goes wrong with your plan -- so you try to spin it as though something went wrong with the kidnapping. That's the story of this case in a nutshell. But that interpretation is pure spin and the spin is obvious. From my experience following this case for years I'd say that the great majority of people with LE experience refuse to buy the "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario. As do the great majority of ordinary people following this case. The debate is centered on the role of Patsy, NOT on whether there was an intruder.

      First of all, as I've stressed so many times, no one stages a kidnapping gone wrong, that makes no sense.

      Secondly, it's impossible to believe that someone would go to all that trouble to hand over to the police a note written in his or her handwriting ON PAPER TORN FROM A NOTEPAD SITTING IN THEIR OWN HOUSE. How on earth does that redirect suspicion away from them? That note is evidence that could be used against them, and in the eyes of almost everyone following this case it should.

      Delete
    3. Doc - They had to explain how their daughter was found dead in their house. How else to do it? Home invasion? Usually those are more chaotic and violent, and they target all of the family members and not just one 6 year old child. The house would've been turned upside down with valuables taken, etc. That wouldn't make sense to LE. So, the next best thing--intruder with a grudge against JR and who was a pedophile. This would encompass hating John together with a warped sexual desire for a child.
      As far as using the notepad, etc. what else could they do? This was the middle of the night, on Christmas night. They couldn't very well leave to find paper in a local store.

      CC - The behavior of the parents was suspect from the start. Their stories never jibed, they threw everyone else under the bus including Linda, Fleet, etc. When you lie, you need to have a good memory. Evidently neither of these two did, hence all the inconsistencies.

      lil - PR inviting everyone over because "We have a kidnapping", never made any sense to me. Anyone else would have been running throughout the house looking in every closet, under every bed, behind every door. Does anyone know if PR every looked anywhere but JR's room and BR's room?

      Mike G - Priestess, most definitely. :)

      EG

      Delete
    4. Very thin. I'm not buying it, EG. If they were in it together their stories about the 911 call and the broken window glass would have been carefully scripted and rehearsed.

      Zed? Sam? Care to take a swing?

      Delete
    5. What I WAS going to say Doc is yes. I agree with you that it is NOT logical to have the both of them concoct a long ransom note with dire warnings only to have one of them then call. Writing it on the pad and paper in the house though, that's easier to explain. It was handy. Especially since I think the note was written in the house that night, and not someplace else in advance. But I do agree that it makes no sense to write it with dire warnings and then disregard it - if both wrote it.

      Delete
  39. Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree because it's the most logical theory by far in my opinion (and many others).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully the truth comes out one day.

      Delete
    2. Zed,

      I agree with you. It's the only theory that answers all of my questions. Of course, we both know it's possible that JDI or PDI and I wouldn't be shocked if that was the case.

      Let's hope the truth does come out one day. I'd gladly eat crow and give credit to our fellow sleuths, who want to see justice served as much as we do.

      EG

      Delete
    3. "Let's hope the truth does come out one day. I'd gladly eat crow and give credit to our fellow sleuths, who want to see justice served as much as we do."

      Well said, EG, I absolutely agree. We all want to see the truth come out and justice served for a murdered child; this shouldn't be like supporting one sports team over another.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Zed, very logical:

      Burke bops his sister over the head with a flashlight, knocking her out.

      But wouldn't his parents immediately call 911 to summon an ambulance?

      Oh wait: how about he thinks about it for an hour or so and then constructs a "garrote," based on knots he learned in Cub Scouts, and strangles her. So when his parents discover what happened, she is already dead. Too late to call an ambulance. That's the ticket.

      But what about the vaginal penetration, how do you explain that?

      Oh wait: based on research we know that 9 year old boys can be sexually active, even before puberty, so he must have raped her before bopping her over the head. That's the ticket.

      But what about the evidence of prior sexual molestation?

      Oh wait: Burke and JonBenet must have had an incestuous sexual relationship prior to the night of her murder. That's the ticket.

      Isn't that a bit of a stretch? A sexual relationship between a 9 year old and a 6 year old?

      Oh wait: while it might seem unlikely, strictly speaking it's possible -- because anything is possible, no? That MUST be the ticket for sure.

      But why would his parents want to cover for him if his actions revealed such obvious signs of pathological behavior? Is that what you would do if you just discovered that your son had raped, bludgeoned and strangled your daughter?

      Oh wait: I myself wouldn't do that no, but every family is different and the Ramseys just happened to be the type of people who would do precisely that. How do we know? Because that's what they did!!!! (????)

      With that sort of "logic" you could easily concoct an intruder theory.

      Delete
    5. If I wrote this you would have deleted it.

      Doc, here is the challenge for you since you tell everybody who disagrees with you that they aren't using logic.

      -Provide actual EVIDENCE that this crime was premeditated. Your claim all along is that this was done by John to shut JBR up from telling anybody about his abuse of her. So, please provide evidence this was premeditated

      -IF you are going to say he concocted the plan that night, please provide actual EVIDENCE that he had reason to kill her that night

      I don't believe I have ever seen you argue this was an accident by John or do you feel that is possible? Because then I would ask you....WHY wouldn't a loving father have called 911?

      Having the belief that you would have called 911 or that two loving parents would have called 911 is simply opinion. There is NOTHING that says that is a fact. You are entitled to believe that, but to say somebody isn't using LOGIC simply because you don't agree with them, is puzzling.

      I will wait for your evidence Doc, because you say that you only use logical inferences based on the evidence.

      -J

      Delete
    6. Doc, here is the challenge for you since you tell everybody who disagrees with you that they aren't using logic.

      NO HE DOESN'T. HE TELLS EVERYBODY RESORTING TO ILLOGICAL ARGUMENTS OR THEORIES THAT THEY AREN'T USING LOGIC. PLENTY OF PEOPLE POST COMMENTS DISSENTING FROM HIS VIEWS WITHOUT BEING CALLED ILLOGICAL.

      -Provide actual EVIDENCE that this crime was premeditated. Your claim all along is that this was done by John to shut JBR up from telling anybody about his abuse of her. So, please provide evidence this was premeditated.

      DOC'S THEORY IS BUILT ON A SET OF LOGICAL INFERENCES REGARDING THE FEW FACTS THAT WE KNOW: THE MANNER OF THE ASSAULT, THE RANSOM NOTE, THE WINDOW STAGING AND SUBSEQUENT DISOWNING, AND ABOVE ALL THE 911 CALL. I'M SURE DOC WOULD BE THE FIRST TO AGREE THAT HAVING CONSTRUCTED PERHAPS THE ONLY LOGICAL AND FULLY EXPLANATORY EXPLANATION OF WHAT WE DO KNOW, HE ALSO DISCUSSES SPECULATION ON THE PARTS WE DON'T KNOW. THERE IS NO INTERNAL CONTRADICTION HERE. A LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR PREMEDITATION WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE LOGIC OF HIS THEORY OF WHO DID IT.

      -IF you are going to say he concocted the plan that night, please provide actual EVIDENCE that he had reason to kill her that night

      THERE ISN'T ANY. DOC IS ENTITLED TO SPECULATE ON SUCH MATTERS IN SUPPORT OF A THEORY HE HAS DEVELOPED. GET OVER IT. DOC, MORE THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE HERE, OFTEN TAKES PAINS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN FACT, INFERENCE, AND SPECULATION IN HIS WRITING.

      I don't believe I have ever seen you argue this was an accident by John or do you feel that is possible? Because then I would ask you....WHY wouldn't a loving father have called 911?

      IF YOU THINK HE'S NEVER ARGUED THAT THEORY, WHY ARE YOU HYPOTHETICALLY ASKING FOR HIM TO JUSTIFY IT? ABSURD.

      Having the belief that you would have called 911 or that two loving parents would have called 911 is simply opinion. There is NOTHING that says that is a fact. You are entitled to believe that, but to say somebody isn't using LOGIC simply because you don't agree with them, is puzzling.

      I THINK YOU NEED TO GET A GRIP. WE ALL AGREE THAT ANYTHING WITHIN THE REMIT OF TIME, SPACE, AND PHYSICS COULD HAVE HAPPENED, SURE. BUT DOC'S ENTITLED TO ASK THAT WE CLEAVE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO WHAT SEEMS REALISTIC. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TWO LOVING PARENTS WOULD - IN THIS UNIVERSE - FIND THEIR BELOVED DAUGHTER INJURED AND DECIDE THAT RATHER GETTING HER HELP, THEY WOULD PROTECT THEIR SON FROM ANY MINOR LOCAL NOTORIETY BY.. SEXUALLY ASSAULTING AND GARROTTING HER TO DEATH INSTEAD. THEY LITERALLY MOLESTED AND MURDERED HER TO STOP HIM GETTING INTO ANY TROUBLE OVER A DOMESTIC CHILD-TO-CHILD SCUFFLE. IT IS UTTERLY ABSURD AND ILLOGICAL. IT'S AS REALISTIC TO SAY THAT AN INTRUDER BROKE IN FROM THE PLANET ZOGGMORD AND KILLED JB USING MOONDUST AND A TWINKY.

      I will wait for your evidence Doc, because you say that you only use logical inferences based on the evidence.

      HIS THEORY IS BUILT ON LOGICAL INFERENCES BASED ON THE KNOWN FACTS. HE ALSO SPECULATES ON TOP OF THAT. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU GET? IT'S NOT FUCKING ROCKET-SCIENCE, J

      Delete
    7. J, that's verbal abuse and you don't have to take it lying down, man.

      Delete
    8. Ignore her, J-man, she's trying to incite, and Doc will just shut you down if you take the bait. Don't go there.

      Ignore MHN, too - he's just frustrated, I think, and you've been there too, and recently.

      Talk to me, Lucy, I'm probably the one you want anyway: Doc isn't wedded to premeditation, that's on me, and I'll make that case for you if you like, or re-visit the chronic sexual abuse, my other hobby horse. Hell, we can even talk about the freakin' pineapple bowl if you want

      Delete
    9. Verbal abuse, Inq? Which part of that is verbal abuse? "It's not fucking rocket science"?

      Sorry, I didn't realise we were dealing with such delicate snowflakes. You may notice, Inquisitive, that there is a hostile tone to J's post. I replied with what I thought was rigorous and almost anal explication. Seriously, let's not start introducing faux partisan outrage here, or it will frankly not be fun to contribute. I didn't call J any names, I didn't insult him or her, I was just pointing out that it's a pretty asinine approach to come here and insist that Doc produce EVIDENCE for every hypothetical speculation or else retract his claim to have built his case on logical inferences drawn from the known facts.

      If you think that's abuse, how the hell do you get through a day on planet earth?

      Delete
    10. J

      CC is right--you're just frustrated and we have all been there. And Doc does deserve credit for keeping all of our different personalities, theories and opinions in check. However, he isn't a saint(sorry Doc :)) and neither are any of us.

      I am right there with you with BDI and there are about five or six of us, so you're not alone. Where you and I may differ, is that I feel that PR found JBR already dead for quite some time.

      I think we are all in agreement that we want justice served and all of us have spent a lot of time thinking and re thinking this case. I know I have laid in bed at night and thought about it before falling asleep many a night.

      We are all working together, even if it doesn't seem that way on here sometimes.

      Peace out.:)

      EG

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    12. Sorry MHN, just a little frustrated myself here. J doesn't comment much and when he does he seems to get slammed so I thought I was protecting him.

      All capital letters sometimes look hostile. I get warned when I use them on someone I email with, where he interprets them that way.

      I don't think anyone in here doesn't respect Doc and we all acknowledge that if it weren't for his well thought out theory and starting this blog we wouldn't be here, refuting it, commenting on it, scrapping, changing our minds and trying to make it all fit if you aren't already convinced you have done it.

      Delete
    13. Peace out for me too EG. It's not worth it.

      Delete
    14. Inquis - the all-caps is horrific, and if I knew how to get bold or italic here, to differentiate my text from J's I'd be happier doing that. Can anyone help me with that? Is it possible?

      We can all be strident and inflexible at times, but believe me I know some very colorful Anglo-saxon, and if my intention were to abuse J there would've been no mistaking it. As it was, I didn't call J any names or offer any personal insults at all. I was attacking J's argument, that is all.

      Delete
    15. In all fairness to Inq, she does her research and has posted lots of good information on this blog. Most of her posts are thought provoking, and you can tell by her posts that she is trying to weigh whatever facts and evidence there is in order to reach a theory that she can accept and live with.

      Inq, I especially liked your post to Doc about logical thinkers. You made some very good points there.

      EG

      EG

      Delete
    16. J doesn't post here much, Inq, you're right. Unfortunately when he does, his comments always have an antagonistic tone, and a vibe of "hostility" as MHN noted above. J has a habit of disappearing the moment he's had his rant, but before addressing anyone else's questions, which smacks of self indulgence - if one is going to insert themselves into a discussion, they should also be prepared to answer, not merely question. J has always been what I call a "hit and run" poster.
      Sorry, J, I don't want to come off as disagreeable, but I feel this is true. You don't make conversation, you make assertions. You appear to have no real interest in any mutual dialogue, and hold others to a standard you are not willing to meet yourself - demanding your own questions are answered, along with expecting those you oppose to present irrefutable evidence, all the while offering none of your own. I hope you realize it's nothing personal, I'm just posting my observations of the way you argue so that you might see why people here may get frustrated by your posts from time to time.

      Delete
    17. J's been around for a long time, Ms D; he used to be JDI before CBS got him. He and evie and I are about the only oldtimers left, and I'd defend him on that basis alone; however, he will usually engage with me, and rein in his annoyance when doing so. We freely acknowledge we'll never convert one another, and so confine ourselves to sparring gently for sport.

      Doc has been a bit short and rather censorious of him of late, and it's sharpened his attitude and amplified his frustration. Don't be too hard on him, please - he's hung in here for a long time and is very earnest, even if misguidedly believing BDI. . .for now. (you reading here, J?)

      Delete
    18. I guess I see J a little differently. He said once he mostly reads Harry Potter and I thought that was sincere and sweet. He maybe is the "emotional" type thinker which I didn't include earlier in that "too long" post, like Steve Thomas was I suspect. Anyway none of us really know what we're like in here I'd say.

      Delete
    19. Thanks EG. Believe me, my constant changing bothers me more than anyone if that's possible. I'd like to make a better case for Burke but what I'd really like to see is something come of this lawsuit other than a settlement agreement. I'd like to see the rest of the Grand Jury documents or whatever you call them. What CC said a week ago.

      Delete
    20. Thumbs up to J and reading! Lots of cool young adult books out there. Better than only reading the backs of cereal boxes and Twitter posts.

      Delete
    21. CC, it's nice of you to defend J, but in all fairness, you're often pretty hard on Inquisitive and it's not always warranted. I would never ask you to go easy on her, however, as you will engage with other posters here as you see fit to do so. I have to speak my mind, and as long as I'm not name calling or resorting to cheap ad homs, I don't think I'm over stepping the mark. I respect your opinions and I hope you respect mine, even if you don't agree with them. Cheers.

      Delete
  40. I'm not so sure John knew what a brilliantly deceptive piece of creative writing he fashioned with the ransom note, or exactly how it would play out when read but that turned out to be the case. One could assume, since he is a businessman, self starter, rising to the level of chief executive officer of his own division (and former Navy) that he would have the training and discipline. But staging the murder of his daughter would be something else again.

    I do agree Doc with your logical thinking why go to the great care of composing a note to so successfully mislead would the cops then be called in when the note explicitly and in no uncertain terms spells out "do not call." And I see how you think Doc. Over and over you have told us how you think. You are a logical thinker, thinking based on proven knowledge and information that is accurate and certain ("the basis of modern technology"). You do not think like an attorney who can persuasively argue any point or are more adept at analysis than decision,although you also have that skill, or do you think like a psychologist/scientist who studies the interpersonal relationships and tries to make predictions about behavior. And there is another kind of thinker who is the lateral thinker who is best suited in business (like John I would imagine), or advertising.

    And I believe it was this that came into play when he likely dictated the note to Patsy, which she wrote in both her left and right hand. Maybe he wrote it out first and she then copied it using her tendency to be ambidextrous.

    Logically it's unacceptable to you, or anyone who uses logical analysis to solve a problem, who would read the note would not follow it to the letter. And this is because the note was composed by someone who was very capable at thinking outside the box, a lateral thinker. "Outside the square" as they say in Australia. So thus to you, being a logical thinker you cannot believe that Patsy, who you think didn't know, would have not followed that letter LITERALLY. And not called. Yet she did, and so foiled the whole purpose of a note which you, being a logical thinker assumed John is the same.

    However, since others believe Patsy knew, and was in on the note than we have to question the real purpose of that note. Was it a literal note, to be taken literally? Or a BLUFF, to buy time, look menacing to police, throw suspicion onto not just any old group of degenerate kidnappers but a sophisticated "foreign faction" (nice touch, John) something he likely picked up from one of his little bedside reading books. He had no idea the investigation would be bungled day one, and that his note would send everyone running to obtain handwriting samples and looking for motives. Yet he did have that covered, as the handwriting was disguised. He knew his family would be investigated and so where his real brilliance shone was moving into stage 2 masterminding a stalling technique and misdirection. Outsmarting the BPD, taking control of the narrative, hiring another mastermind, Haddon, and successfully maneuvering around city officials. The note really did work, whether there was an intention to call the police or not.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "And I believe it was this that came into play when he likely dictated the note to Patsy, which she wrote in both her left and right hand. Maybe he wrote it out first and she then copied it using her tendency to be ambidextrous."

    Funny, because you also had this to say, Inq:

    March 3, 2017 at 12:34 "After exploring, and arguing, for every other possible scenario right on up to thinking it was a "team" effort (Jatsy) I began reading all of the link Lil sent. Even there it seemed that the two discussing it were headed in a Patsy scenario completely. But I noticed how very confused she seemed. And that it could not have been an act. Not an act that could be sustained during her eventual sit down with LE, or subsequently all of those years right on up to her death. Her fumbling around, therefore, was viewed in contrast to the calm demeanor projected by John in his words, his changing of the facts and story.....Was she able to sit and write a note describing a kidnapping? Did he dictate the note to her? Possible. But NOT probable. Add to that her absolute hysteria during and after the 911 call as observed by others. Now compare that to John's demeanor. He's separated himself from the others, he reads his mail, he's not concerned a call hasn't come in, he's made trips where he's disappeared from sight and she's having a mental breakdown. It all seemed to fit then. Logic and emotion merged. Re read December 1, 2012 thread and see if it can make sense to you the way it does to me now. And I know I abandoned the Burke, Intruder, and Patsy, Patsy and John theory in what, five months, but I was committed to having it make sense, and now it has. Doesn't change anything, she's still dead, and I do appreciate everyone's journey in here as I know you are all committed to understanding why it hasn't been "solved". And for me, it's so very disturbing why the killer is still sitting comfortably in his new home with his new wife, continuing to spin his yarns."

    March 14, 2017 at 11:28 AM "But again, why is it so impossible to believe that John committed this crime and John alone. Because Patsy had on the same outfit?"

    March 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM "Also consider that if Burke had had anything whatsoever to do with "it" - the crime - he would not have been put in an environment such as the home of a close friend where he could have easily been gotten to, by a rogue police officer, the press, or the house guest and children residing under the White's roof. Not just his part in it, but what either parent might have done "for him" next."

    Keep these very recent statements in mind next time you flip flop.....

    ReplyDelete
  42. I really cant be bothered answering all of Docs questions as I feel I have already addressed these previously.
    I will address this though:

    "But what about the evidence of prior sexual molestation?"

    I don't think there's any doubt that JBR's vagina was damaged in a way that is inconsistent with bubble baths, masturbation or scratching from vaginitis - to me, the autopsy report is uncharacteristically clear on that point. I am not entirely sure that the damage was of overtly sexual provenance (ie. it may have involved a female charged with JBR's genital cleanliness, which, as discussed on here, is an incredibly common source of vaginal damage in children).

    And IF (still a big if IMO) there was sexual abuse, I still think Burke was the more likely suspect. And it may have been consensual kids "exploring". Thats actually pretty commom between siblings if you look into it. And given Burke and JBR used to share a room, its possible. Johm has never shown anything remotely capable of doing such a thing.

    Anyway, just my 2c and a still a big if.

    Nothing in this case points to John being involved by himself (again, IMO).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thanks for doing the research MsD to show how I change theories. Good work. Can't rule out Patsy as being involved. It's still even possible she played a bigger role. But answer me this:

    1) If the note, which took time and great care to scare Patsy into not calling 911, was John elsewhere in the house out of eye shot and possible ear shot hoping she wouldn't act on his one crucial piece of camouflage and not call the police? Isn't that a bit - risky?

    2) If his original intention was to remove the body, why not do it that night, under cover of darkness rather than risk rolling her off a cliff in the daylight - or risk that wherever he had safely deposited Patsy and Burke she wouldn't alert a neighbor or friend that her daughter was missing?

    3) If John wrote the note in advance, say in his airport hangar, why use Patsy's pad and pen? Of all the pads and pens available to him at the store, why use something that could be traced directly back to his family. Surely that is rather shoddy premeditation or pre-planning.

    4) Why would Patsy continue to back up John's version of events including adding strange unverifiable details like she and Linda cleaning up glass, or getting JB ready for bed with no light on - yet in the crime scene video and photos the bedroom light was on.

    5) Why did Patsy say Burke was upstairs asleep during the 911 call?

    6) According to first officer on scene statement "Ms Ramsey tole me that she had gone into JonBenet's room at about 0545 hours to wake her in preparation for a short trip the family was to take later that day. She found JonBenet's room empty and then discovered the note as she walked down the stairs. She immediately called the police." I think she left out a few other details, and changed that story as well. Why?

    Now if I could rule out Patsy's involvement then I could "flip flop" back to John as being the single perpetrator. But since I can't, I have no other choice than - and I'm warning you now so you won't be startled later - to think it was a collaborative effort, with John, to cover up a crime her son committed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. correction: 4) "verifiable" rather than unverifiable
    Also to add that there are many more Patsy Inconsistencies, in my absence as Zed laid out. What do you want to call them - chemo brain, confusion, white lies, or gaslit? It's a wonder she could function on a daily basis given that kind of mental state. John can't be ruled out either - too bad he was. There was enough lying to go around for all three of them.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Phew, was starting to get a bit hot in here. CC, comments to J and a few others on here up post very thoughtful even though different ideas of who did it,thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good of you to say, evie. You never finished telling us about Amsterdam a while ago - did you visit De Wallen? Do you think John could have resisted at least a walk-through?

      Delete
  46. Lol, I expect he did cc. We did go to De Wallen to see what it was like. It was bit of a laugh really with the hubster and friends. Popped into a couple of bars and cafes too. I'm going back to the Dam on a stop over cruise early oct as we like the short cruises from Southampton (where I live) but fairly limited to ports of call. Usually Bruge and le havre. This time we can pop off ship and see it in the dark. I'm not trying no space cake though lol

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lol, I expect he did cc. We did go to De Wallen to see what it was like. It was bit of a laugh really with the hubster and friends. Popped into a couple of bars and cafes too. I'm going back to the Dam on a stop over cruise early oct as we like the short cruises from Southampton (where I live) but fairly limited to ports of call. Usually Bruge and le havre. This time we can pop off ship and see it in the dark. I'm not trying no space cake though lol

    ReplyDelete
  48. I can't remember who said this, but I think they summed it up our well...our "theories" are NOT like sporting teams where we pick our favourite and then cheer for them to the very end.

    We are on this blog because we all have a common vision...seeing justice for poor JBR. I couldn't give two hoots if John actually did it. In fact, if he confessed tomorrow I would be happy as larry. But until then, I will always believe Burke delivered the head blow.

    Lets all take a deep breath and remember that we share that common vision I mentioned above.

    Maybe moving away from our theories for a little bit, I think it would be great if Doc could start a new blog where we maybe share a bit about ourselves. Age (only if you want to), hobbies, country etc. Maybe that will make things a bit more civil :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey ya Zed, I was composing my post and didn't see your comment before hitting submit. I recall that mention of teams, and thought maybe MHN may have been the one to post it.
      I like your idea, maybe DocG will do an "introduce yourself" entry.

      Delete
  49. Back in February I posted about one of the Ramsey investigators appearing on Dr Oz and how he is up on felony charges. Here's some of the latest news on John San Agustin http://m.gazette.com/attorneys-were-looking-for-advantage-for-presley-san-agustin-when-asking-to-delay-pleas/article/1598258

    I have missed a lot it seems when I'm offline, wow. At least I was able to reunite a Jack Russell terrier and a white German shepherd today with their owner while some folks were doing a smackdown here this afternoon. Confused that DocG is now using the term rape for Jonbenet's injuries as well.

    ReplyDelete
  50. BR's fingerprints are on the bowl and he has recently admitted to being up so that means JR got the pineapple and committed the crime ! *This* is pretty typical of the type of "logic" used on this site, if you want to call it that. Statistics show that siblings around BR's age, are more likely to be experimenting in an incestuous relationship with a sibling, than the adult male of the household. After reading this whole blog for the past few weeks, the statistics and links have been posted right on this site more than once, yet you still claim JR molested JBR. You have the dictionary, the fact that BR could have sleepovers but JBR could not and even reports that BR and JBR had to be seperated before, yet still, after all of this, JDI's here, will claim that JR was the most likely suspect to have been molesting JBR, where is any evidence whatsoever of that to even draw an inference from, as the blog owner claims ? How and where does anyone come up with that as the logical answer when statistics say otherwise and you are ONLY using statistics to come up that inference ? ( JR was most likely to be molesting JBR) Umm wrong answer ! Then some of you have the nerve to say that other people on here dont use logic? How about some people on here are not only lacking logical skills but also lack common sense. You JDI's need to stay right here in this forum, because in any other JBR blog, alot of the nonsense being spewed would get ripped apart by many others very quickly and quite humorously.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Oh yeah, you also have a child who was im counseling BEFORE and AFTER the murder, whose parents were unwilling to give up his medical reports. One with good logical skillswould have to ask why ? If you can not connect the dots or add 2+2 together as to who was "THE MOST LIKELY PERSON" to be sexually involved with JBR, then you sure as heck should NOT be telling anyone else how to, and not to, use logic because you are surely not an expert on using logic, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Request, can the anon posters add some initials or something so we can distinguish among other anons here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That anonymous ^^ is the one from the last page who can't spell "asinine" but called cc that. I am the other one who got insulted by Hercule too many times and stopped using my hat.

      Delete
    2. ty, sorry that happened to you. You could still choose a new hat, big bang theory, go packers, mercury...something.

      Btw, hasn't DocG posted that the DNA under Jonbenet's nails were contaminated from the morgue nail clippers?

      I don't have Kolar's book, but it's written that the 8 previous cadavers were tested and didn't match.
      (found this mentioned on the topix libk for Zed, but on a later page)

      Delete
    3. Quote from Kolar's book on page 7 on link, entry made by mama2JML, scroll towards the bottom

      Delete
    4. "Statistics show that siblings around BR's age, are more likely to be experimenting in an incestuous relationship with a sibling, than the adult male of the household."

      Wonderful, thanks for your informative post, I'm sure convinced now. Now you can post the statistics citing how common it is for nine year old boys who, after sexually abusing their six year old sisters, club them over the head, have their parents tie a garrote around their injured daughter's neck rather than call for help, strangle her to death then write a ransom note but fail to stage an actual kidnapping. As you possess something us "asinine" fools do not - logic - you should have no problem finding, and citing, these very common instances where this has occurred. I look forward to the plethora of cases you will present for us.

      "You JDI's need to stay right here in this forum, because in any other JBR blog, alot of the nonsense being spewed would get ripped apart by many others very quickly and quite humorously."

      You mean like what is about to happen to you here in regards to the utter, vitriolic tripe you continue to post?
      I suggest you grow up.....and perhaps learn how to spell. Nothing is more delightfully ironic than being called an idiot by someone who is incapable of forming coherent sentences, let alone a reasoned argument. By all means, though, please continue with your baseless, rancorous, criticism, because it sure will be entertaining for the rest of us to read the witty ripostes from the likes of MHN, Mike G and CC.

      Delete
  53. This is for dear Zed - you mentioned the books upthread. Those were apparently revealed to the public via Kolar's book. Check out the two initial posts made by "Mama2JML" on the descriptions of the three books that allegedly were purchased by the maternal grandparents for the Ramseys.
    http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T8PSLQ56N9QLHSSOE/p2

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thanks lil.

    I do like the reply from capricorn immediately under mamas posts though.

    They do appear to be a dysfunctional family who try and portray the "perfect" family image via photos and pageantry etc.

    My parents, as grandparents to my children, would certainly not buy any books like that unless they were questioning my parenting or noticed dysfunctional issues with my children.

    ReplyDelete
  55. yw Zed. These old entries have a lot of great input from posters like Capricorn, kold kase, and others. Anon is correct about both children being in therapy. Some will infer due to their mom's cancer. It does make me wonder if these books were recommended to the grandparents because they asked others, like in their church, or if any of the authors maybe made an appearance in their city...
    I'd think grandma Nedra would've bought a few toileting books too if she was aware of that regression.

    You must be doing things right Zed if you haven't had to get books sent your way :)

    ReplyDelete
  56. PDIers can never seem to explain why Patsy wrote this note on her own pad. Or never took a shower after killing her daughter. Meanwhile John was in the shower that morning.

    ReplyDelete