Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Round and Round We Go
Down and down we go. Like a leaf that's caught in the tide.
More comments, more comments, can't get enough of 'em . . .
If John didn't premeditate this crime, and it was a spontaneous event, how do we explain the disguising of his handwriting? How was he able to accomplish that? Did he pull this skill out of thin air? Not only was he eliminated as the writer of the note, but it's similar enough to look like Patsy's.
It would make sense that it would be blatantly obvious that he wrote it, unless he had a bizarre interest in learning how to disguise his handwriting before the crime. His luck is unbelievable.
Excellent question. But it could be applied to Patsy as well.
(And by the way, I see NO similarity at all with Patsy's writing. The efforts of Darnay Hoffman's "experts" to pin the tail on Patsy range from dubious to dishonest to just plain wrong. If you actually read their analyses with any degree of critical thinking you can easily spot the many problems. I've systematically gone over reports by most of Hoffman's people on this blog and would urge you to read what I had to say.)
But you are right as far as the timing is concerned. It IS hard to see how John (or Patsy) could have so successfully disguised his (or her) hand under such stressful conditions, within such a limited time frame.
One tactic John may have used is discussed in one of the first posts on this blog: the tracing or copying of a computer font. He could have composed the note on his laptop (making sure it didn't get saved on his hard drive) and then traced or copied it from the display. As I demonstrated, the layout of at least the first 15 lines is consistent with that of a word processor using the Courier New font.
It's also possible that John planned the murder in advance, which would have given him time to think carefully about how to disguise his hand. I've discussed this possibility here as well.
The note is so precise and neat as well - sticking to the margins, and he would have his computer and or word processor in the home. It would have been nothing for him to have been up late, "working", before the series of trips that were pre arranged. Looking up and down at the pages of the pad after having composed the note first on his computer, he would get his wording just so, even deciding to disguise a bit with a few misspelled words and cross-outs.
"(Steve) Thomas, like many others, sees the Ransom Note as inextricably linked to the murderer. He's not 100% accurate, but he's not wrong either, at least how I see it. In Thomas's mind the writer of the Ransom Note is the murderer. It's easy to get caught up in a compartmentalized theory of this case - either PDI, JDI, or BDI or an IDI.
What so few have considered is if ANY of the Ramseys were responsible, then what are the chances ALL participated in some way, shape or form? If Patsy was an accessory, then she didn't have to commit the murder to write the note, simply to protect someone else (and yes, also herself). The point of the note was to direct attention away from the Ramseys because without it, the Ramseys would have been 'natural' suspects."
If Patsy was involved in any kind of accident that ended up with JB's skull fractured, there is no way she would not have called 911 for an ambulance UNLESS she knew for sure that doctors after an examination would find signs of abuse in her daughter. To be part of the kidnapping plot, she would have needed to know about the abuse or be the abuser herself. Now, if she knew that it would be found out that they were abusing or allowing abuse to go on on their daughter if the body made it to the ER/morgue and she concocted a plan to "make the body disappear" (as implicit in the RN) why did she call 911 when the body was still hidden in the house? We need to be able to answer that question if we believe Patsy participated in any stage of the crime.
Van de Leek's take is essentially the same as Kolar's. Nothing new there.
You make an interesting point, Marcela, but if Patsy had staged an assault by an intruder, then she could claim it was the intruder who'd abused her daughter. This may have been John's intention, in fact.
My problem is now Doc, do you think John could have sustained his "ruse" with Patsy all of those years right on up to her death? Both of them failed their first set of polygraphs. Both of them. Passed the second, and one can only guess because the second polygrapher was allowed to see the questions asked by the first, then throw them softer questions. We know the narrative John supplied the public with, but what was the narrative John gave Patsy. If, for example the polygrapher asked "did you kill your daughter?" and she said no, then she would be fine. But if he then asks "do you know who did?" and she said no, then that would cause her to fail the test, correct? Or be "deceptive", or have the test be "inconclusive."
Inq - only addressing the part of Steve Thomas and the ransom note- Patsy herself on CNN with Steve, John and Larry King agreed strongly that *whoever wrote the ransom letter IS the killer* That portion has been played during some of the new specials as well is still available on YouTube. At least with that interview she wasn't gorped on heavy meds.
"Van de Leek provides so much more information though than Kolar to back it up."
Can you summarize? I really don't want to spend any more money on books dealing with this case. Whenever I do, I learn hardly anything I didn't already know about.
I know, I feel your pain. And I'm on page 204 of $484 or so pages so doubtful I can even summarize at this point. There are a lot of quoted transcripts and television appearances, that he uses to show the lies of a coverup . How their strategy was to cast aspersions on the police department so that they could say they are being treated unfairly and refuse to take a police or even an FBI polygraph or allow the police to question them - at least at first.
I think his theory of who did it is mostly in The Day After Christmas, which I haven't read. There is a tremendous amount of putting out of transcripts, both of them so that you can read the coverup for yourself, and what they said, he analyzes.
He also compares other cases - cases where investigators got to the truth more quickly as they weren't being hindered by the suspects, their wealth, influence in the community, and lack of cooperation.
He brings up articles I haven't heard of before - one being an "exclusive interview" with P, J and Wood which is summarized as "A Dialogue With John and Patsy Ramsey And Their Attorney L. Lin Wood" where they discuss, and argue "for a new federal law requiring the police to refrain from speaking to members of the media at any time during an ongoing investigation" which is so very arrogant in and of itself considering the PR campaign they were involved in before answering questions in an investigation into their own daughter's death. If anything I've come away angrier at John than before. This article is here: scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=commonlaw
Since the "Sequin Star" trilogy is the latest I'd start there. I'm on the second Sequin Star, probably won't get the third. As Mrs B said, her head is spinning, so is mine.
Here's the thing for me. It's been 20 years of lying and covering up the truth, by Team Ramsey or what I call the Ramsey Machine. Now minus one, but still a machine. The CBS machine, however, could outlast the Ramsey machine if they so chose. The CBS machine could do something decent in this case, which is get this case re-opened with a new look into it. I'm not a fan of CBS or any network that puts forth theory as truth, however they did - and they hired experts including Kolar to put forward what they thought was the truth - not very effectively in my opinion, what a waste of experts, but the waters have been so muddied at the very least that what CBS was able to "accomplish" was to oust Burke from under the toadstool he's been hiding under for lo these many years. So now, they have a golden opportunity in my opinion, if they would fight this lawsuit, to not give the Ramsey machine anything, and stand by their experts and force Burke to say (through L. Lin Wood) just how he was defamed. Did he lose his computer programming job, whatever he does, did he lose his girlfriend if he has one, did the town refuse him service in any of their establishments? Has it cost Burke $550m and how? Ahh, I see, because CBS put out an untruth. Okay, tell us how and why it was untruthful. You were up late, you actually saw your sister walk upstairs and not be carried, and you do know what happened to her don't you. Because you were there. You heard, you saw, and you know.
If CBS would say yes, we stand by our theory and outfox the Ramsey machine then we might get a chance to hear from John, as surely John wouldn't want to leave Burke swinging in the wind - or would he?
-There isn't a shred of evidence to say that what happened that night was premeditated. Anything to the contrary is wild speculation. -Multiple experts have concluded the writing looks more like Patsy's handwriting than Johns or Burke's. Yes, I am aware handwriting analysis isn't allowed in courts, but for sake of discussion, it seems more likely Patsy wrote it per the majority of experts I have read. -There is no clear motive. To argue it was covering up for a sex crime, is also pure speculation as there isn’t definitive evidence there was a history of sexual abuse. -Absolutely not a shred of evidence that JR was a pedophile before the crime or one after the crime. Could it be isolated? Sure, but that would be rare and odd -No testimony from anybody claiming that John or Patsy were violent people -To say 2 parents wouldn’t cover up a crime for Burke and would call 911 is absolutely an OPINION. Nobody was in the house that night. Nobody knows how John and Patsy would have reacted -Not a single person in here, including myself knew BR as a 9.5 year old. A Lot is not known about him, so what he and JBR might have done or his feelings towards JBR and PR will never be known.
A narrative on this site has been created about JR and regardless of people saying its based on logic and facts…it absolutely is not. Most of it is pure speculation and nothing to the contrary should be believed. For the naysayers on the BDI theory, I welcome any and all criticisms. This is the bottom line for me
-What happened that night was an accident. -Something HAD to get JB out of bed and I will not go along with the John got her up to abuse her theory. I will 100% sign up for the JBR woke up on her own to see what Burke was doing. Burke has already admitted to being up, playing with his toys -As I said above, there isn’t evidence this was premeditated at all and I absolutely don’t think John would plan to do this on Christmas night when they HAD a flight the next morning and would have to cancel -Burke in the limited interviews we have has seemed to always detach himself from her murder. Has never read the RN, didn’t draw her in the family picture weeks after murder, never seemed concerned about a kidnapper, wasn’t ever scared, etc. -I have said this before but the 911 call is NEVER allowed to be made if John is the sole killer. Not to mention, if he couldn’t control Patsy when she was in the house, y’all want me to believe he was ok with sending her and BR out of the house for a day on her own and not talk? Yea, I don’t think so
I respect your opinion and this is not criticism or anything like that. Just a question. Let's say it was indeed an accident or let's say Burke hit her with a golf club or bat or the flashlight in a fit of anger and left her unconscious on the floor. What would two loving parents have done after discovering their child breathing but unresponsive? If it was an accident, we need to be able to answer why on earth they didn't call 911 for an ambulance right away.
Thanks Inq – I appreciate it. Im not always the best writer, so try to put my thoughts together the best I can.
Marcela – I don’t want to dodge this question, but we don’t know the order of events and the time in between. You know how kids will do something they weren’t supposed to and never tell anybody because of the fear of what that parent will say? I think it’s very possible that Burke in a moment of anger, hits her over the head. Panic sets in, time passes while he thinks about what to do. He prods and pokes her which caused some of the marks we see on the body. It could have been him on his own or John or Patsy heard something and came down to a horrific scene. The Ramsey’s by accounts were the most affluent couple in Boulder who had a great reputation in the city and this would certainly effect their reputation. They stumble upon their daughter being bludgeoned over the head and sexually assaulted…..it had to be absolutely horrific for them in that moment. But panic goes to being decisive and taking action. I doubt in a million years they would have thought that it would have become what it did. In their minds they had to think the RN would explain there being an intruder, coupled with the broken window and the body being found, it would be viewed as a failed kidnapping by an intruder.
I am aware there is a lot of speculation in that answer, but that’s roughly what I believe. I can tell you that I don’t think JB is hit over the head and Burke immediately goes to tell his parents. I think a significant period of time passed before they were made aware and were forced to act, not call 911.
J, I can understand your wanting to argue that Burke did it with his parents covering for him, AS A POSSIBILITY. I seriously doubt it could have happened that way, but I'm willing to agree that it's possible.
But to argue that this is the ONLY possibility and any other interpretation of what happened has to be wrong, I'm sorry but I see no basis for that whatsoever. The whole BDI case is based purely on speculation, with no shred of actual evidence aside from some fingerprints which could easily have gotten onto that bowl in many perfectly innocent ways.
This is my problem with the CBS presentation and it's my problem with your take on this case as well. A possibility, and in fact a REMOTE possibility, is promoted into a certainty purely on the basis of some amateurish profiling and a theory about why both Ramseys would be willing to collaborate on covering up the truth. Even if Burke could be prosecuted for this crime (he couldn't), there would be no case and any attempt would most likely be shot down by a judge before coming to trial. For good reason.
Saying it’s a remote possibility is your opinion and nothing more. It doesn’t make you wrong or me right.
I want to make it clear that I am not saying it’s a fact that BDI, it is just my theory that I 100% believe in. You write posts where through process of elimination, you end up with JDI. For me, Patsy was absolutely involved which eliminates the JDI theory that you and others believe in. Unless you have an explanation, I see absolutely no reason as to why Patsy would have knowingly covered or protected John. Between the handwriting and her odd, suspicious behavior, I just cannot eliminate Patsy from being involved. I do 100% believe John was also involved due to the window story, his call to the pilot, etc. SO, if both John and Patsy are involved, would 1 innocent parent cover for the other? I don’t believe so. That leaves creepy little Burke. I won’t get into the reasons I believe BDI as I have stated them, but that’s my way of thinking.
It’s a total side note, but Burke hadn’t EVER talked publicly about the case in 20 years….not a peep. Then magically the week before a special on a major network airs and names him as the killer, Burke decides to talk again. Just another extremely odd part of this case.
Round and round we go, indeed! As I mentioned in the previous post, your reasons for eliminating Patsy are based on several unproven assumptions:
- That the ransom note was written after the murder - that the ransom note was intended to stage a kidnapping and a missing child rather than to just mislead the investigators of a dead child away from the family - that there was ever a plan to dump JB's body - that Patsy would not call 911 with a body in the basement - that Patsy called 911 against John's wishes - That Patsy had no motive to kill JB but John did
The note could have been written prior to the murder. That's a possibility I've considered and have been unable to eliminate.
A ransom note is either an authentic ransom note written by a real kidnapper, or else a phony note written to stage such a kidnapping. I see no other alternative that makes any sense. This is not an assumption but a logical conclusion. It is you who are assuming that some other interpretation is possible. To me that is a huge stretch.
And by the way, no one stages a kidnapping gone wrong. To me that's just silly. And if it were a kidnapping gone wrong, then why wouldn't the kidnapper have just abandoned the body where he left it? Why would he have wanted to wrap it in a blanket retrieved from the dryer, hide it in the most remote room in the house, and then bolt the door?
The only way to stage a kidnapping is by getting the body of the victim out of the house. Again, this is NOT an assumption, but simple common sense.
Patsy's 911 call was inconsistent with the staging of a kidnapping, telling us she must be innocent.
If Patsy is innocent and there was no intruder, then the only one left who could have written that note is John. Once again, a logical inference, NOT an assumption. If John wrote the note then obviously he would not have wanted that call made.
And yes, Patsy had no motive to kill her beloved child -- but if John had been molesting his daughter he certainly could have had a motive. And yes, this is speculation, because we have no way of telling for sure what the motive was. But if you wanted to build a circumstantial case against Patsy, you'd have no real basis for it unless you could come up with some possible motive. In John's case you could.
J, thank you for the thought out answer. I am def not trying to change your mind, because I see it's set but rather I'm trying to understand the way you see the case and why you are reaching to the conclusions you share. I agree that it could have been an accident that happened while both parents were asleep and by the time they got aware and witnessed the scene, Jonbenèt was already assaulted, strangled and dead. And they had to take action. They concocted a plan to save their seriously damaged son along with their reputation of a perfect Christian family. So, my next question is. What foiled their plan? If they were working as Team Ramsey, the body would have never been found. Or found in a remote area. If all the three participated somehow, if the parents were in on it together to cover up and save their only remaining child, why did the plan fail?
On a side note. I have a feeling that Patsy knew what happened and she called the police that morning in the hopes they would find out it was a phony kidnapping perpetrated by John. That could explain why she called in friends immediately, why she was reportedly waiting for police at the front door, why she was a basket case for the months that follow and why she was not giving interviews without John by her side and also the reason she never contradicted any of John's account to the point of lying on various issues. Just my opinion but I think she was threatened and in fear all the years she lived with John until she died.
"A ransom note is either an authentic ransom note written by a real kidnapper, or else a phony note written to stage such a kidnapping. I see no other alternative that makes any sense. This is not an assumption but a logical conclusion. It is you who are assuming that some other interpretation is possible. To me that is a huge stretch."
One person's "logical conclusion" is another person's "huge stretch". Why couldn't a "real kidnapper" either deliberately or accidentally kill the victim, trying to keep her quiet for example? Why couldn't a murdering parent stage a ransom note just to point the investigators toward an intruder and not because s/he intended to ever carry out an actual kidnapping? Let's say you have a dead child in your house. How do you throw suspicion on a third party? You can't write a note saying "we're a foreign faction and we just killed your child. Just wanted to let you know". You could just stage a break-in, but then you'd have to explain to the police why you didn't search the house looking for your missing child.
"And by the way, no one stages a kidnapping gone wrong. To me that's just silly."
No one bashes their own 6 year old daughter in the head and garottes her either. No matter what your assumptions are, this doesn't fit any usual crime.
"And if it were a kidnapping gone wrong, then why wouldn't the kidnapper have just abandoned the body where he left it? Why would he have wanted to wrap it in a blanket retrieved from the dryer, hide it in the most remote room in the house, and then bolt the door?"
Well, do you know for a fact that the blanket was retrieved from the dryer that night by the killer? Do you know for a fact that she wasn't killed where she was found? Or are those assumptions?
"The only way to stage a kidnapping is by getting the body of the victim out of the house. Again, this is NOT an assumption, but simple common sense."
"common sense" is just another word for an assumption that the person making it considers reasonable.
"If John wrote the note then obviously he would not have wanted that call made."
Then why did he allow it to happen? And even possibly tell Patsy to do it? That is a giant hole.
"And yes, Patsy had no motive to kill her beloved child -- but if John had been molesting his daughter he certainly could have had a motive."
Sure, but you could say that about anybody, even Patsy. What you don't have is any reason to think that John was molesting his daughter.
If we were on a jury that included John I., I'd hang the bastard from the ceiling, get everyone to claim it was suicide, call in an alternate juror, conduct a re-vote, return to the courtroom, hand our verdict to the judge, and to Lee Wood an autographed copy of Doc's book with the following inscription:
"...that BDI, is my theory that I 100% believe in."
a) "For me, Patsy was absolutely (100%) involved, which eliminates the JDI theory."
b) "I 100% believe John was...involved."
ergo...
c) "That leaves creepy little Burke...but that’s my way of thinking." ---J
Such exquisite syllogistic reasoning J. You'd be closer to the truth, and we'd all be better off, if you'd come up with a new theory and different way of thinking, even if your belief in them was only 50%.
"Saying it’s a remote possibility is your opinion and nothing more. It doesn’t make you wrong or me right."
J:
You superciliously assign 100% belief in your own opinions to make yourself sound right and others sound wrong, but then when someone challenges a particular belief you hold, identifying it as remotely possible, you dismiss their argument, along with the challenge it invites, by calling it "nothing more" than an opinion! That, my friend, is what is called being a hypocrite.
John, in your world there is obviously no way of arriving at the truth, since no matter what the logical conclusion might be you'd insist it was just an assumption. Reminds me of those who insist that evolution is "just a theory." Or maybe you think Einstein's theories of relativity are just assumptions?
At some point one has no choice but to employ logical reasoning. And no, that is NOT the same thing as an assumption. Now the reasoning may be flawed, but that's a different matter.
"Well, do you know for a fact that the blanket was retrieved from the dryer that night by the killer? Do you know for a fact that she wasn't killed where she was found? Or are those assumptions?"
So now you are defending the intruder theory? I thought we were considering the question of whether or not Patsy was involved in staging an intruder. And the question I asked was why, if you are staging an assault by a psycho intruder, you would want to wrap the victim in a blanket and hide the body in the basement rather than display it out in the open where the perpetrator of a failed kidnapping would be most likely to leave it. Again, that makes no sense at all -- but by your standard, nothing needs to make sense.
No Doc, assumptions without evidence are not just as good as assumptions with evidence. Saying "who else would have wrapped the victim in a blanket?" is not evidence, it's an argument from ignorance. I'm sure your logical reasoning is logical to you, but that doesn't make it evidence.
Here's a thought Mrs. B. Since the first investigation into the Ramsey crime cost Boulder $1.7 million, perhaps CBS could strike a deal with Burke aka. the Ramsey Machine, to fund the re-opening of the case by donating a few million to the BPD, investigators, and the new D.A.'s office. CBS, are you reading here? Want to do the right thing? Surely John and Burke, in particular John, would like to know who really killed his daughter would he not? I mean, both he and Patsy said it was some evil person who's still out there, right, or dead (John said he may be dead, what a shame, now we'll never know!). But gee, wouldn't you want to know? Now THAT would be a great settlement offer.
I take it Mrs. B you weren't convinced of the Burke-Doug-Stine theory? It's not in the book I"m reading - at least not yet. My question for that theory is why would Doug Stine be allowed to sleep over that night when the Ramseys were leaving early the next morning for Michigan? When boys (or girls) have sleepovers they don't sleep. You don't have to commit here, perhaps just tell me how Van de Leek makes that case?
The "Day After Christmas" 3 did not give any specific evidence, just a theory. I'm assuming it's coming in one of their next books.I'm reading "Sequin Star" 1 now and again there's speculation that the kids may have been left alone that night but no evidence to back it up. Just that the Ramseys talk about all of their other friends quite a bit but kind of gloss over the Stines. I read on another blog that that may have been the case, but I didn't believe it, thinking it was a rumor. Oh my now I'm thinking, what if the grand jury had knowledge of that? The authors of this book seem to feel that may be the reason for the wording of the indictments. These books go back and forth between their theories and proof, sometimes it's hard to keep it all orderly, although their humor does crack me up. Doc's theory still makes the most sense to me.
I found a very big flaw in the Sequin 2 book - they say John Andrew described BURKE as "flashy" - now they are trying to make sense of that statement. Wrong. JA described PATSY as flashy. So if they are going to go off on a tangent like that it gives me pause.
I'm glad you are sticking with Doc's theory, as I am too. But this book is more interesting than others I've read, and he provides the reader with many many examples of subterfuge if you will, lying basically, and misdirecting. More so John.
Including the Stine boy is a perfect example of what's wrong with a theory based largely on speculation. Once you go down that route there is no limit to what you could come up with. BDI is about 90% speculation already. But once that door is open then why not include his friend in the mix? And once you do that there is no reason not to include all sorts of other factors and suspects for which there is no real evidence. Maybe Burke and Doug Stine were members of a secret gang devoted to satanic rituals and maybe the Mayor of Boulder was the ring leader, so maybe they all got together in the Ramsey home that night with Burke opening the door for them. The plan was to initiate JonBenet into their secret society by feeding her pineapple and then putting her through a hazing ritual. That would "explain" the use of a garotte and also the vaginal penetration with a paintbrush handle, no? But something went wrong and the cord was pulled too tight and she suffocated - accidentally. At that point the Mayor took charge, writing a phony ransom note, wrapping JonBenet in a blanket and hiding the body on the basement so the parents would think she'd been kidnapped.
I haven't read any of the books you're referring to, Inq and Mrs B, but a while ago I began pondering the notion that Burke and JonBenet may have been left alone in the house that evening following the xmas party at the Whites. Perhaps they all stopped at the Stines to deliver their gift, Burke and JB were tired and irritable, eager to play with their new toys before their upcoming vacation, so John and Patsy decided to drop them off at home, Doug Stine tagged along because he wanted to play with Burke's new Nintendo. John read to JB in the hopes of putting her to sleep, and sent the boys to Burke's bedroom, then went out to deliver the rest of the xmas gifts. The Stines would perhaps be by in an hour or so to pick up their son, as the Ramseys had to catch an early flight. Kids being kids, they decided they'd take advantage of the fact their parents weren't home, so prepared a snack, tore open some xmas presents, rough-housed in JB's bedroom a little, some inappropriate play occurred in the basement and a blow on the head was delivered, either accidentally or intentionally. JB subsequently evacuated her bladder, thus Burke or Doug changed her into the over-sized "Wednesday" pair, believing no one would notice, as the day corresponded with the pair she was previously wearing, along with a pair of long johns that previously belonged to Burke, because he knew where they were kept. Time goes on, JB doesn't awaken after several attempts by the boys to rouse her, either Doug or Burke (or both) strangle her to keep her from "telling", the parents come home and discover JB unconscious. The Stines arrive to pick up their son, or a call is made to them by John (which is why he claimed to have "lost" his cell phone). No one who knows which boy is responsible for what, and they're not offering any information, or they're both pointing fingers at the other, as kids tend to do.....so a plan is concocted by the Stines and the Ramseys in order to spare both of their sons being hauled off to an institution for a sexual attack/murder.....and to spare the Ramseys from being charged with neglect for leaving three, young children alone in the house. This is the only way BDI could work for me - where both the head blow AND the garroting were perpetrated by Burke (or he and an accomplice), because I don't believe for a moment the Ramseys would have "finished off" their daughter to protect a son. Staging a cover up to protect an already deceased child, along with protecting *themselves*, I could maybe accept. BUT.....do I believe this is what happened? Probably not. There is just too much evidence that points to John working alone. It was just a late night musing, as I'm prone to do regarding this case, being the perpetual insomniac that I am.....at any rate, it's something for BDIs to chew on.
Don't worry, Doc, and fellow JDIs.....I'm not switching teams any time soon!
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/28/bp.00html (Burden of Proof, John and Patsy Discuss 'The Death of Innocence' on the question of why the Ramseys wouldn't take a polygraph administered by the BPD)
also
edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/24/se.02.html ("Experts Say Ramseys Passed Lie Detector Tests) albeit the second set, not the first
I read your polygraph thoughts. I think what is left out is that they BOTH failed the first set of tests administered by someone hired by their attorneys whose name escapes me now it was in the Sequin Star, or rather they came back "inconclusive" much the way Patsy's handwriting analysis results were deemed inconclusive. Then, since there was much pressure from the public and the BPD to release their polygraph test results, the attorneys hired a different expert, Gelb, who was renowned in his field - but one who also was allowed to see the first administrator's questions, and thus give them softer questions that could get a pass.
Certainly whether Patsy was on drugs or not might have been an issue but weren't these tests taken around 2000 or 2001? She still may have been on the valium she almost overdosed on (soon after the murder), or could have taken it just prior to the test, we can't rule that out - especially if "they" weren't drug tested (no need to drug test a sociopath).
In any event several of the questions you posed Gelb may have asked had "qualifiers" in the verbiage - such as "do you know FOR SURE who killed your daughter" (words to that effect). Well, she may not know for sure. Especially if it was done in stages. Still, I get your point.
Now if John was not asked if he wrote the note that's a big fat glaring faux paux.
I am obviously conflicted over some issues Doc. I can go along with the "Patsy didn't know" only so far. I don't think she lived the rest of her life oblivious to what happened. It's possible. She may have preferred to remain in an altered state of consciousness until the day she died either under the influence of drugs or just in denial. She doesn't look drugged up in the least when John was running his political campaign, running for office. And she doesn't look drugged up on Burden of Proof or the Larry King show, or in her depositions with Darnay Hoffman.
Denial is a pretty strong coping mechanism for grief, and guilt. But the truth of the matter is they both failed the first polygraph tests, and that can't be denied.
There is no evidence that Patsy failed any polygraph. At least one of her responses was registered as inconclusive in one test, but that's it. If, as I feel sure, John had manipulated her into lying about certain facts, such as who wanted the 911 call made, that could have had an influence on her response to certain questions.
What does seem likely is that one or both of them failed a test initiated by their own legal team, and kept secret. When asked about that test they dodged the issue -- telling us that yes, there must have been such a test and yes, it did not go well. If there hadn't been a test they would have denied it. And if there had been a test and they both passed, they'd have taken the opportunity to make that public.
It is the only theory that remotely makes sense. BDI and hopefully one day it comes out so you and I can come back to this blog and say "I told you so".
I think the length and content of the ransom note makes little sense if John and Patsy were working together. There would be no reason to hand over a 2 1/2 page sample of your own handwriting when a paragraph would do. I also think they both would know that a shorter note would look more authentic...so, I think Doc's theory offers a good reason for all the detail contained in the note.
As far as the 911 call...Patsy may have been suspicious that morning(she reportedly told one of the friends that the notepaper looked like theirs). She may have convinced John that she agreed with him not to call the police, and waited until he went upstairs to get dressed and made the call. That would also explain the "hurry, hurry, hurry" and sudden hang up of the phone. K
Nice try. A more likely scenario is that was her queue for ending her charade and giving her a way to hang up. I mean, who would hang up on 911 when you have a missing child? No one. Unless you are acting of course.
I've speculated here before as to the possibility that John (for lack of vocabulary) "de-guilt-tripped" Patsy for making that call, to "prep" her for what now lay ahead, by VIRTUE of that call foiling his original plan. Does that make sense? I can understand Patsy withholding her suspicions of John's duplicity, if they existed, up to the point where JonBenet is discovered in the basement. At that point, however, it is hard to imagine her holding them in any longer, even for the brief period of time it took police to obtain and analyze John's exemplars and rule him out as the killer. If she was afraid of John that morning, one can only imagine how afraid she would have been just a few hours later when HE, not the police, discovered JonBenet, not kidnapped, but dead in the basement. That is why the scenario that makes better sense to me is the following.
John hears Patsy scream and runs downstairs, only to find out it's too late. She's called 911, and to make matters worse, she's now on the phone with friends, imploring them to come over too. She hangs up. John begins yelling at her, ostensibly for ignoring the warnings in the ransom note--a ransom note he pretended to "read" while she was still on the phone. Bewildered and confused, Patsy grabs the ransom note and reads for herself the first time what will happen to JonBenet if JOHN calls the police before the ransom is paid. She falls into his arms apologizing and crying for the mistake she made that might end up killing their daughter.
John suddenly realizes that the circumstances of his guilt-tripping, short of them not being necessary at all, could not be any better and can be used to his advantage. Why? Because Patsy truly DID have a reason to feel guilty; she reacted hastily by calling the police before reading the entire ransom note.
So John leverages her guilt and need for sympathy, made all the more palpable through his effusive expressions of apology and forgiveness, to get what he needs from her in return---her trust in him as to what to tell the police and why whatever it is he tells them will be to both their benefit. Patsy not only concedes, she runs outside to see if any intruders are monitoring JOHN...the person who is now potentially on the hook for HER indiscretion.
More gaslighting in the days ahead will be needed, but this scenario at least gets Patsy through the first day, which is an important one to say the least.
Yes, Mike, I suppose something like that is possible. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing what went on between them during that time.
Zed, If no one would hang up when reporting a missing child, then why would Patsy have hung up? Wouldn't staying on the line the way most mothers would do have been part of her act?
I don't recall the 911 operator telling Patsy to stay on the line - did she? I betcha' that was Patsy's first ever call for help; perhaps she simply didn't know the proper protocol.
Thanks Mike, for detailing your scenario...something I hadn't considered. Certainly possible. But then, I don't understand their reported "distance" from each other that morning after the police arrived. That doesn't seem normal to me. Maybe that was just John's personality. We don't know if something was said or had happened in the days prior to Christmas that would cause Patsy to be suspicious or not. I think between the time Jonbenet's body was found until John was "eliminated", Patsy was so medicated and grieving that she probably wasn't thinking clearly at all.
"Nice try. A more likely scenario is that was her queue for ending her charade and giving her a way to hang up. I mean, who would hang up on 911 when you have a missing child? No one. Unless you are acting of course."
So Patsty's queue to hang up was when she heard her own voice start to utter the words, hurry, hurry, hurry? An interesting theory, to say the least. Did she program her script herself using self-hypnosis?
The 911 operator had all the information she needed. Patsy put her missing child in no further danger by hanging up sooner than customary dictates suggest. To read anything into that is more than just confirmation, it's called being a.....well, I won't say something that might get my post deleted.
"But then, I don't understand their reported "distance" from each other that morning after the police arrived."
The moment the police arrived, Patsy was escorted to the sun room and told to wait while John debrief Officer French and helped him conduct a preliminary search of the house. It was in John's interest to keep Patsy isolated and quiet as much as possible, and, like you said, given her emotional state, it probably wasn't difficult to do.
I'm still not certain that the head bash was accidental or not. If it was meant to kill her or just an unplanned reaction. But I thought of the case when my local news earlier on Friday reported about a dead woman inside a home. Her boyfriend said it was accidental. The sheriff said the boyfriend had picked up the girlfriend's gun and it fell on the floor and hit her in her back. He said when he picked it up again it accidentally shot her in the head. The sheriff said this was the first time he's ever heard of someone being accidentally shot twice. He's been arrested for murder. The guy would stand a better chance if it happened in Boulder.
At least in your case, there was a boyfriend laying claim to an accident having incurred, instead of a ransom note writer laying claim to a kidnapper incurring an accident on his way out the door. But of course to non-JDIers that was all part of the perp's plan!
I wonder if Patsy actually ever said she screamed out so loudly John came running to her rescue. Burke was able to pretend sleeping through the "shrieks" she emitted she searched his bedroom for his sister, but generically speaking, the only thing he identified as "loud enough to be heard" was the argument his mom and dad had.
Do others, like myself, associate piercing screams, loud enough to be heard by people enclosed in showers with hot water running on them, with instantaneous life-threatening scares of the sort one experiences while watching a horror flick? Surely Patsy panicked when she discovered the ransom note, either immediately before or immediately after she discovered JB missing from her bedroom. And while the time period between these two events was no doubt brief, fears introduced by the one had to be confirmed by the other. Patsy sounded like someone frozen awestruck and at a loss for words during the 911 call, not like someone who just moments prior had shaken the rafters with an ear-splitting scream. She sounded like a person about to board a plane for a career-making or career-breaking business meeting, suddenly discovering she had left her purse with her ticket in it at home and out of reach. Absolute fear and panic? Yes. A cry for help? Perhaps. A piercing scream? No way.
We have to consider Burke's lies too. He says he was in bed asleep, yet he hears Patsy run into his room "all psycho" looking for JB. Why would you remain in bed knowing something big was up. And, he didn't. He's heard on the end of the 911 call - I think we can all agree on that now, that he was not in bed asleep during the 911 call, he was up. Although we can't agree on exactly what he said, or how John responded.
He does go back to his room at some point though - probably told to go back to his room to await further instructions, but he likely did not go back to sleep. He says he was lying in bed fearful. So he says he was asleep, the whole time, and fearful and mom went psycho, the last two events he would have been awake for.
Since he's prone to "sneaking" by his own admission, what did he hear while skulking around downstairs that John and Patsy would rather him not have heard - enough so that they say he was in bed asleep the whole time.
If Patsy and John wrote that note together and her 911 call was an act, then did she even go into Burke's room acting all psycho - or did Burke add that to show she was alarmed after reading the note, not knowing anything and just finding a note.
Did she scream for John? Was he in the shower close to before the 911 call, and if so how would he have heard her screams? Or had he showered much earlier in the morning and the call was staged, timed.
My point is why is Burke lying? Was it to help his parent singular or parents plural?
And you are right Mike, probably no piercing scream.
One does wonder EG. Was the dangerous situation a dangerous sibling? It can't have been a molesting husband - they most probably had 0 witnesses testifying to that end. Was the dangerous situation an over zealous mother who had zero tolerance for bed wetting? Nah.
Now Beckner thinks he knows who did it and so does the Grand Juror who was in the shadows on the TV spot. Then by all means, please proceed.
That's the question, Inq. If they felt it was a molesting father, then their conclusion would've been different. Evidently they felt the Ramsey's were responsible by allowing JBR to be in a vulnerable, unprotected situation which caused her death.
Now, it couldn't be because they forgot to lock a door or set an alarm? I am reading more about the Stine's and their role after the fact. John being unable to remember whether or not he went into the Stine's house that night is suspect too. How cant you remember something like that? And why didn't they call the Stines over to their home that morning? They called The White's because JBR was okay when they left their home that night. We don't know if she was okay when they left the Stine's. And their "amnesia" from that point on is suspect too.
I did a quick look up on the JB encyclopedia under "friendly intruder" theories and they did a swab for DNA on Doug Stine. And everyone else.
However I don't believe this is a DNA case. Everyone has been cleared except the Panty Handlers at the factory - most likely the only real foreign faction in this whole sad saga.
"Could it possibly be because they were privy to information that WE DO NOT KNOW??"
Lest you're not being facetious, that's exactly why they came to their conclusion. Only 4 of the 14 or so transcript pages were ever released to the public.
I was being sarcastic. This is my point exactly. Based on their conclusion, AND the evidence only they were presented with, both parents were involved.
We've been through this EG. The GJ did NOT conclude "both parents were involved". Both parents were charged because it was obvious at LEAST one of them was involved. Separating the two by having them arrested and placed in individual cells would allow for a more individualized and vigorous interrogation. Alex Hunter failed to take advantage of the opportunity the GJ gave him.
Precisely, Mike. It seems clear that the GJ rejected the intruder theory, so vigorously promoted by Lou Smit. But it's equally clear that they were unable to determine which of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. They certainly didn't conclude that Burke did it. First, because there has never been any evidence of his involvement. Second, because a 9 year old could not be accused of "murder in the first degree," which was part of both indictments.
Hunter realized he had no case, because you can't accuse two people of a crime committed by one person. But you're right, he could have arrested both of them and then subject them separately to some vigorous and aggressive questioning, not permitting John to pussy foot around certain very tricky issues, such as, for example, why he closed that basement window without telling anyone or why Patsy said she was the one who told him she was calling the police.
JOHN: So I went down to the basement. I went into this room with Fleet. I explained to him that this window had been cracked open and I closed it. That the window was broken, but I think it was broken by me once before. We (John and Fleet) got down on our knees looking for some glass just to see.
SMIT: What did you find?
JOHN: I think we found a few fragments of glass not enough to indicate that it was a fresh break.
SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
JOHN: We might have put them on the ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We had only found one or two. We might have put them up there on the ledge.
SMIT: Now you said that you picked up pieces of glass.
JOHN: Um hmm. SMIT: A few little pieces. JOHN: Um hmm. SMIT: And did you say you put them on the window well or on the suitcase or do you remember? JOHN: I don't remember for sure. There wasn't enough (glass) there for me to be convinced that the window was broken that morning. I was assuming that it had been broken by me and it hadn't really been fixed.
THOMAS: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier and that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JOHN: I don't know. I mean it would have been probably before 10:00.
THOMAS: Was that prior to Fleet's first trip down?
JOHN: I didn't know he was in the basement. I didn't know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
THOMAS: And on that trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JOHN: Yep.
Now question: do you think John may have thought that at some point he could use Fleet as the fall guy for the broken window since he pointed it out to him, they both handled broken glass, and John could claim he didn't know Fleet was down there earlier? Clearly he's copping all over the place to having broken the window himself, and closing it himself. He may need to throw Fleet under the bus at some point, so he makes sure to have Fleet handle the glass, and he pretends to not know Fleet was down there earlier. Fleet could have been John's insurance policy, should he need it.
Doc and I diverge on the window. I think John broke it the prior summer to gain entry and Patsy cleaned it up - with or without Linda - when she came home from Charlevoix.
It suggested a likely entry point for a fictitious intruder, and John intended to break more glass and open the window when he got Patsy and Burke out of the house on the 26th. When that plan went South with the 911 call, he said he closed the window in case LE checked it for prints or DNA.
This obviates the necessity of "gaslighting" Patsy, a theory that makes me grind my teeth.
He does keep saying that he broke it - but to have LE think an intruder came in that way, wouldn't it be in John's best interests not to mention repeatedly that he broke it himself?
On the otherhand it does sound logical to me that he originally had no intentions of having LE see the window (since Patsy wasn't supposed to make the 911 call) and that he could expand on the hole, the broken glass all over the floor and more staging. So I like your explanation.
His having actually gained entry that way explains the scuff mark on the wall, too, which was in an awkward place to stage, and who would think of staging a scuff mark anyway?
Sigh. CC, you're an experienced attorney and prosecutor. Reread John's testimony regarding that window, from both 1997 and 1998, and tell me you buy it. He couldn't recall whether he took a cab, couldn't recall how he lost his keys, couldn't explain why he didn't use a neighbor's key, couldn't recall if he had his shoes on, and was never even asked how he could see what he was doing while down in that window well in pitch darkness. And please explain also why Linda knew nothing about any broken window or any broken glass. Explain also why her husband was able to clean all the windows and also noticed nothing. Explain also why a millionaire with workmen all over the house during that period would fail to have a broken window repaired or at least have a piece of wood or cardboard placed over the break. No fear of rodents or birds getting in, not to mention the December Colorado cold?
Explain also why he and Patsy would have been questioned at length about that window, and asked if it had ever been repaired, on two separate occasions, if the edges of the broken glass had been encrusted with 6 months worth of accumulated dust and dirt.
This story was his alibi, I can't believe you can't see that. He had to come up with some explanation for that broken window, because under the circumstances it sure looked like staging. If he hadn't told that story the staging would have been obvious and they both would have been arrested as soon as the body was found.
He got away with it because the investigators lacked the imagination to consider the possibility that the scene they came upon that morning was NOT part of any plan, but the result of a plan that had failed.
JOHN: " And the suitcase was unusual. That shouldn't have been there. I took that suitcase downstairs, I remember. But I sure wouldn't have taken it all the way back there and put it against the window."
SMIT: "Was the suitcase, when you came back, in the same spot it was where you had been?"
JOHN: "I think I moved it to see or to look for glass then. But I think it was where I left it, where it was when I was down there before."
SMIT: " Did you look inside the suitcase?"
JOHN: " No."
SMIT: " You knew what was inside the suitcase?"
JOHN: "I presumed it was empty. It should have been empty. I thought it was empty."
SMIT: " You said you moved it? Did you remember that?"
(uh oh, careful now John)
JOHN: " I moved it a bit just to see if there was glass. It's funny how you remember things. I swear that window opened from the other side. I guess other than that, I can't see anything."
SMIT: " Now is this suitcase you described as John Andrew's suit case?"
JOHN: " Well it was -- I mean, it looks like it. It looks a little darker but I think it's cause the room is darker. It was like a hard case, a Samsonite suitcase that I think, I think, John Andrew when he came to college, he brought all his stuff out and left it at our house."
Basically what he probably did was move it from upstairs down to the basement some other time, then on one of his staging trips down to the basement, shoved it over under the window, added a scuff mark on the wall and voila, the Intruder made his madcap escape!
It's just amazing to me that as accomplished an investigator as Smit was with a high solve rate, he couldn't see that John was playing him for a fool with his answers, that his answers are really quite unbelievable. It's almost as though Lou could have caught him if John had said he had opened the suitcase and looked inside, but then John skirts away by saying he presumed it was empty so no need to look inside. Actually I'm not sure why Smit asked that question, he must have had a reason.
Then it's on to John trying again to blur the lines a bit by saying it "looks like JA's suitcase" but it's a little darker (in the picture I'm guessing) - then he has an explanation for that and it's similar to what he says about the Maglite. It looks dirty in the picture, it might be the one JA gave him, he's not sure, better ask JA about that. He knows that's JA's suitcase, and he knows he put it there. Just as he knows the Maglite is his. OUTRAGEOUS. No one can catch this guy, even an experienced investigator. And then there's Thomas who at least takes John on on Larry King but he was focused on Patsy.
Yeah, Doc, I know the drill; I just don't agree. The train room was not highly trafficked: the big washer and dryer LHP used were outside that room, as was the closet with Patsy's wrapping paper. That room was a slovenly mess, things strewn everywhere and I doubt anyone but Burke ever went in there if it could be avoided, and he preferred Nintendo to trains.
LHP's husband was a barely functioning alcoholic who couldn't hold a job - no way you can persuade me he bothered to remove the grates and wash basement windows below eye level, located in brick and concrete wells.
There would have been ambient light from street lights front and rear, and in at least one interview John said he didn't have his keys because he usually opened the overhead garage door with his remote, parked the Jag and entered the house through the garage door, the obvious implication being he took a cab from Stapleton.
John also mentioned in an interview that a window in that room was often left open because the boiler was in the basement and it was always overheated - so clearly there wasn't much concern at any time for rodents and birds.
My explanation works just fine, and has the added advantage of obviating the necessity for your "gaslighting", which I find as untenable as you do my window theory.
Burke claims to have been with his father when he broke into the house via the basement window. Burke was not with John the night he "caught a cab home and forgot his key", he was on vacation with his mother and sister. So either John's story is bogus, or he broke into the basement more than once.....which would, of course mean that the window had been fixed after the first break in, or else he wouldn't have needed to break it again, obviously. If they were conscientious enough to have it repaired the first time, why leave it untouched this time? Nope, I don't believe John's story.
CC, John said in their book that he'd misplaced his keys. And in one of the police interviews that he thinks he lent his keys to John Jr. And yes, he also said he usually (always?) used the garage door opener instead of keys. But when asked how he got home from the airport he "couldn't recall" if he took a taxi or not. Maybe Linda's husband was unreliable, but Linda herself was quite sure she knew nothing about any broken window. And this was very early on, before she turned on Patsy.
Light from street lights wouldn't be much help in that narrow window well. And John said the window was sometimes left open only because he needed some sort of excuse for not reporting that open window to Arndt. And I can't imagine leaving an outside window like that open without using a screen to keep insects, rodents, etc. out.
And if that window had been broken into months before, then what about the suitcase, how did that get there?
I think you and some others are put off by the term "gaslighting," as though it's some esoteric hypnotic technique used only by certain individuals with unusual mesmeric powers. Not necessarily.
A friend of mine remembers a certain incident in our past very differently from the way I remember it. I feel sure I'm right, but in the interest of friendship I've kept my mouth shut. Now suppose I were to challenge him and insist that my version is what actually happened? And suppose he thought a bit about it and agreed that, yes, I must be right, even though deep down he could not be sure. Would that be "gaslighting"? I think something very like that happened between Patsy and John:
"Don't you remember last summer when I had to break that window to get in, and you cleaned up the glass?" "Gee, I don't recall ever seeing that window broken -- but I'm hardly ever down there so I might not have noticed it." "C'mon, you were down there cleaning up the glass, I remember that very clearly." "Well, I can't recall anything like that, but if you say so . . ." And since she knows that Linda would have helped her do that, she assumes Linda must have been down there with her on that occasion.
What would have been the alternative? Do you honestly think she'd have publicly contradicted John, testifying that she knew nothing about any broken window, as did Linda? Do you think their lawyers would have allowed her to say anything that contradicted John's version of what happened? You're the lawyer, so you tell me.
By all accounts, John travelled a great deal for AG. Patsy hid a key outside at some point, and gave keys to neighbors, but John apparently had a penchant for breaking in, as witnessed by Patsy's offhand remark to Barbara Fernie about scratches around the lock on the back door. It's no great stretch that he used that obscure basement window more than once, and it didn't get repaired in the fall rush of school starting, pageants and holidays.
Most liars weave their stories around a kernel of truth for enhanced believability. It's at least possible.
You're right, Doc, it's the term "gaslighting" that puts me off. I have no trouble admitting that John called the shots in that marriage, manipulated and simply influenced his wife in myriad ways, probably as a matter of course. Gaslighting is just a little lurid, and to me weakens the entire JDI argument. I can't imagine trying to sell it to a jury.
I don't have great faith in my broken window theory so much as I prefer any alternative explanation to "gaslighting".
No, it makes no sense at all that Patsy would remember cleaning up glass with Linda, just because John said "c'mon, you cleaned up that glass". And it still makes no sense to break the window that night and then admit that he did it himself. The whole bit about "they would have been arrested on the spot" is nonsense. Police have to have probable cause to arrest you. "Gee that window looks staged" is not probable cause. And if John thought it would look so obviously staged, why did he do it?
C'mon John. You've been reading this blog (or if you haven't you should) so you already know the answers. And, yes, the notion that John was manipulating Patsy makes a great deal of sense. If you've been following the discussion here you'd know why.
And yes, if a kidnapping is reported and the police find a broken window, with contents of the window well strewn on the floor and a suitcase propped up on the wall beneath it, yet no evidence anyone actually passed through that window, and no other evidence of an intruder anywhere else in the house, then the window scene certainly does look like staging, and evidence of staging works pretty well as probable cause I'd say. But maybe that too strikes you as nonsensical.
And as you well know, according to my theory it looked so obviously staged because John hadn't completed his staging, assuming that his plan would give him an additional 24 hours to finish the job. He concocted his story to misdirect the authorities into seeing him as "cooperative" rather than guilty as Hell.
And if you doubt me, then please explain why:
1. John would have closed that window without telling anyone for months.
2. Linda forcefully denied any knowledge of any broken window and accused Patsy of lying.
3. Neither Patsy nor John could recall whether that window had ever been repaired, nor could they explain how it could have gone unrepaired for months, including a very cold Colorado December.
4. Why John had such a hard time recalling almost every detail of his story, how he lost his keys, how he got back from the airport, whether he entered the window well forward or backward, whether he had his shoes on, whether he was wearing a shirt, etc.
It's all too easy to dismiss a theory because it doesn't suit you. It's a lot harder to come up with an alternative explanation that takes ALL the evidence into account.
"And, yes, the notion that John was manipulating Patsy makes a great deal of sense."
Is there any actual confirmed example of John ever gaslighting or manipulating Patsy in such a manner, or did you invent it just to explain away a huge gap in your theory?
"And as you well know, according to my theory it looked so obviously staged because John hadn't completed his staging,"
Yes, I just find that to be contrived. If that was the case, he would have waited to do *any* staging at the window rather than do a partial staging that he knew wouldn't be convincing.
I've already answered these questions. One person's pure speculation isn't any better than another's. My alternative explanation is that John did break the window at an earlier time, that it's normal for people not to remember specific details of things that happened long ago that seem insignificant at the time, and that if the window was newly broken either that night or sometime after Thanksgiving it wasn't necessarily staging by John or any other person.
"Is there any actual confirmed example of John ever gaslighting or manipulating Patsy in such a manner, or did you invent it just to explain away a huge gap in your theory?"
You seem to forget that John had an affair for well over a year while married to his first wife. I don't know how he could have managed to keep that secret for so long without manipulating her.
We obviously have different notions of what pure speculation is, as opposed to logical inference based on fact. It's easy to speculate about this case and yes, your speculations are no better than anyone else's. Your "alternative explanation" is no explanation at all, it's just an assertion of what you would prefer to believe, based purely on assumptions. And if the window was newly broken after Thanksgiving, then why would John claim he'd broken it earlier?
Yes, anything is possible, but in a courtroom we go by what is reasonable, as in "reasonable doubt."
It's perfectly possible, even likely, that the findings of the six child sexual abuse experts and forensic pathologists who found evidence of chronic sexual abuse were read into the record. Without any proof who committed the abuse they did the best they could by returning true bills that accused both parents of placing their daughter in a dangerous situation and accusing both of being accessories to murder. It was their intention that Hunter bring those charges and sort it out pre-trial or at trial. I think it was an ingenious solution - but Hunter dropped the ball.
Thanks for your responses. I have limited legal experience or understanding of the law and I appreciate your explanations.
I guess my next questions is---if the GJ thought there was enough evidence to indict, whey didn't AH feel the same way? I am assuming he was privy to that same info the GJ was, so what was his decision based on? The GJ spelled it out clearly in those true bills and left anyone who read them with the clear understanding that the parents were guilty of placing JBR in a dangerous situation which caused her death, and then proceeded to cover it up?
The threshold for proof in a grand jury proceeding is only probable cause, while in a trial it's the much more stringent beyond a reasonable doubt. Hunter didn't feel he had the evidence for the latter, had little or no trial experience and a propensity to plea bargain.
A ballsier prosecutor would have indicted both in hopes that when Patsy learned of the abuse she would turn on John and blow the case wide open.
Good analysis, CC. But tragically John was not in Hunter's sights because he, like all the others, meekly accepted the "expert's" opinion that John could not have written the note. With respect to Patsy and John they were all looking through the wrong end of the telescope, hoping that John would finger Patsy rather than the other way 'round -- which was the only way, as far as I'm concerned.
I think the results of Drs McCann, Rau, et al. would have forced Hunter to re-consider John when he saw their conclusions in 1997, particularly when coupled with the judicial trend against the admission of handwriting analysis begun in the Timothy McVeigh case the prior year.
Hunter lacked the necessary trial experience and nerve to indict both and play them off against each other, and our best chance for a judicial solution was lost.
Off topic- for those with a Twitter or Facebook account if you don't mind sharing This amber alert has been on my local tv, along with cell phone alert, and my highway signs all this week but the TBI have an appeal to everyone, not just Tennessee and Alabama now. A 50 year old man has taken a student. http://www.kvue.com/mb/news/crime/statewide-endangered-child-alert-issued-for-missing-teen/423353375
We could call a draw on the broken window, couldn't we? It was broken, John's not sure what story he's going to spin to Officer French - so he mentions he thinks he broke in there himself, he doesn't think it's a fresh break, because he hasn't yet figured out how it can help the situation. Keep in mind they were looking for point of entry a kidnapper may have used, so his first reaction is to not think it has relevance - until he gets his idea (the thinker) that it could serve to his advantage. He moves the suitcase closer, scatters peanuts, etc. but what he has now done is muddy the waters of his narrative. He tells Smit (in the first paragraph above) that he THINKS he broke it before. So he has two narratives that Smit can mull over, and Fleet as well. It was an old break - but could it be a new break? Lets you and me Fleet get down on our hands and knees and pick up glass. He's gotten Fleet involved now in the broken window and he's still thinking. When someone says "I don't think" something was thus or so my question would then be "then who should I ask?"
This crime was on a continuum,it was ongoing. John's not some maffia hit man who knows how to get in, do a kill, and get back out. He's not sure what may have been left behind, what loose ends need tying up. He really hadn't even gotten his story locked down with Patsy yet most probably. He shoved her into the sunroom with her friends while he continued to think, and stage. Things occurred to him as he went along. That's how I can live with the broken window explanation. Not everything he did was thought out as to how it would be perceived by others, in advance.
Can anyone venture a guess though why Smit wanted to know whether John had opened JA's suitcase and looked inside? That's, of course, a red herring, but what was Smit trying to elicit from John?
John's game is "confounding" or confusion. Also "helpfulness". It's something that got passed along to the younger son as well, only Burke's game is "disinterest" and "move on", although I haven't quite discerned all of Burke's gaming techniques. With John it becomes obvious when you read all of his statements and answers. He may have broken the window previously, but it could be a new break as well, the Maglite might be his but all of his flashlights are dead so why would a flashlight be out - and it looks dirty, yet again it could be the one JA gave him, have to ask JA. The suitcase - it "looks" like JA's, I mean it's a little "darker" but that could be because the room is dark, etc., you get the picture.
As for Patsy instead of the word gaslight we could use the word "influenced." They are a unit, they are one, they are "we". Now obviously they are separate individuals but it's preferable for both of them to be on the same page. In fact right now, it's crucial. Memories don't need to be implanted in her, she knows what he's going to say and she just needs to back it up. Her life is on the line too.
Honestly you are all clutching at straws if you think Patsys 911 call was not an act. No parent would hang up...you would stay on the phone and receive all the comfort and information you could get. Thats a fact and is simply human nature. And no Doc, she would not have stayed on the phone if it was an act because that just puts her act in more jeopardy. She knew exactly what she had to say, got on the phone and said it. Once done she ended the call so her act couldn't be scrutinised any longer. It was always Patsy going to make this call because John just couldn't play stricken dad as well as Patsy could play stricken mum.
There are so many signs in that phone call which lead to it being an act..waaaaay too many to be a coincidence. Experts agree this was a staged phone call and I'll put my faith in the experts...even though a deaf donkey could probably come to that conclusion themselves.
Mike G - you questioned one of my posts above but to be honest hardly any of your posts make sense to me so i wont bother replying to this one.
I agree entirely with your last post. Do you have Burke's exact words to Dr. Phil about that incident? Like John's words to him about the flashlight, they seem to be conspicuously missing. Or should I say, deliberately unavailable?
I do not believe for one second that Patsy's call was an act. You don't kill your daughter, not take a bath and write a ransom on your own pad. She's either dumb or dumber, if that was the case. Meanwhile, John can't seem to tell a lie with a straight face. And the cops all fell for it. He has really lucked out.
Doc, there's an error message when you go over 4,096 characters - the html can't accept it. I also can't delete it for good, so I'm just trying to get rid of the error message here. Nothing more.
Zed, what do you think Burke meant at the end of the 911 call (assuming he was up and recorded and assuming he did ask a question) when he said "what did you find?" as Van de Leek has a very interesting explanation for that (page 310 2nd book Sequin Star). Have you thought about what Burke meant by that question?
NoI havent really thought about that because I'm still not sure if that's what can be heard. It may well be, but I am not set on it.
If it indeed Burke and those are the words he said, I think it means exactly what it sounds like. He was asking them what they found. Most likely referring to the ransom note he knew nothing about. I even believe that the parents may have told Burke that JBR was ok (after his headblow to her) and maybe Burke genuinely believed an intruder came in after.
Yep, you got it Zed. I think it's only recently in here on this blog, that we have agreed that Burke was on the tail end of that 911 call, although we don't know exactly what was said, and how could we, the youtube version is terrible. However it was the opinion of the author of the book I'm reading that Burke, if he was in the basement that night with JB and fatally struck the blow and also strangled her (and again, he hasn't laid it out that way - maybe in the other trilogies, haven't read them) but that he may have gone up to bed and either laid awake all night or slept, not knowing exactly what he had done. Prodding her, as Kolar believed, with the train tracks, may have been Burke not knowing she was dead - either after rigging her up to the crude garrotte, or after the head blow. If Patsy then got up to make sure JB uses the bathroom, finds her not in her bed, not in Burke's room, does her own search and finds her dead - perhaps it's Patsy's scream the neighbor heard. Wakes up John and - we now get to the 911 call.
Patsy says on the 911 call "we found a note." Burke hears and says what did you find? He is not aware and does not know his parents staged "his" murder. What did you find? A note? Then "please, what do I do?" Dad, angry, "we're not talking to you."
The author does not spend much time on this, only a few paragraphs. Mostly throughout this book he makes a case for John and Patsy as accessories to murder. And I think in any BDI theory you have to include Patsy in a BDI scenario. It would make no sense that she was excluded from the night's events.
The author thinks Burke or JB broke the basement window - and this is why John cops to it himself. Accessories. Take the onus off Burke. Remove Burke from that area as much as he can. Mostly this author shows us every incident that John has misdirected, added info, left out info, and orchestrated a masterful deception. So one can either believe it was for himself, or to cover for another. Thanks for your answer.
There's been some talk of Van Der Leek's books, so I thought I'd offer my two cents.
I was thoroughly disappointed with "The Day After Christmas: Book 3." I forced myself to finish it because I was curious to see how he tied Doug Stine to the crime. He didn't lay out his theory until the very end of the book, and when he finally did, he did so in the form of a poem. A freaking poem?!? He offers nothing to link Doug Stine to the crime.
He also completely misinterprets something said by LHP and devotes an entire chapter to delving into an idea which stems from this misinterpretation. Talk about spreading misinformation.
The book is riddled with long, drawn-out analogies, which I found particularly annoying. I mean, a four-page-long rant comparing raising children to gardening--complete with rain symbolizing love, sun symbolizing excessiveness, how one plant can affect the whole garden, blah, blah, blah.
He frequently quotes posters from Websleuths and Topix, which I thought was kind of odd. He also addresses a Reddit user (even identifying the user's "hat") who stated that he wasn't interested in Van Der Leek's book due to his lack of credentials. Not only does Van Der Leek offer a lengthy rebuttal to the user's statement, but five other times throughout the narrative, he refers back to this user with a "take that" kind of attitude. I guess he thought he was being funny, but it just seemed petty and got old quickly.
The only information I found interesting in the book had to do with PR's 1998 BPD interview where she claims that it's the first she's heard of possible chronic sexual abuse. Van Der Leek points out that in a 1997 Ramsey interview with the media, JR says, "There have also been innuendos that she has been or was sexually molested. I can tell you those were the most hurtful innuendos to us as a family." PR was sitting right next to him when he said that (a year before her 1998 interview.)
I too found a mistake in the book I was reading and that was Van der Leeks mulling over JA's comment that he said Burke was "flashy", when in fact JA said Patsy was flashy. Why would JA say Burke was flashy? Makes zero sense.
I like the analogies though, to other crimes. Not so much drama in the form of poetry. I have appreciated noticing how John's stories have changed, and how he tries to lead the interrogator down the wrong path. That wasn't quite so obvious on acandyrose, but here there were so many examples I stood up and took notice.
I also have appreciated how he's showed us John's strategy of being victimized by the police, the media, and suing everyone in sight and still continues to do so, further solidifying my low opinion of JR.
But I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so if I find mistakes or misinterpretations or differences in what I think I can still find things that I can learn that I didn't know before.
@Inq, I didn't have an issue with the comparisons to other crimes. Although, in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare this crime to any other. (Unless, of course, it's to highlight the differences between this case and a real kidnapping for ransom.) The analogies I wasn't fond of were the ones that read like a creative writing assignment...a very long creative writing assignment. No wonder he's been able to churn out eight or nine books on the same topic--there's a lot of filler.
IMO, when it comes to a true crime narrative, it's crucial that there are no mistakes or misinterpretations. Discovering one makes me question the author's credibility and knowledge of the case. I would also seriously question anything that I was hearing for the first time. In fact, after I read the part where he discussed PR's 1998 BPD interview and JR's statement from the May 1997 media interview, I had to verify for myself that what he claimed was accurate.
I was already aware of the premise of his theory before I started reading his book. I wouldn't write someone off just because I may not agree with their conclusion. I could certainly learn something new from the information they present leading up to their theory. I'm also OK with speculation, as long as it's logical and not just pulled out of thin air. Unfortunately, this author didn't offer any brilliant revelations or new information (other than connecting the two events that I mentioned before) and he failed to support his reason for linking another person to the crime.
I had to laugh at your "creative writing" description. When I listened to the podcast done with the two authors, the male author was less pleasing to listen to. I doubt the man can be succinct. The female author did better with her questions or making her point without being long and drawn out. Is it clear in the books which authors are writing which chapter?
@lil, I don't think this guy couldn't be succinct if his life depended on it. I'm pretty the book that I read was written entirely by him, while she did the research. Unless they are BOTH foul-mouthed, long-winded, unorganized writers. ;)
For me Lil, Van de (Der?) Leek puts the "players", the characters, the personalities, in context. No one lives their lives in some vacuum where an event happens and nothing preceded it. Wilson has put out some books of her own - in this #shakedown organization they have going, in particular her trilogy on O.J., and she contributes or is the consulting writer on many of Van de Leek's books. I find his writing more interesting. He's comprehensive. And humorous. At the moment there is a long chapter on John's rise, plugging away essentially at Lockheed Martin until he ran his own division and the struggle that was to succeed. Beth's death played a very big role in John's life story, his affair, meeting Patsy, his divorce, his being on the cusp of doubling his fortunes in the next year or so and then the fall. JB's death. Haven't gotten to the small children. Van de Leek is not going to rag on the victim. But there is no doubt in my mind that both children were given anything they wanted, lacked structure - which is the most important thing a parent can give a child, not things, and the environment in the home and out of the home was all about appearances. JB's short life was staged. Is there no surprise her death was as well?
Ugh...that's what I get for typing while talking on the phone. That should have said, I don't think this guy *could be succinct if his life depended on it. And...I'm pretty *sure the book that I read was written entirely by him.
None, Inq. Why? To be honest, this is the first book I've ever read on JBR. I have done a lot of reading on the case, but not in the form of books. The next book I plan to read is Doc's. Although, I am already very familiar with his theory, I feel I owe it to him to read his book. Plus, based on Doc's blog posts, his writing style is much more up my alley.
Aside from what I've already posted, my overall impression of Van Der Leek is not all that great. I have no issue with someone writing a book on JBR to present their theory, or share information they feel may be helpful to solving the case. In fact, I appreciate all the info. that is out there thanks to the books written on the case. That being said, when someone(s) pumps out eight or nine books on JBR, I can't help but feel they are trying to capitalize on this tragedy, either in a monetary sense, or as a way to make a name for themselves.
I went back and reread the overview for "The Day After Christmas:Book 3" on the authors' website. The book fails to deliver on all the points promised. It's just a whole lot of hype, IMO.
Also, reading the responses Van Der Leek left for readers who wrote less-than-favorable reviews on Amazon, really left a bad taste in my mouth. He needs to check his ego and learn how to accept criticism.
I guess that's unfortunate then that the first book you have read HKH was one you didn't like, on the case. I read little clips from each book but I decided, since he amended his theory from the Craven Silence books - that I would get the most current one. Not likely I'll buy any more, just fyi. I believe Steve Thomas's book may have been the first I read, but it could have been Perfect Murder Perfect Town. And at least 6 since. I like anything new. But since I have at least narrowed my inquiry down to two theories, and let go of two theories, I would prefer to read anything to bolster those two theories. Mostly I wanted to see what kind of "defense" John masterminded for himself and family, how he obfuscated, a bit about the Lockheed Martin background that Gumshoe went into months ago and in that sense Sequin Star didn't disappoint. I must say though I still have 106 pages more to go. Anyway, good HKH you are wanting to study and read up. Keep going! :)
Thanks for your reply HKH and again, how you wrote it made me laugh, which I needed today. I do understand what you mean, some of the quotes I saw last year did not peak my interest, as I don't care to read something that either contains a lot of texting shorthand or strong language. (It's why I prefer fiction writer Harlan Coben) You mention the author responding to criticism, I saw the same thing with another online blogger/self published author leave ugly retorts on Amazon and later deleted them (that was Rick Baker on the California murder case of the McStays). Just shows anyone can write books but not everyone acts professional and has any decorum.
And thanks too Inq for your impressions as well. It helps flesh out what each book you've read contains.
I like things analyzed, statements, strategies, motivations, and he does that for me. It has to make sense. It can't just all fit because it would be simpler and neater that way, it has to really make sense to me in order for it to fit. Some of what he says I'm left to remember why I had thought the way I did before and see how it jived with what I know now so it caused me to think and not just go along with it. In fact, I'm near the end and still no scenario in this book but Mrs. B had mentioned the premise of the book she had read, still I was waiting for it. I think each book takes a different subject matter in the world of the Ramsey's.
I'm now reading another one of their books on Amanda Knox. They have quite a few books in their trilogy series, Pistorius, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, Stephen Avery. He also does his own artwork for the covers and I think having Jodi Arias transform into a reptile is very fitting.
In Sequin Star he talks about the contrast between how both parents were grieving, and in some instances, not grieving at all. In particular Burke who is disconnected, distant, seemingly unaffected.
In the phoney ransom note it looks like the writer does not like John ,If the writer is the killer , they (he) could have kidnapped John (foreign faction)at knife point or gun point, )demanded the amount they wanted ,then kill him, why go to all the bother of entering his home brutally murdering an innocent child JonBenet, because he hated John as John said in his deposition,"someone had it out for him" ,probably someone he had to fire ,oh yeah! if John did NOT physically harm or kill JonBenet , well in my opinion , he MUST have hired someone to do this , and WHY? why didn't the police question the Junk dealer guy the one who had supposedly committed suicide or was it suicide? I have read where someone murdered him and I also read where he had asked someone and (he reported this to police , police ignored his question "what would it be like to crack a skull"? and that he and his accomplis would receive each around $60.000 and according to news reports POLICE would not investigate , I believe JR tried to get the suitcase out of window broke it and did not close it , glass was found on suitcase , I believe he planned on stuffing JonBenets body , so that plan was shot to hell, he then drags her in wine cellar and LATCHES the Door , when officer French arrives checks basement he did not notice latch only to try doorknob obviously the door would not open , if John had been concerned about finding his daughter why the heck didn't he go to basement with the police and help in the search , jeeze I would have done anything... JOHN knew body was in there, he is the one who wanted to contaminate evidence , what an evil man,
I don't think LE had heard of Helgoth until after his death, when his friend Kennedy? talked to LE or to the Ramsey team investigators. DNA, etc ruled him out. If true what Helgoth's friend said about him, killing and torturing cats then he was a low-life scum and the world is a safer place with him no longer in it, imo.
I agree, diamondlil. I'm never disappointed to learn there's one less animal torturer in the world. Regardless of his possible involvement in other crimes, anyone who tortures and kills animals doesn't deserve to be walking free as far as I'm concerned.
would you be able to detect your husbands demeanor or body language if he had committed a heinous crime ? I would , my ex would have had it written all over him , I am sure "In My Opinion" that PR noticed something strange and unusual I think she suspected him immediately and is why she called 911. and to live the next 10 years with him is beyond me..
nonchalant and almost laughing during deposition , read it or watch it on (YouTube)slowly......{Patsy: I found a ransom note I found my daughter missing from her bed room and "several' hrs later our Daughter was found dead in our home , someone came into my home and murdered her "
I felt the same way when I watched PR during that deposition. She was so nonchalant about her daughter being murdered. As of she was reciting a story, totally detached, smiling, without any type of emotion that you'd expect. I don't care how many times you'd have to explain what happened that morning. You wouldn't EVER explain in the way she did as a mother of a murdered child.
The term "nonchalant" is also debatable.....I, personally, don't see her demeanor that way. Many on this blog are quick to point out how much of a drama queen Patsy is, and how that leads them to believe she's acting. Yet, when she's more subdued, it must be a sign of her guilt. When she shows emotion - she's "faking it", when she doesn't - she's "detached". These types of comments are proof positive that PDIs can't see past their confirmation bias.....Patsy's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
yes , and believing the ridiculous R-Note why didn't she go along with John to basement and search , had It been my daughter it would have been first place I would have checked thinking someone played a prank, her death bed? she was at her parents home,, probably still afraid of JR, he probably was at her bed side making sure she would not reveal anything, who know?
yes with my experience being a Heath Care Aide , the patients last moments , they sometime will slip into a Coma and it could be days ...... PR would not have revealed anything even if she knew he was that he was responsible but why would she cover him? he could not harm her while she was ill or because she was already near death , if she didn't trust him to be near Burke ,I can see why. what ever, you are all on here trying to figure this out , DOC has the answers and it will all come out in the wash , ok...JR lied through his teeth , FFS do you believe a man a MILLIONAIRE is going to break the window in that dirty window well of his house in the dark? what ? no locksmith in Boulder? remove his suit and climb in , we are not rich but I have an alarm system I make sure it is activated or set when we leave town or go to bed ,here is a man who had an alarm system and did not set it , with a vulnerable family a (come-on) a welcome mat for an invasion ,what ever , he had and has everyone fooled but he does not fool this cookie with his lies , his interrogation was pathetic his deposition was worst, his dry mouth long pauses cant remember no re-collection , cant recall, drinking water Probably caused from Medication ? cant believe why Law Enforcement could see through him. Ps thanks everyone....
There was no "death bed confession" because Patsy had nothing to confess, pure and simple. Being the devout Christian she was, I do think she would have confessed on her death bed if she had feelings of guilt, she would have believed her eternal salvation depended on it. According to Linda Arndt, she asked her to continue the search for JB's killer after her death. Not something a dying mother covering for a homicidal son is likely to do, nor a wife who has lied for her husband (or herself, or the both of them), for ten years.
Watched a video clip of Lin Wood last night where he pretty much tells the audience how he shook down Mary Lacy into getting that Ramsey exoneration out of her. He brags how he was going to sue the BPD and the whole town if necessary. Yes, I wouldn't doubt that he is a grandstander to the nth degree.
Yes, and what he so proudly admitted to was highly unethical. I'm surprised he hasn't been disbarred for attempting to intimidate an officer of the law. Borders on blackmail, imo.
Lin Wood ? that Bully. He would take careof Burke?in what fashion ? financially or to protect him from his father?because he might reveal something? or they can find some way of suing more people for $$$ I do not believe Burke had anything to do with the Murder , In My Opinion he is covering his father ,I believe he knows something , or remembers something this is why his father has shielded him for so many years when he was younger, if a kidnapping would have taken place for much $ a million for example , JR could have been kidnapped, who goes into a home and kidnaps for ransome ? I have heard on the way to school or other wise but to enter a home and wait until all is asleep. forget that crap , never happened, one evil sick Bastard killed JonBenet, and for what reason we may never know , the truth will be uncovered some day and I pray I will live to see the culprit brought to trial ,
Yes, and what is more Wood's participation in this case represents a conflict of interest, because he is John's attorney, not Burke's. If Burke knows something about John that John does not want made public, then obviously his lawyer would make sure that was never brought to light. Burke needs his own lawyer, NOT John's lawyer.
I've also wondered about conflict of interest. A client should be able to share anything with their attorney that helps their case. If Burke suddenly remembered something from that night that conflicted with John's story, would he feel free to discuss it with his father's lawyer? It might not be a conflict of interest yet, but it could be in the future.
You're wrong, Doc. There is no conflict of interest if they both stick staunchly to the intruder theory and sign informed consents. The minute Wood learned of anything that could possibly become a conflict of interest, such as Burke's resurgent memory, K, he must withdraw from representation of one or the other.
I had not read that before, where PR asked Lin Wood to take care of Burke. I would think she would've told JR that. Unless of course she meant it in a legal sense, which I am sure she did. Maybe she felt someday the truth would come out that either BR had something to do with it or JR wasn't to be trusted. Or both.
Lin Wood said it in open court in Michigan two weeks ago, and it was an entirely gratuitous statement, a non sequitur, lawyerly grandstanding at it's worst.
Goes along with having Burke appear shaggy-haired and unshaven, the implication being that the poor boy is too upset by the allegations to care for himself properly.
"I promised his mother on her deathbed. . ." Ugh. Hate that kind of manipulative lawyering.
Also read transcript of where Lin Wood gets into a nasty personal argument with Darnay Hoffman telling him he makes more money taking a deposition than Darnay makes in a month. That his cash cow are the Ramseys, and if anyone wants the full transcript I can dig it up, copy it and send it here.
Yes, where Burke is sitting now is in a battle with CBS and Spitz over a defamation suit. And he will likely win, but not the preposterous windfall they are hoping for. If this case were re opened possibly it would put a stop to the lawsuits, and what has been obvious for 20 years from the moment the crime was covered up, that crime pays.
could NOT*** see through him sry... btw , JR is the devil in disguise, meets police that morning of Dec 25/26. and police couldn't detect his demeanor must have had a sweet face on,LOL.
Regarding the broken window, I don't believe JR would ever break a window and crawl into his house after having come home from a business trip. He would have called a locksmith or gotten the extra keys that neighbors were given. I also don't believe PR would ever clean up glass from that broken window or anything else for that matter. That was for the peons to do that worked for them.
Unless it was in the wee hours of the morning and he, tired from a long international flight, didn't want to disturb the ill, elderly Barnhills or wait around for a locksmith.
no hotels or motel accommodations in Boulder? lol.don't forget this guy had $$ unless he was frugal, we were on the road too late in Savannah and we stopped and checked in a hotel, PLEASE ...do not believe a word from JRS MOUTH!! Please.
According to Patsy, in a conversation with Barbara Fernie about scratches around the back door lock, he didn't always choose that window, no. (PMPT, iirc)
He said it was around 11 PM. He finally figured out that he "must have" taken a cab (though initially he said he couldn't recall how he got home). So why not either call ahead to the Barnhill's to have them place their key under a mat, or else tell the cab driver to head for the nearest motel, from where he could call a locksmith the following morning. Instead he strips to his underwear so he won't soil his valuable "business suit"? What if a neighbor saw him and called the cops?
Bottom line: no one else but Patsy confirmed his story and Linda vociferously denied it ever happened. And if there had been any evidence that the break was months old, the police would never have asked them whether the window had ever been repaired.
Not to mention the fact there were other, more easily accessible windows he could have chosen, rather than the small window leading to a pitch black basement.....windows that didn't require removing a grate, or removing an expensive business suit in order to climb through. Come on now, the story is beyond unbelievable.....it borders on laughable.
I have google earth the House at 755 what ever, he arrives in a cab with out his cell @ 3:AM ? he had had a Cell Ph: no? he removes his suit why? Mens SUITS can be cheap and expensive was it an Armani ? why worry that you may "Rip it"or dirty it ? then he may as well have removed his under wear and then perhaps someone would have seen him and called Police had him charged with indecent exposure,lol.. lmao I find this so humorous , a rich man bare naked .. so.. @ 3:am he wasn't afraid that someone would see him discard evidence? he had the greatest chance , who would suspect him ? had I been living across the street or next door I would not suspect anything I would say ("OH there goes JR for an early morning coffee" )yes I can see a person forgetting or locking keys inside their vehicle , but he did not kick the window with his foot (fat lie) , if so someone one would have heard this and believe someone was breaking into his house because the houses aren't that far apart on that street, I believe the window was broken when he tried to put the old Samsonite through it , that's my opinion , Burke was not at home to see his father break the window , have no Idea where that rumor arose from ,btw , I am not Rich and I would NOT have such a luggage in my home It would have been in garbage a long time ago ,it belonged to his son? items inside also belonged to his son ?his sons room was on the second floor? what was the suit case doing in basement , imo it looks like a suit case bought from a garage sale Vintage, had it been fingerprinted? . Patsy did not search basement ? wasn't her crafts and junk down there , she knew the children played in the "Trainroom" . she stored Christmas trees and Decorations as well as gifts somewhere down there, if my daughter was missing not in her bed as early as they stated ,I would have gone to basement with my husband searching EVERYWHERE I wouldn't have cared if I ran into the killer , thanks everyone , I have posted enough for today and I also believe how this murder happened , will do it another time , thanks ..and thanks Doc,
A little too coincidental he lost his cell phone right around the time of his daughter's murder.....his sexually abused daughter who - coincidentally - happened to have his shirt fibres in her crotch. The daughter he happened to discover himself - coincidentally - in a room previously checked by others, who had failed to locate her. In fact, there were many coincidences when it came to poor, ol' John. If innocent, he is awfully unlucky - everything points to him. If guilty, he is one, damn, lucky guy - everything points to him but he got a free pass anyway.
I'm a little confused by your post. You go from talking about JR's story of breaking the window the previous summer to talk of him discarding evidence at 3 a.m.? At any rate, had a neighbor observed JR outside, or leaving his home at 3 a.m. on the night of the murder, it surely would have been suspicious to LE once they found out.
The statement that BR witnessed his father break the window came from BR's 1998 interview with Det. Schuler. The incident BR discusses is presumably in addition to the time JR said he broke the window after returning home from a business trip.
You are assuming that others would act and react the same as you. My parents are fairly wealthy and I can't tell you how much stuff my dad has owned that should have been tossed into the garbage long before it was. Even the governor once told him it was time to buy a new pair of shoes. LOL. Even "rich" people can have junk. Also, just because something isn't stored in someone's room, doesn't mean it's not theirs. However, I don't really see how any of this matters. JR and PR both said the suitcase belonged to JAR (JR's son) and as far as I know, JAR has never disputed that.
I'm not wedded to the theory that the window remained broken from August while Patsy and the kids were at the lake, EG. I just find Doc's reasoning, that John broke the window that night and rushed to unstage it in the 5 minutes between the 911 call and the arrival of Officer French, hard to swallow, particularly when combined with his claim that John "gaslighted" his wife into believing she cleaned up the glass.
I prefer simple explanations, ones that I can persuade a jury to believe - and "gaslighting" would be a tough sell.
I believe this window had been broken shortly after the murder, why? because the spider webs and debris hadn't been disturbed , if it had been broken in summer I am sure that basement would have been crawling with critters all kinds of bugs , rodents name it, Rain and in winter cold and snow. I'm in Canada so I do not know much about the weather or seasons in Boulder I believe he tried to figure out whether the suitcase would fit and accidently broke it , gave up when it(suitcase)didn't fit and forgot it there. It is possible people do get locked out of their homes but in this case , that IS A LIE just my opinion , the reason ? he is such a liar ,
We've heard the suitcase-with-body-through-window theory, and its cousin, suitcase-with-body-in-car, a number of times over the years, and it doesn't work. A number of people have looked up the exact measurements of that piece of Samsonite, compared them to JBR's height, and determined it was impossible to get the child in there without dismembering her. Presumably LE came to the same conclusion early on.
Both John's wife and son claimed he broke into the house when locked out, so there's probably some truth to it.
First of all it's not necessary to associate the broken window with the suitcase. To me the most likely explanation is that he broke it to stage an intruder breakin at that point, and was planning to complete his staging the following day. The suitcase was placed there to suggest that the "intruder" boosted himself up to exit via that window. Simple enough for you, CC?
As far as Patsy's cleanup story is concerned that need not come up in a court of law at all. Patsy is dead and gone. If anyone is going to be charged it will be John, not Patsy. What would be important in a jury trial would be whether or not John was lying about that window. Whether or not Patsy was in cahoots with him would be beside the point.
If it can be shown he lied about that window, then any possible intruder theory would be toast. And since that would be the core of his defense, he too would be toast.
I understand perfectly why the suitcase was placed there. What I do not understand is why, if he was intent on unstaging, he did not take the necessary two seconds to move it.
You'd better believe Patsy's corroboration of the window clean up would be raised - by the defense.
"If it can be shown he lied about the window. . ." It's your thesis that the broken panes remaining in the window frame were clean, and it was therefore a new break. Had that been the case it would be a piece of real evidence, would give LE some probable cause, would at the least have changed the tenor of the questions asked in John's interviews, and at most given Hunter something tangible to support the GJ's true bills and issue indictments. But none of those things happened, Doc. Nary a one.
Well maybe you'd like to explain why you think the suitcase was placed there, CC. I think it was placed there as part of John's staging. And I think he may have left it there because, as you yourself indicated, he would have been pressed for time, in a panic, not thinking clearly, just trying to focus on the most essential element, which would have been cleaning up that glass. Fleet may well have been just on his heels. He too noticed the suitcase.
The fragments of glass were certainly clean or there'd have been no reason to ask whether the window had ever been repaired. That question was asked of them on two separate occasions, roughly a year apart. They weren't charged on that basis because obviously the investigators were confused. "Why would John tell a story like that if his intention were to stage a breakin?" Also, John's version confirmed the police's finding that no one had passed through that window on the night of the crime. Classic misdirection. That, plus sheer incompetence, which we see over and over again in the investigation of this crime.
Further, it's Doc's point that the window created some sort of "alibi" for John, and had he not cleaned up the broken glass he and Patsy would have been arrested on the spot, which I don't see at all. Better he should have taken two more seconds and pushed the suitcase aside, if he was intent on unstaging, or left the broken glass and the suitcase and hoped that in conjunction with the RN that would indeed suggest an intruder.
So what do you think the suitcase was doing there, CC? Do you really believe "the intruder" placed it there?
And there was no way leaving the broken glass would have worked as staging, since the thick layer of dust and grime on the window sill was undisturbed. What we see is clear evidence of a staging attempt that was either botched or incomplete. I see no other possible explanation when we consider ALL the evidence.
Under the circumstances, John had no choice but to explain it away as best he could.
Or, the window was broken that night for reasons John felt was absolutely necessary to fabricate a story where the window had actually been broken months earlier. Reasons we may not have ever considered. Then, four months later when he realized the broken window may lend credence to an intruder theory, he was a little less sure about the details surrounding it...."maybe" he latched it. "Maybe" he broke it last summer. "Maybe" it was fixed, "maybe" it wasn't. While I don't dismiss it, I'm not sold on the staging/unstaging theory, Doc, and I don't buy John's account of having broken the window the previous year because he forgot his keys. But I don't have a theory myself, I just wonder if the break may have occurred during/before/after the murder, and was somehow integral to the events, hence why John cleaned up the glass and offered LE a preposterous story as to why it was broken.
In fact, now that I think about it, Doc's window unstaging after the 911 call is flat-out impossible:
John was standing near Patsy and the spiral staircase in his briefs when she called 911, and was standing, fully dressed, in the hallway behind Patsy when Officer French arrived five minutes later. No time to rush down to the basement, pulverize and flush glass, rush to the third floor to dress and be standing cool and composed behind his wife to greet first responders.
In addition, wasn't it the basement toilet that was unflushed, and the contents taken as evidence, or is that urban legend? Had John flushed the glass, the toilet bowl would, presumably, hold only clear water.
Yup, according to the 12/27/96 search warrant return, the contents of the basement toilet and one other was collected as evidence.
I'm not being mindlessly critical here, Doc. I see the window and subsequent gaslighting as the weakest points in your theory, and I'm looking to shore them up.
Thanks but no thanks, CC. John's story is probably the strongest piece of evidence against him. As far as the timing is concerned, the scene was confused and confusing both before and after the police arrived. And there is no one fully "certified" timeline -- they all differ from one another. John would certainly have had an opportunity to rush down into the basement either just after the 911 call or shortly after the arrival of the police.
Fleet was one of the first guests down there, and he reported that the window was closed. So if it were originally open, as John claimed, and John then closed it, he'd have had to be down there prior to Fleet. Cleaning up the small amount of glass from that small hole in the window pane could have taken little more than a minute or two.
And I have no idea what your point is regarding the toilet. It's contents were collected after the body was found -- probably well after. John would have had plenty of opportunities to flush the glass prior to that time, most likely when he went AWOL on Arndt.
Nope, he couldn't have both run down to the basement to clean up AND run to the third floor to dress in only five minutes. He had no way of knowing the BPD would not search the entire house immediately and find the broken glass, or that they'd be such bumblers he'd have an hour to wander about.
Now you're cherry picking: you assume John is lying about the window break, but assume he's telling the truth about closing the window because it supports your notion that John was down there after the 911 call but before FW.
My point regarding the toilet contents being collected as evidence is that someone, I've heard Burke suggested most often, used it and did not flush. Clearly flushing the ground up glass would have also flushed the "evidence" left by Burke, but that was not the case - there was something there, and it was collected.
You're assuming no one could have used that toilet after John flushed the glass? If a bunch of glass had just been flushed, then the toilet may not have flushed completely after that. Anyone who'd been down there that morning could have produced those "contents."
Seems to me you've been reduced to nit picking, CC. We have no way of knowing for sure how long it took the police to arrive. Could have been 3 minutes, could have been 10 minutes. Also we have no way of knowing how closely the police were keeping tabs on John after they arrived. There would certainly have been many distractions, as both guests and counselors were arriving and the place would have been pandemonium. Yes, John might not have been sure if his activities in the basement might be interrupted, but as I see it, he had to take that chance. As I said, bagging that small amout of glass would have take one or two minutes, and he could have done the crushing and flushing at a later time, when Arndt had lost sight of him. He or someone else could then have used the toilet and it may well have backed up.
The bottom line is that a careful examination of John's window story makes it clear that it's a blatant fabrication. And whether or not Patsy intentionally lied to support his story wouldn't matter in a court of law because a spouse's testimony isn't much of an alibi, as I'm sure you are aware. That plus the strong denial of Linda, who Patsy specifically mentioned, would have sunk him even if the rest of his story were credible, which it isn't. Linda is actually the ONLY fully independent eye witness in this case.
And as I've said many times, the police tended to overlook the many inconsistencies in John's stories because he was off their radar once he'd been "ruled out." See Kolar's book for confirmation on that, since he never even considers the possibility that John could have killed his daughter. Neither does STeve Thomas.
My take on the window is that either way, JR has it covered. If it's determined that the break was an old one(am sure it was tested)then JR's story about having forgotten his key works. If the break is a new one, then his theory of an intruder entering to kidnap and kill his daughter works too.
It's difficult to believe that the R's would not have fixed a broken window which allows easy access into their home when they had workers on premises who could've fixed it the very next day I am sure. It's also hard to believe that PR didn't remember sweeping up broken glass with the housekeeper. As I said earlier I don't see PR doing anything in the way of housework. She would just assume that the hired help would do those things. She was walking out of her house the day after Christmas with crap all over the kitchen counters, assuming LH was coming the next day to clean up. I also don't believe she was gaslighted. As I said in an earlier post, JR wasn't the only narcissist in that family. While I do agree that JR ruled the roost, PR was passive aggressive and knew how to work it to her advantage.
"If the break is a new one, then his theory of an intruder entering to kidnap and kill his daughter works too."
Not at all. The investigators agreed that no one passed through that window. The lack of any displacement of dirt and dust on the window sill made that crystal clear. Also for that break to work as an real intruder breakin, all the broken glass would need to still be seen on the floor. But that was not the case.
Sorry to keep repeating the obvious, but in order to understand this rather complicated case you need to consider ALL the evidence, not just what suits your favorite theory of the moment.
Lots of back and forth on the window. There is evidence in photos and video of a mark on the wall that could be a scuff mark from a shoe. Of course, it might be difficult to determine how fresh the mark was.
I doubt that any of the females in the Ramsey family would attempt to enter thru that window for any reason. That does seem more of a male action, whether it be JAR, Burke, John, a friend of Burke's..,but CC is correct, John has admitted to entering his house that way. His wife told investigators she remembers her husband telling her he entered that way, and his youngest son stated he was present at a time son and dad were locked out.
I would think if a fresh break, leaving the glass would've been a wiser decision to direct attention to a break in. However, I can see the need to remove some pieces only if evidence was left on them, clothing threads, blood, hair, prints.
DocG - EG stated it was John's theory about the window. And an investigator DID push that very theory as well, Smit. And later, the team hired by Ramsey attorneys.
While I don't believe it and most others don't either, John does not possess supernatural powers to have known in advance that BPD would determine no one passed through the window that night/morning.
Oh Zed, prepare to be lashed by DocG and a few others, but you know that already, lol. Brave soul.
I have enjoyed reading CC'S thoughts. Sometimes she stays in the shadows but tonight's posts showed me she does know a lot about the case besides the legal angle and did make valid points even though Doc wasn't budging on his stance.
The other day I looked at some of the other blogs of Doc's and I was out of my element with the music theory, film, poetry ones.
It seems some on this site believe Ramsey broke in that window in the train room on more than one occasion. Is it not notable that NO contractor has ever stepped forward and said "I repaired that window for the Ramseys?" The only explanation for that would be that it stayed unrepaired from the first time onward. If that is true, then there was no need to break the window after the first time. Did Ramsey (with Burke's corroboration) not state he had broken in that window before the previous summer on at least one occasion? If so, where is the contractor who fixed it at least once? If, alternatively, it was purposefully left unrepaired because it was a "go to" place to get in the house when keys were misplaced, then why say "I don't recall if it was repaired?" The whole window story is damning. Dr. Phil allowed it to go unanswered and be glossed over in his show last fall. What was Smit's view on where the broken glass went to if the intruder came through there? Would the intruder take the broken glass with him? He left a big piece on the window sill outside the pane if so. Nonsense all around.
If John didn't premeditate this crime, and it was a spontaneous event, how do we explain the disguising of his handwriting? How was he able to accomplish that? Did he pull this skill out of thin air? Not only was he eliminated as the writer of the note, but it's similar enough to look like Patsy's.
ReplyDeleteIt would make sense that it would be blatantly obvious that he wrote it, unless he had a bizarre interest in learning how to disguise his handwriting before the crime. His luck is unbelievable.
Excellent question. But it could be applied to Patsy as well.
Delete(And by the way, I see NO similarity at all with Patsy's writing. The efforts of Darnay Hoffman's "experts" to pin the tail on Patsy range from dubious to dishonest to just plain wrong. If you actually read their analyses with any degree of critical thinking you can easily spot the many problems. I've systematically gone over reports by most of Hoffman's people on this blog and would urge you to read what I had to say.)
But you are right as far as the timing is concerned. It IS hard to see how John (or Patsy) could have so successfully disguised his (or her) hand under such stressful conditions, within such a limited time frame.
One tactic John may have used is discussed in one of the first posts on this blog: the tracing or copying of a computer font. He could have composed the note on his laptop (making sure it didn't get saved on his hard drive) and then traced or copied it from the display. As I demonstrated, the layout of at least the first 15 lines is consistent with that of a word processor using the Courier New font.
It's also possible that John planned the murder in advance, which would have given him time to think carefully about how to disguise his hand. I've discussed this possibility here as well.
The note is so precise and neat as well - sticking to the margins, and he would have his computer and or word processor in the home. It would have been nothing for him to have been up late, "working", before the series of trips that were pre arranged. Looking up and down at the pages of the pad after having composed the note first on his computer, he would get his wording just so, even deciding to disguise a bit with a few misspelled words and cross-outs.
DeleteA quote from the Van de Leek book Sequin Star:
ReplyDelete"(Steve) Thomas, like many others, sees the Ransom Note as inextricably linked to the murderer. He's not 100% accurate, but he's not wrong either, at least how I see it. In Thomas's mind the writer of the Ransom Note is the murderer. It's easy to get caught up in a compartmentalized theory of this case - either PDI, JDI, or BDI or an IDI.
What so few have considered is if ANY of the Ramseys were responsible, then what are the chances ALL participated in some way, shape or form? If Patsy was an accessory, then she didn't have to commit the murder to write the note, simply to protect someone else (and yes, also herself). The point of the note was to direct attention away from the Ramseys because without it, the Ramseys would have been 'natural' suspects."
Food for thought.
If Patsy was involved in any kind of accident that ended up with JB's skull fractured, there is no way she would not have called 911 for an ambulance UNLESS she knew for sure that doctors after an examination would find signs of abuse in her daughter. To be part of the kidnapping plot, she would have needed to know about the abuse or be the abuser herself. Now, if she knew that it would be found out that they were abusing or allowing abuse to go on on their daughter if the body made it to the ER/morgue and she concocted a plan to "make the body disappear" (as implicit in the RN) why did she call 911 when the body was still hidden in the house? We need to be able to answer that question if we believe Patsy participated in any stage of the crime.
DeleteVan de Leek's take is essentially the same as Kolar's. Nothing new there.
DeleteYou make an interesting point, Marcela, but if Patsy had staged an assault by an intruder, then she could claim it was the intruder who'd abused her daughter. This may have been John's intention, in fact.
I'll add that John may not have realized that his digital penetration of JonBenet's vagina could not eliminate the signs of chronic abuse.
DeleteVan de Leek provides so much more information though than Kolar to back it up.
DeleteMy problem is now Doc, do you think John could have sustained his "ruse" with Patsy all of those years right on up to her death? Both of them failed their first set of polygraphs. Both of them. Passed the second, and one can only guess because the second polygrapher was allowed to see the questions asked by the first, then throw them softer questions. We know the narrative John supplied the public with, but what was the narrative John gave Patsy. If, for example the polygrapher asked "did you kill your daughter?" and she said no, then she would be fine. But if he then asks "do you know who did?" and she said no, then that would cause her to fail the test, correct? Or be "deceptive", or have the test be "inconclusive."
DeleteInq - only addressing the part of Steve Thomas and the ransom note- Patsy herself on CNN with Steve, John and Larry King agreed strongly that *whoever wrote the ransom letter IS the killer* That portion has been played during some of the new specials as well is still available on YouTube. At least with that interview she wasn't gorped on heavy meds.
Delete"Van de Leek provides so much more information though than Kolar to back it up."
DeleteCan you summarize? I really don't want to spend any more money on books dealing with this case. Whenever I do, I learn hardly anything I didn't already know about.
I know, I feel your pain. And I'm on page 204 of $484 or so pages so doubtful I can even summarize at this point. There are a lot of quoted transcripts and television appearances, that he uses to show the lies of a coverup . How their strategy was to cast aspersions on the police department so that they could say they are being treated unfairly and refuse to take a police or even an FBI polygraph or allow the police to question them - at least at first.
DeleteI think his theory of who did it is mostly in The Day After Christmas, which I haven't read. There is a tremendous amount of putting out of transcripts, both of them so that you can read the coverup for yourself, and what they said, he analyzes.
He also compares other cases - cases where investigators got to the truth more quickly as they weren't being hindered by the suspects, their wealth, influence in the community, and lack of cooperation.
He brings up articles I haven't heard of before - one being an "exclusive interview" with P, J and Wood which is summarized as "A Dialogue With John and Patsy Ramsey And Their Attorney L. Lin Wood" where they discuss, and argue "for a new federal law requiring the police to refrain from speaking to members of the media at any time during an ongoing investigation" which is so very arrogant in and of itself considering the PR campaign they were involved in before answering questions in an investigation into their own daughter's death. If anything I've come away angrier at John than before. This article is here:
scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=commonlaw
Since the "Sequin Star" trilogy is the latest I'd start there. I'm on the second Sequin Star, probably won't get the third. As Mrs B said, her head is spinning, so is mine.
Here's the thing for me. It's been 20 years of lying and covering up the truth, by Team Ramsey or what I call the Ramsey Machine. Now minus one, but still a machine. The CBS machine, however, could outlast the Ramsey machine if they so chose. The CBS machine could do something decent in this case, which is get this case re-opened with a new look into it. I'm not a fan of CBS or any network that puts forth theory as truth, however they did - and they hired experts including Kolar to put forward what they thought was the truth - not very effectively in my opinion, what a waste of experts, but the waters have been so muddied at the very least that what CBS was able to "accomplish" was to oust Burke from under the toadstool he's been hiding under for lo these many years. So now, they have a golden opportunity in my opinion, if they would fight this lawsuit, to not give the Ramsey machine anything, and stand by their experts and force Burke to say (through L. Lin Wood) just how he was defamed. Did he lose his computer programming job, whatever he does, did he lose his girlfriend if he has one, did the town refuse him service in any of their establishments? Has it cost Burke $550m and how? Ahh, I see, because CBS put out an untruth. Okay, tell us how and why it was untruthful. You were up late, you actually saw your sister walk upstairs and not be carried, and you do know what happened to her don't you. Because you were there. You heard, you saw, and you know.
ReplyDeleteIf CBS would say yes, we stand by our theory and outfox the Ramsey machine then we might get a chance to hear from John, as surely John wouldn't want to leave Burke swinging in the wind - or would he?
Well said, Inq. I hope CBS has the money and stamina to see this through.
DeleteHere is the reality of the case
ReplyDelete-There isn't a shred of evidence to say that what happened that night was premeditated. Anything to the contrary is wild speculation.
-Multiple experts have concluded the writing looks more like Patsy's handwriting than Johns or Burke's. Yes, I am aware handwriting analysis isn't allowed in courts, but for sake of discussion, it seems more likely Patsy wrote it per the majority of experts I have read.
-There is no clear motive. To argue it was covering up for a sex crime, is also pure speculation as there isn’t definitive evidence there was a history of sexual abuse.
-Absolutely not a shred of evidence that JR was a pedophile before the crime or one after the crime. Could it be isolated? Sure, but that would be rare and odd
-No testimony from anybody claiming that John or Patsy were violent people
-To say 2 parents wouldn’t cover up a crime for Burke and would call 911 is absolutely an OPINION. Nobody was in the house that night. Nobody knows how John and Patsy would have reacted
-Not a single person in here, including myself knew BR as a 9.5 year old. A Lot is not known about him, so what he and JBR might have done or his feelings towards JBR and PR will never be known.
A narrative on this site has been created about JR and regardless of people saying its based on logic and facts…it absolutely is not. Most of it is pure speculation and nothing to the contrary should be believed. For the naysayers on the BDI theory, I welcome any and all criticisms. This is the bottom line for me
-What happened that night was an accident.
-Something HAD to get JB out of bed and I will not go along with the John got her up to abuse her theory. I will 100% sign up for the JBR woke up on her own to see what Burke was doing. Burke has already admitted to being up, playing with his toys
-As I said above, there isn’t evidence this was premeditated at all and I absolutely don’t think John would plan to do this on Christmas night when they HAD a flight the next morning and would have to cancel
-Burke in the limited interviews we have has seemed to always detach himself from her murder. Has never read the RN, didn’t draw her in the family picture weeks after murder, never seemed concerned about a kidnapper, wasn’t ever scared, etc.
-I have said this before but the 911 call is NEVER allowed to be made if John is the sole killer. Not to mention, if he couldn’t control Patsy when she was in the house, y’all want me to believe he was ok with sending her and BR out of the house for a day on her own and not talk? Yea, I don’t think so
-J
That was well put together J. I may not agree with you but what you said was said well.
DeleteI respect your opinion and this is not criticism or anything like that. Just a question.
DeleteLet's say it was indeed an accident or let's say Burke hit her with a golf club or bat or the flashlight in a fit of anger and left her unconscious on the floor. What would two loving parents have done after discovering their child breathing but unresponsive? If it was an accident, we need to be able to answer why on earth they didn't call 911 for an ambulance right away.
Thanks Inq – I appreciate it. Im not always the best writer, so try to put my thoughts together the best I can.
DeleteMarcela – I don’t want to dodge this question, but we don’t know the order of events and the time in between. You know how kids will do something they weren’t supposed to and never tell anybody because of the fear of what that parent will say? I think it’s very possible that Burke in a moment of anger, hits her over the head. Panic sets in, time passes while he thinks about what to do. He prods and pokes her which caused some of the marks we see on the body. It could have been him on his own or John or Patsy heard something and came down to a horrific scene. The Ramsey’s by accounts were the most affluent couple in Boulder who had a great reputation in the city and this would certainly effect their reputation. They stumble upon their daughter being bludgeoned over the head and sexually assaulted…..it had to be absolutely horrific for them in that moment. But panic goes to being decisive and taking action. I doubt in a million years they would have thought that it would have become what it did. In their minds they had to think the RN would explain there being an intruder, coupled with the broken window and the body being found, it would be viewed as a failed kidnapping by an intruder.
I am aware there is a lot of speculation in that answer, but that’s roughly what I believe. I can tell you that I don’t think JB is hit over the head and Burke immediately goes to tell his parents. I think a significant period of time passed before they were made aware and were forced to act, not call 911.
-J
J, I can understand your wanting to argue that Burke did it with his parents covering for him, AS A POSSIBILITY. I seriously doubt it could have happened that way, but I'm willing to agree that it's possible.
DeleteBut to argue that this is the ONLY possibility and any other interpretation of what happened has to be wrong, I'm sorry but I see no basis for that whatsoever. The whole BDI case is based purely on speculation, with no shred of actual evidence aside from some fingerprints which could easily have gotten onto that bowl in many perfectly innocent ways.
This is my problem with the CBS presentation and it's my problem with your take on this case as well. A possibility, and in fact a REMOTE possibility, is promoted into a certainty purely on the basis of some amateurish profiling and a theory about why both Ramseys would be willing to collaborate on covering up the truth. Even if Burke could be prosecuted for this crime (he couldn't), there would be no case and any attempt would most likely be shot down by a judge before coming to trial. For good reason.
Saying it’s a remote possibility is your opinion and nothing more. It doesn’t make you wrong or me right.
DeleteI want to make it clear that I am not saying it’s a fact that BDI, it is just my theory that I 100% believe in. You write posts where through process of elimination, you end up with JDI. For me, Patsy was absolutely involved which eliminates the JDI theory that you and others believe in. Unless you have an explanation, I see absolutely no reason as to why Patsy would have knowingly covered or protected John. Between the handwriting and her odd, suspicious behavior, I just cannot eliminate Patsy from being involved. I do 100% believe John was also involved due to the window story, his call to the pilot, etc. SO, if both John and Patsy are involved, would 1 innocent parent cover for the other? I don’t believe so. That leaves creepy little Burke. I won’t get into the reasons I believe BDI as I have stated them, but that’s my way of thinking.
It’s a total side note, but Burke hadn’t EVER talked publicly about the case in 20 years….not a peep. Then magically the week before a special on a major network airs and names him as the killer, Burke decides to talk again. Just another extremely odd part of this case.
-J
"The whole BDI case is based purely on speculation, with no shred of actual evidence"
DeleteI completely agree. The same can be said for the whole JDI case and the whole PDI case. Which is why this case is so frustrating.
J - I don't think Burke's appearance on Dr Phil is odd at all. It was damage control for the CBS special.
my dear J, song dedication to you "Titanium" featuring Sia, as Mike G and Ms D haven't stepped in yet to go to battle.
DeleteErin Go Bragh
"The same can be said for the whole JDI case . . . "
DeleteSee my previous post. John is the only one who can't be eliminated. To me that's a perfectly legitimate basis for a circumstantial case.
Round and round we go, indeed! As I mentioned in the previous post, your reasons for eliminating Patsy are based on several unproven assumptions:
Delete- That the ransom note was written after the murder
- that the ransom note was intended to stage a kidnapping and a missing child rather than to just mislead the investigators of a dead child away from the family
- that there was ever a plan to dump JB's body
- that Patsy would not call 911 with a body in the basement
- that Patsy called 911 against John's wishes
- That Patsy had no motive to kill JB but John did
The note could have been written prior to the murder. That's a possibility I've considered and have been unable to eliminate.
DeleteA ransom note is either an authentic ransom note written by a real kidnapper, or else a phony note written to stage such a kidnapping. I see no other alternative that makes any sense. This is not an assumption but a logical conclusion. It is you who are assuming that some other interpretation is possible. To me that is a huge stretch.
And by the way, no one stages a kidnapping gone wrong. To me that's just silly. And if it were a kidnapping gone wrong, then why wouldn't the kidnapper have just abandoned the body where he left it? Why would he have wanted to wrap it in a blanket retrieved from the dryer, hide it in the most remote room in the house, and then bolt the door?
The only way to stage a kidnapping is by getting the body of the victim out of the house. Again, this is NOT an assumption, but simple common sense.
Patsy's 911 call was inconsistent with the staging of a kidnapping, telling us she must be innocent.
If Patsy is innocent and there was no intruder, then the only one left who could have written that note is John. Once again, a logical inference, NOT an assumption. If John wrote the note then obviously he would not have wanted that call made.
And yes, Patsy had no motive to kill her beloved child -- but if John had been molesting his daughter he certainly could have had a motive. And yes, this is speculation, because we have no way of telling for sure what the motive was. But if you wanted to build a circumstantial case against Patsy, you'd have no real basis for it unless you could come up with some possible motive. In John's case you could.
J, thank you for the thought out answer. I am def not trying to change your mind, because I see it's set but rather I'm trying to understand the way you see the case and why you are reaching to the conclusions you share.
DeleteI agree that it could have been an accident that happened while both parents were asleep and by the time they got aware and witnessed the scene, Jonbenèt was already assaulted, strangled and dead. And they had to take action. They concocted a plan to save their seriously damaged son along with their reputation of a perfect Christian family. So, my next question is. What foiled their plan? If they were working as Team Ramsey, the body would have never been found. Or found in a remote area.
If all the three participated somehow, if the parents were in on it together to cover up and save their only remaining child, why did the plan fail?
On a side note. I have a feeling that Patsy knew what happened and she called the police that morning in the hopes they would find out it was a phony kidnapping perpetrated by John. That could explain why she called in friends immediately, why she was reportedly waiting for police at the front door, why she was a basket case for the months that follow and why she was not giving interviews without John by her side and also the reason she never contradicted any of John's account to the point of lying on various issues. Just my opinion but I think she was threatened and in fear all the years she lived with John until she died.
"A ransom note is either an authentic ransom note written by a real kidnapper, or else a phony note written to stage such a kidnapping. I see no other alternative that makes any sense. This is not an assumption but a logical conclusion. It is you who are assuming that some other interpretation is possible. To me that is a huge stretch."
DeleteOne person's "logical conclusion" is another person's "huge stretch". Why couldn't a "real kidnapper" either deliberately or accidentally kill the victim, trying to keep her quiet for example? Why couldn't a murdering parent stage a ransom note just to point the investigators toward an intruder and not because s/he intended to ever carry out an actual kidnapping? Let's say you have a dead child in your house. How do you throw suspicion on a third party? You can't write a note saying "we're a foreign faction and we just killed your child. Just wanted to let you know". You could just stage a break-in, but then you'd have to explain to the police why you didn't search the house looking for your missing child.
"And by the way, no one stages a kidnapping gone wrong. To me that's just silly."
No one bashes their own 6 year old daughter in the head and garottes her either. No matter what your assumptions are, this doesn't fit any usual crime.
"And if it were a kidnapping gone wrong, then why wouldn't the kidnapper have just abandoned the body where he left it? Why would he have wanted to wrap it in a blanket retrieved from the dryer, hide it in the most remote room in the house, and then bolt the door?"
Well, do you know for a fact that the blanket was retrieved from the dryer that night by the killer? Do you know for a fact that she wasn't killed where she was found? Or are those assumptions?
"The only way to stage a kidnapping is by getting the body of the victim out of the house. Again, this is NOT an assumption, but simple common sense."
"common sense" is just another word for an assumption that the person making it considers reasonable.
"If John wrote the note then obviously he would not have wanted that call made."
Then why did he allow it to happen? And even possibly tell Patsy to do it? That is a giant hole.
"And yes, Patsy had no motive to kill her beloved child -- but if John had been molesting his daughter he certainly could have had a motive."
Sure, but you could say that about anybody, even Patsy. What you don't have is any reason to think that John was molesting his daughter.
If we were on a jury The State vs. John B. Ramsey it would be a hung jury
DeleteIf we were on a jury that included John I., I'd hang the bastard from the ceiling, get everyone to claim it was suicide, call in an alternate juror, conduct a re-vote, return to the courtroom, hand our verdict to the judge, and to Lee Wood an autographed copy of Doc's book with the following inscription:
DeleteDear Lee:
"Sorry, but it wasn't a DNA case after all."
----the Jury
Mike G
"...that BDI, is my theory that I 100% believe in."
Deletea) "For me, Patsy was absolutely (100%) involved, which eliminates the JDI theory."
b) "I 100% believe John was...involved."
ergo...
c) "That leaves creepy little Burke...but that’s my way of thinking."
---J
Such exquisite syllogistic reasoning J. You'd be closer to the truth, and we'd all be better off, if you'd come up with a new theory and different way of thinking, even if your belief in them was only 50%.
Mike G
"Saying it’s a remote possibility is your opinion and nothing more. It doesn’t make you wrong or me right."
DeleteJ:
You superciliously assign 100% belief in your own opinions to make yourself sound right and others sound wrong, but then when someone challenges a particular belief you hold, identifying it as remotely possible, you dismiss their argument, along with the challenge it invites, by calling it "nothing more" than an opinion! That, my friend, is what is called being a hypocrite.
Mike G
John, in your world there is obviously no way of arriving at the truth, since no matter what the logical conclusion might be you'd insist it was just an assumption. Reminds me of those who insist that evolution is "just a theory." Or maybe you think Einstein's theories of relativity are just assumptions?
DeleteAt some point one has no choice but to employ logical reasoning. And no, that is NOT the same thing as an assumption. Now the reasoning may be flawed, but that's a different matter.
"Well, do you know for a fact that the blanket was retrieved from the dryer that night by the killer? Do you know for a fact that she wasn't killed where she was found? Or are those assumptions?"
So now you are defending the intruder theory? I thought we were considering the question of whether or not Patsy was involved in staging an intruder. And the question I asked was why, if you are staging an assault by a psycho intruder, you would want to wrap the victim in a blanket and hide the body in the basement rather than display it out in the open where the perpetrator of a failed kidnapping would be most likely to leave it. Again, that makes no sense at all -- but by your standard, nothing needs to make sense.
Mike G - why the homicidal scenerio directed at John I?
DeleteMike, is this supposed to demonstrate how much you care about murder victims? Vigilante justice, how special.
DeleteNo Doc, assumptions without evidence are not just as good as assumptions with evidence. Saying "who else would have wrapped the victim in a blanket?" is not evidence, it's an argument from ignorance. I'm sure your logical reasoning is logical to you, but that doesn't make it evidence.
Delete...and on the contrary, I think things do need to make sense. There are several things in your theory that don't.
DeleteWell then, by all means, offer us an alternative theory where everything does make sense, John.
DeleteHere's a thought Mrs. B. Since the first investigation into the Ramsey crime cost Boulder $1.7 million, perhaps CBS could strike a deal with Burke aka. the Ramsey Machine, to fund the re-opening of the case by donating a few million to the BPD, investigators, and the new D.A.'s office. CBS, are you reading here? Want to do the right thing? Surely John and Burke, in particular John, would like to know who really killed his daughter would he not? I mean, both he and Patsy said it was some evil person who's still out there, right, or dead (John said he may be dead, what a shame, now we'll never know!). But gee, wouldn't you want to know? Now THAT would be a great settlement offer.
ReplyDeleteI like it. To me Burke sometimes has that "deer in the headlights" look. He knows something.
DeleteI take it Mrs. B you weren't convinced of the Burke-Doug-Stine theory? It's not in the book I"m reading - at least not yet. My question for that theory is why would Doug Stine be allowed to sleep over that night when the Ramseys were leaving early the next morning for Michigan? When boys (or girls) have sleepovers they don't sleep. You don't have to commit here, perhaps just tell me how Van de Leek makes that case?
DeleteThe "Day After Christmas" 3 did not give any specific evidence, just a theory. I'm assuming it's coming in one of their next books.I'm reading "Sequin Star" 1 now and again there's speculation that the kids may have been left alone that night but no evidence to back it up. Just that the Ramseys talk about all of their other friends quite a bit but kind of gloss over the Stines. I read on another blog that that may have been the case, but I didn't believe it, thinking it was a rumor. Oh my now I'm thinking, what if the grand jury had knowledge of that? The authors of this book seem to feel that may be the reason for the wording of the indictments. These books go back and forth between their theories and proof, sometimes it's hard to keep it all orderly, although their humor does crack me up. Doc's theory still makes the most sense to me.
DeleteI found a very big flaw in the Sequin 2 book - they say John Andrew described BURKE as "flashy" - now they are trying to make sense of that statement. Wrong. JA described PATSY as flashy. So if they are going to go off on a tangent like that it gives me pause.
DeleteI'm glad you are sticking with Doc's theory, as I am too. But this book is more interesting than others I've read, and he provides the reader with many many examples of subterfuge if you will, lying basically, and misdirecting. More so John.
Including the Stine boy is a perfect example of what's wrong with a theory based largely on speculation. Once you go down that route there is no limit to what you could come up with. BDI is about 90% speculation already. But once that door is open then why not include his friend in the mix? And once you do that there is no reason not to include all sorts of other factors and suspects for which there is no real evidence. Maybe Burke and Doug Stine were members of a secret gang devoted to satanic rituals and maybe the Mayor of Boulder was the ring leader, so maybe they all got together in the Ramsey home that night with Burke opening the door for them. The plan was to initiate JonBenet into their secret society by feeding her pineapple and then putting her through a hazing ritual. That would "explain" the use of a garotte and also the vaginal penetration with a paintbrush handle, no? But something went wrong and the cord was pulled too tight and she suffocated - accidentally. At that point the Mayor took charge, writing a phony ransom note, wrapping JonBenet in a blanket and hiding the body on the basement so the parents would think she'd been kidnapped.
DeleteWell, that explains everything doesn't it?
Damn Doc..you nailed it! I never did trust that Mayor of the Little People in the Wizard of Oz!
DeleteMike G
I haven't read any of the books you're referring to, Inq and Mrs B, but a while ago I began pondering the notion that Burke and JonBenet may have been left alone in the house that evening following the xmas party at the Whites. Perhaps they all stopped at the Stines to deliver their gift, Burke and JB were tired and irritable, eager to play with their new toys before their upcoming vacation, so John and Patsy decided to drop them off at home, Doug Stine tagged along because he wanted to play with Burke's new Nintendo. John read to JB in the hopes of putting her to sleep, and sent the boys to Burke's bedroom, then went out to deliver the rest of the xmas gifts. The Stines would perhaps be by in an hour or so to pick up their son, as the Ramseys had to catch an early flight. Kids being kids, they decided they'd take advantage of the fact their parents weren't home, so prepared a snack, tore open some xmas presents, rough-housed in JB's bedroom a little, some inappropriate play occurred in the basement and a blow on the head was delivered, either accidentally or intentionally. JB subsequently evacuated her bladder, thus Burke or Doug changed her into the over-sized "Wednesday" pair, believing no one would notice, as the day corresponded with the pair she was previously wearing, along with a pair of long johns that previously belonged to Burke, because he knew where they were kept. Time goes on, JB doesn't awaken after several attempts by the boys to rouse her, either Doug or Burke (or both) strangle her to keep her from "telling", the parents come home and discover JB unconscious. The Stines arrive to pick up their son, or a call is made to them by John (which is why he claimed to have "lost" his cell phone). No one who knows which boy is responsible for what, and they're not offering any information, or they're both pointing fingers at the other, as kids tend to do.....so a plan is concocted by the Stines and the Ramseys in order to spare both of their sons being hauled off to an institution for a sexual attack/murder.....and to spare the Ramseys from being charged with neglect for leaving three, young children alone in the house.
DeleteThis is the only way BDI could work for me - where both the head blow AND the garroting were perpetrated by Burke (or he and an accomplice), because I don't believe for a moment the Ramseys would have "finished off" their daughter to protect a son. Staging a cover up to protect an already deceased child, along with protecting *themselves*, I could maybe accept. BUT.....do I believe this is what happened? Probably not. There is just too much evidence that points to John working alone. It was just a late night musing, as I'm prone to do regarding this case, being the perpetual insomniac that I am.....at any rate, it's something for BDIs to chew on.
Don't worry, Doc, and fellow JDIs.....I'm not switching teams any time soon!
Not only that Patsy would never leave her children alone in that big house unsupervised at night. John probably wouldn't care one way or the other.
DeleteOn the question of polygraphs,
ReplyDeletetranscripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/28/bp.00html
(Burden of Proof, John and Patsy Discuss 'The Death of Innocence' on the question of why the Ramseys wouldn't take a polygraph administered by the BPD)
also
edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/24/se.02.html
("Experts Say Ramseys Passed Lie Detector Tests) albeit the second set, not the first
For my thoughts on the polygraph, see https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/passing-polygraphs.html
DeleteI read your polygraph thoughts. I think what is left out is that they BOTH failed the first set of tests administered by someone hired by their attorneys whose name escapes me now it was in the Sequin Star, or rather they came back "inconclusive" much the way Patsy's handwriting analysis results were deemed inconclusive. Then, since there was much pressure from the public and the BPD to release their polygraph test results, the attorneys hired a different expert, Gelb, who was renowned in his field - but one who also was allowed to see the first administrator's questions, and thus give them softer questions that could get a pass.
DeleteCertainly whether Patsy was on drugs or not might have been an issue but weren't these tests taken around 2000 or 2001? She still may have been on the valium she almost overdosed on (soon after the murder), or could have taken it just prior to the test, we can't rule that out - especially if "they" weren't drug tested (no need to drug test a sociopath).
In any event several of the questions you posed Gelb may have asked had "qualifiers" in the verbiage - such as "do you know FOR SURE who killed your daughter" (words to that effect). Well, she may not know for sure. Especially if it was done in stages. Still, I get your point.
Now if John was not asked if he wrote the note that's a big fat glaring faux paux.
I am obviously conflicted over some issues Doc. I can go along with the "Patsy didn't know" only so far. I don't think she lived the rest of her life oblivious to what happened. It's possible. She may have preferred to remain in an altered state of consciousness until the day she died either under the influence of drugs or just in denial. She doesn't look drugged up in the least when John was running his political campaign, running for office. And she doesn't look drugged up on Burden of Proof or the Larry King show, or in her depositions with Darnay Hoffman.
Denial is a pretty strong coping mechanism for grief, and guilt. But the truth of the matter is they both failed the first polygraph tests, and that can't be denied.
There is no evidence that Patsy failed any polygraph. At least one of her responses was registered as inconclusive in one test, but that's it. If, as I feel sure, John had manipulated her into lying about certain facts, such as who wanted the 911 call made, that could have had an influence on her response to certain questions.
DeleteWhat does seem likely is that one or both of them failed a test initiated by their own legal team, and kept secret. When asked about that test they dodged the issue -- telling us that yes, there must have been such a test and yes, it did not go well. If there hadn't been a test they would have denied it. And if there had been a test and they both passed, they'd have taken the opportunity to make that public.
Forget the nayslayers J.
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on with everything you say.
It is the only theory that remotely makes sense. BDI and hopefully one day it comes out so you and I can come back to this blog and say "I told you so".
You mean, of course, it's the only theory that makes no sense at all. (Must have been a typo :-) )
DeleteI think the length and content of the ransom note makes little sense if John and Patsy were working together. There would be no reason to hand over a 2 1/2 page sample of your own handwriting when a paragraph would do. I also think they both would know that a shorter note would look more authentic...so, I think Doc's theory offers a good reason for all the detail contained in the note.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the 911 call...Patsy may have been suspicious that morning(she reportedly told one of the friends that the notepaper looked like theirs). She may have convinced John that she agreed with him not to call the police, and waited until he went upstairs to get dressed and made the call. That would also explain the "hurry, hurry, hurry" and sudden hang up of the phone. K
Good point. She could have hung up because John had arrived, was angry, and was breathing down her neck.
DeleteNice try. A more likely scenario is that was her queue for ending her charade and giving her a way to hang up. I mean, who would hang up on 911 when you have a missing child? No one. Unless you are acting of course.
DeleteAnon:
DeleteI've speculated here before as to the possibility that John (for lack of vocabulary) "de-guilt-tripped" Patsy for making that call, to "prep" her for what now lay ahead, by VIRTUE of that call foiling his original plan. Does that make sense? I can understand Patsy withholding her suspicions of John's duplicity, if they existed, up to the point where JonBenet is discovered in the basement. At that point, however, it is hard to imagine her holding them in any longer, even for the brief period of time it took police to obtain and analyze John's exemplars and rule him out as the killer. If she was afraid of John that morning, one can only imagine how afraid she would have been just a few hours later when HE, not the police, discovered JonBenet, not kidnapped, but dead in the basement. That is why the scenario that makes better sense to me is the following.
John hears Patsy scream and runs downstairs, only to find out it's too late. She's called 911, and to make matters worse, she's now on the phone with friends, imploring them to come over too. She hangs up. John begins yelling at her, ostensibly for ignoring the warnings in the ransom note--a ransom note he pretended to "read" while she was still on the phone. Bewildered and confused, Patsy grabs the ransom note and reads for herself the first time what will happen to JonBenet if JOHN calls the police before the ransom is paid. She falls into his arms apologizing and crying for the mistake she made that might end up killing their daughter.
John suddenly realizes that the circumstances of his guilt-tripping, short of them not being necessary at all, could not be any better and can be used to his advantage. Why? Because Patsy truly DID have a reason to feel guilty; she reacted hastily by calling the police before reading the entire ransom note.
So John leverages her guilt and need for sympathy, made all the more palpable through his effusive expressions of apology and forgiveness, to get what he needs from her in return---her trust in him as to what to tell the police and why whatever it is he tells them will be to both their benefit. Patsy not only concedes, she runs outside to see if any intruders are monitoring JOHN...the person who is now potentially on the hook for HER indiscretion.
More gaslighting in the days ahead will be needed, but this scenario at least gets Patsy through the first day, which is an important one to say the least.
Mike G
Yes, Mike, I suppose something like that is possible. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing what went on between them during that time.
DeleteZed, If no one would hang up when reporting a missing child, then why would Patsy have hung up? Wouldn't staying on the line the way most mothers would do have been part of her act?
I don't recall the 911 operator telling Patsy to stay on the line - did she? I betcha' that was Patsy's first ever call for help; perhaps she simply didn't know the proper protocol.
DeleteThanks Mike, for detailing your scenario...something I hadn't considered. Certainly possible. But then, I don't understand their reported "distance" from each other that morning after the police arrived. That doesn't seem normal to me. Maybe that was just John's personality. We don't know if something was said or had happened in the days prior to Christmas that would cause Patsy to be suspicious or not. I think between the time Jonbenet's body was found until John was "eliminated", Patsy was so medicated and grieving that she probably wasn't thinking clearly at all.
DeleteK
"Nice try. A more likely scenario is that was her queue for ending her charade and giving her a way to hang up. I mean, who would hang up on 911 when you have a missing child? No one. Unless you are acting of course."
DeleteSo Patsty's queue to hang up was when she heard her own voice start to utter the words, hurry, hurry, hurry? An interesting theory, to say the least. Did she program her script herself using self-hypnosis?
The 911 operator had all the information she needed. Patsy put her missing child in no further danger by hanging up sooner than customary dictates suggest. To read anything into that is more than just confirmation, it's called being a.....well, I won't say something that might get my post deleted.
Mike G
"But then, I don't understand their reported "distance" from each other that morning after the police arrived."
DeleteThe moment the police arrived, Patsy was escorted to the sun room and told to wait while John debrief Officer French and helped him conduct a preliminary search of the house. It was in John's interest to keep Patsy isolated and quiet as much as possible, and, like you said, given her emotional state, it probably wasn't difficult to do.
Mike G
I'm still not certain that the head bash was accidental or not. If it was meant to kill her or just an unplanned reaction. But I thought of the case when my local news earlier on Friday reported about a dead woman inside a home. Her boyfriend said it was accidental. The sheriff said the boyfriend had picked up the girlfriend's gun and it fell on the floor and hit her in her back. He said when he picked it up again it accidentally shot her in the head. The sheriff said this was the first time he's ever heard of someone being accidentally shot twice. He's been arrested for murder. The guy would stand a better chance if it happened in Boulder.
ReplyDeleteAt least in your case, there was a boyfriend laying claim to an accident having incurred, instead of a ransom note writer laying claim to a kidnapper incurring an accident on his way out the door. But of course to non-JDIers that was all part of the perp's plan!
DeleteMike G
I wonder if Patsy actually ever said she screamed out so loudly John came running to her rescue. Burke was able to pretend sleeping through the "shrieks" she emitted she searched his bedroom for his sister, but generically speaking, the only thing he identified as "loud enough to be heard" was the argument his mom and dad had.
ReplyDeleteDo others, like myself, associate piercing screams, loud enough to be heard by people enclosed in showers with hot water running on them, with instantaneous life-threatening scares of the sort one experiences while watching a horror flick? Surely Patsy panicked when she discovered the ransom note, either immediately before or immediately after she discovered JB missing from her bedroom. And while the time period between these two events was no doubt brief, fears introduced by the one had to be confirmed by the other. Patsy sounded like someone frozen awestruck and at a loss for words during the 911 call, not like someone who just moments prior had shaken the rafters with an ear-splitting scream. She sounded like a person about to board a plane for a career-making or career-breaking business meeting, suddenly discovering she had left her purse with her ticket in it at home and out of reach. Absolute fear and panic? Yes. A cry for help? Perhaps. A piercing scream? No way.
Mike G
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe have to consider Burke's lies too. He says he was in bed asleep, yet he hears Patsy run into his room "all psycho" looking for JB. Why would you remain in bed knowing something big was up. And, he didn't. He's heard on the end of the 911 call - I think we can all agree on that now, that he was not in bed asleep during the 911 call, he was up. Although we can't agree on exactly what he said, or how John responded.
ReplyDeleteHe does go back to his room at some point though - probably told to go back to his room to await further instructions, but he likely did not go back to sleep. He says he was lying in bed fearful. So he says he was asleep, the whole time, and fearful and mom went psycho, the last two events he would have been awake for.
Since he's prone to "sneaking" by his own admission, what did he hear while skulking around downstairs that John and Patsy would rather him not have heard - enough so that they say he was in bed asleep the whole time.
If Patsy and John wrote that note together and her 911 call was an act, then did she even go into Burke's room acting all psycho - or did Burke add that to show she was alarmed after reading the note, not knowing anything and just finding a note.
Did she scream for John? Was he in the shower close to before the 911 call, and if so how would he have heard her screams? Or had he showered much earlier in the morning and the call was staged, timed.
My point is why is Burke lying? Was it to help his parent singular or parents plural?
And you are right Mike, probably no piercing scream.
Bottom line is this:
ReplyDeleteThe GJ indicted the Ramsey's and alleged that they permitted JBR to be placed in a dangerous situation that lead to her death.
Can someone explain WHY the GJ came to this conclusion? Could it possibly be because they were privy to information that WE DO NOT KNOW??
Somehow, those people concluded, based on evidence and testimony given that BOTH of the Ramsey's were responsible. WHY?
EG
One does wonder EG. Was the dangerous situation a dangerous sibling? It can't have been a molesting husband - they most probably had 0 witnesses testifying to that end. Was the dangerous situation an over zealous mother who had zero tolerance for bed wetting? Nah.
ReplyDeleteNow Beckner thinks he knows who did it and so does the Grand Juror who was in the shadows on the TV spot. Then by all means, please proceed.
That's the question, Inq. If they felt it was a molesting father, then their conclusion would've been different. Evidently they felt the Ramsey's were responsible by allowing JBR to be in a vulnerable, unprotected situation which caused her death.
DeleteNow, it couldn't be because they forgot to lock a door or set an alarm? I am reading more about the Stine's and their role after the fact. John being unable to remember whether or not he went into the Stine's house that night is suspect too. How cant you remember something like that? And why didn't they call the Stines over to their home that morning? They called The White's because JBR was okay when they left their home that night. We don't know if she was okay when they left the Stine's. And their "amnesia" from that point on is suspect too.
EG
DeleteI did a quick look up on the JB encyclopedia under "friendly intruder" theories and they did a swab for DNA on Doug Stine. And everyone else.
However I don't believe this is a DNA case. Everyone has been cleared except the Panty Handlers at the factory - most likely the only real foreign faction in this whole sad saga.
"Could it possibly be because they were privy to information that WE DO NOT KNOW??"
ReplyDeleteLest you're not being facetious, that's exactly why they came to their conclusion. Only 4 of the 14 or so transcript pages were ever released to the public.
Mike G
I was being sarcastic. This is my point exactly. Based on their conclusion, AND the evidence only they were presented with, both parents were involved.
DeleteEG
EG
EVERYONE let JonBenet down.
DeleteWe've been through this EG. The GJ did NOT conclude "both parents were involved". Both parents were charged because it was obvious at LEAST one of them was involved. Separating the two by having them arrested and placed in individual cells would allow for a more individualized and vigorous interrogation. Alex Hunter failed to take advantage of the opportunity the GJ gave him.
DeleteMike G
Precisely, Mike. It seems clear that the GJ rejected the intruder theory, so vigorously promoted by Lou Smit. But it's equally clear that they were unable to determine which of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. They certainly didn't conclude that Burke did it. First, because there has never been any evidence of his involvement. Second, because a 9 year old could not be accused of "murder in the first degree," which was part of both indictments.
DeleteHunter realized he had no case, because you can't accuse two people of a crime committed by one person. But you're right, he could have arrested both of them and then subject them separately to some vigorous and aggressive questioning, not permitting John to pussy foot around certain very tricky issues, such as, for example, why he closed that basement window without telling anyone or why Patsy said she was the one who told him she was calling the police.
The window issue:
DeleteJOHN: So I went down to the basement. I went into this room with Fleet. I explained to him that this window had been cracked open and I closed it. That the window was broken, but I think it was broken by me once before. We (John and Fleet) got down on our knees looking for some glass just to see.
SMIT: What did you find?
JOHN: I think we found a few fragments of glass not enough to indicate that it was a fresh break.
SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
JOHN: We might have put them on the ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We had only found one or two. We might have put them up there on the ledge.
SMIT: Now you said that you picked up pieces of glass.
JOHN: Um hmm.
SMIT: A few little pieces.
JOHN: Um hmm.
SMIT: And did you say you put them on the window well or on the suitcase or do you remember?
JOHN: I don't remember for sure. There wasn't enough (glass) there for me to be convinced that the window was broken that morning. I was assuming that it had been broken by me and it hadn't really been fixed.
THOMAS: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier and that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JOHN: I don't know. I mean it would have been probably before 10:00.
THOMAS: Was that prior to Fleet's first trip down?
JOHN: I didn't know he was in the basement. I didn't know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
THOMAS: And on that trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JOHN: Yep.
Now question: do you think John may have thought that at some point he could use Fleet as the fall guy for the broken window since he pointed it out to him, they both handled broken glass, and John could claim he didn't know Fleet was down there earlier? Clearly he's copping all over the place to having broken the window himself, and closing it himself. He may need to throw Fleet under the bus at some point, so he makes sure to have Fleet handle the glass, and he pretends to not know Fleet was down there earlier. Fleet could have been John's insurance policy, should he need it.
I'm still having problems with the broken window, obviously. Help. Why does he keep insisting he broke it himself, and closed the window?
DeleteDoc and I diverge on the window. I think John broke it the prior summer to gain entry and Patsy cleaned it up - with or without Linda - when she came home from Charlevoix.
DeleteIt suggested a likely entry point for a fictitious intruder, and John intended to break more glass and open the window when he got Patsy and Burke out of the house on the 26th. When that plan went South with the 911 call, he said he closed the window in case LE checked it for prints or DNA.
This obviates the necessity of "gaslighting" Patsy, a theory that makes me grind my teeth.
He does keep saying that he broke it - but to have LE think an intruder came in that way, wouldn't it be in John's best interests not to mention repeatedly that he broke it himself?
DeleteOn the otherhand it does sound logical to me that he originally had no intentions of having LE see the window (since Patsy wasn't supposed to make the 911 call) and that he could expand on the hole, the broken glass all over the floor and more staging. So I like your explanation.
His having actually gained entry that way explains the scuff mark on the wall, too, which was in an awkward place to stage, and who would think of staging a scuff mark anyway?
DeleteAlso, by claiming he did use the window to gain entry he is implying anyone could do it.
DeleteSigh. CC, you're an experienced attorney and prosecutor. Reread John's testimony regarding that window, from both 1997 and 1998, and tell me you buy it. He couldn't recall whether he took a cab, couldn't recall how he lost his keys, couldn't explain why he didn't use a neighbor's key, couldn't recall if he had his shoes on, and was never even asked how he could see what he was doing while down in that window well in pitch darkness. And please explain also why Linda knew nothing about any broken window or any broken glass. Explain also why her husband was able to clean all the windows and also noticed nothing. Explain also why a millionaire with workmen all over the house during that period would fail to have a broken window repaired or at least have a piece of wood or cardboard placed over the break. No fear of rodents or birds getting in, not to mention the December Colorado cold?
DeleteExplain also why he and Patsy would have been questioned at length about that window, and asked if it had ever been repaired, on two separate occasions, if the edges of the broken glass had been encrusted with 6 months worth of accumulated dust and dirt.
This story was his alibi, I can't believe you can't see that. He had to come up with some explanation for that broken window, because under the circumstances it sure looked like staging. If he hadn't told that story the staging would have been obvious and they both would have been arrested as soon as the body was found.
He got away with it because the investigators lacked the imagination to consider the possibility that the scene they came upon that morning was NOT part of any plan, but the result of a plan that had failed.
Here's John on the suitcase:
DeleteJOHN: " And the suitcase was unusual. That shouldn't have been there. I took that suitcase downstairs, I remember. But I sure wouldn't have taken it all the way back there and put it against the window."
SMIT: "Was the suitcase, when you came back, in the same spot it was where you had been?"
JOHN: "I think I moved it to see or to look for glass then. But I think it was where I left it, where it was when I was down there before."
SMIT: " Did you look inside the suitcase?"
JOHN: " No."
SMIT: " You knew what was inside the suitcase?"
JOHN: "I presumed it was empty. It should have been empty. I thought it was empty."
SMIT: " You said you moved it? Did you remember that?"
(uh oh, careful now John)
JOHN: " I moved it a bit just to see if there was glass. It's funny how you remember things. I swear that window opened from the other side. I guess other than that, I can't see anything."
SMIT: " Now is this suitcase you described as John Andrew's suit case?"
JOHN: " Well it was -- I mean, it looks like it. It looks a little darker but I think it's cause the room is darker. It was like a hard case, a Samsonite suitcase that I think, I think, John Andrew when he came to college, he brought all his stuff out and left it at our house."
Basically what he probably did was move it from upstairs down to the basement some other time, then on one of his staging trips down to the basement, shoved it over under the window, added a scuff mark on the wall and voila, the Intruder made his madcap escape!
It's just amazing to me that as accomplished an investigator as Smit was with a high solve rate, he couldn't see that John was playing him for a fool with his answers, that his answers are really quite unbelievable. It's almost as though Lou could have caught him if John had said he had opened the suitcase and looked inside, but then John skirts away by saying he presumed it was empty so no need to look inside. Actually I'm not sure why Smit asked that question, he must have had a reason.
DeleteThen it's on to John trying again to blur the lines a bit by saying it "looks like JA's suitcase" but it's a little darker (in the picture I'm guessing) - then he has an explanation for that and it's similar to what he says about the Maglite. It looks dirty in the picture, it might be the one JA gave him, he's not sure, better ask JA about that. He knows that's JA's suitcase, and he knows he put it there. Just as he knows the Maglite is his. OUTRAGEOUS. No one can catch this guy, even an experienced investigator. And then there's Thomas who at least takes John on on Larry King but he was focused on Patsy.
Yeah, Doc, I know the drill; I just don't agree. The train room was not highly trafficked: the big washer and dryer LHP used were outside that room, as was the closet with Patsy's wrapping paper. That room was a slovenly mess, things strewn everywhere and I doubt anyone but Burke ever went in there if it could be avoided, and he preferred Nintendo to trains.
DeleteLHP's husband was a barely functioning alcoholic who couldn't hold a job - no way you can persuade me he bothered to remove the grates and wash basement windows below eye level, located in brick and concrete wells.
There would have been ambient light from street lights front and rear, and in at least one interview John said he didn't have his keys because he usually opened the overhead garage door with his remote, parked the Jag and entered the house through the garage door, the obvious implication being he took a cab from Stapleton.
John also mentioned in an interview that a window in that room was often left open because the boiler was in the basement and it was always overheated - so clearly there wasn't much concern at any time for rodents and birds.
My explanation works just fine, and has the added advantage of obviating the necessity for your "gaslighting", which I find as untenable as you do my window theory.
But we've had this discussion before.
Burke claims to have been with his father when he broke into the house via the basement window. Burke was not with John the night he "caught a cab home and forgot his key", he was on vacation with his mother and sister. So either John's story is bogus, or he broke into the basement more than once.....which would, of course mean that the window had been fixed after the first break in, or else he wouldn't have needed to break it again, obviously. If they were conscientious enough to have it repaired the first time, why leave it untouched this time? Nope, I don't believe John's story.
DeleteCC, John said in their book that he'd misplaced his keys. And in one of the police interviews that he thinks he lent his keys to John Jr. And yes, he also said he usually (always?) used the garage door opener instead of keys. But when asked how he got home from the airport he "couldn't recall" if he took a taxi or not. Maybe Linda's husband was unreliable, but Linda herself was quite sure she knew nothing about any broken window. And this was very early on, before she turned on Patsy.
DeleteLight from street lights wouldn't be much help in that narrow window well. And John said the window was sometimes left open only because he needed some sort of excuse for not reporting that open window to Arndt. And I can't imagine leaving an outside window like that open without using a screen to keep insects, rodents, etc. out.
And if that window had been broken into months before, then what about the suitcase, how did that get there?
I think you and some others are put off by the term "gaslighting," as though it's some esoteric hypnotic technique used only by certain individuals with unusual mesmeric powers. Not necessarily.
A friend of mine remembers a certain incident in our past very differently from the way I remember it. I feel sure I'm right, but in the interest of friendship I've kept my mouth shut. Now suppose I were to challenge him and insist that my version is what actually happened? And suppose he thought a bit about it and agreed that, yes, I must be right, even though deep down he could not be sure. Would that be "gaslighting"? I think something very like that happened between Patsy and John:
"Don't you remember last summer when I had to break that window to get in, and you cleaned up the glass?" "Gee, I don't recall ever seeing that window broken -- but I'm hardly ever down there so I might not have noticed it." "C'mon, you were down there cleaning up the glass, I remember that very clearly." "Well, I can't recall anything like that, but if you say so . . ." And since she knows that Linda would have helped her do that, she assumes Linda must have been down there with her on that occasion.
What would have been the alternative? Do you honestly think she'd have publicly contradicted John, testifying that she knew nothing about any broken window, as did Linda? Do you think their lawyers would have allowed her to say anything that contradicted John's version of what happened? You're the lawyer, so you tell me.
By all accounts, John travelled a great deal for AG. Patsy hid a key outside at some point, and gave keys to neighbors, but John apparently had a penchant for breaking in, as witnessed by Patsy's offhand remark to Barbara Fernie about scratches around the lock on the back door. It's no great stretch that he used that obscure basement window more than once, and it didn't get repaired in the fall rush of school starting, pageants and holidays.
DeleteMost liars weave their stories around a kernel of truth for enhanced believability. It's at least possible.
You're right, Doc, it's the term "gaslighting" that puts me off. I have no trouble admitting that John called the shots in that marriage, manipulated and simply influenced his wife in myriad ways, probably as a matter of course. Gaslighting is just a little lurid, and to me weakens the entire JDI argument. I can't imagine trying to sell it to a jury.
DeleteI don't have great faith in my broken window theory so much as I prefer any alternative explanation to "gaslighting".
No, it makes no sense at all that Patsy would remember cleaning up glass with Linda, just because John said "c'mon, you cleaned up that glass". And it still makes no sense to break the window that night and then admit that he did it himself. The whole bit about "they would have been arrested on the spot" is nonsense. Police have to have probable cause to arrest you. "Gee that window looks staged" is not probable cause. And if John thought it would look so obviously staged, why did he do it?
DeleteC'mon John. You've been reading this blog (or if you haven't you should) so you already know the answers. And, yes, the notion that John was manipulating Patsy makes a great deal of sense. If you've been following the discussion here you'd know why.
DeleteAnd yes, if a kidnapping is reported and the police find a broken window, with contents of the window well strewn on the floor and a suitcase propped up on the wall beneath it, yet no evidence anyone actually passed through that window, and no other evidence of an intruder anywhere else in the house, then the window scene certainly does look like staging, and evidence of staging works pretty well as probable cause I'd say. But maybe that too strikes you as nonsensical.
And as you well know, according to my theory it looked so obviously staged because John hadn't completed his staging, assuming that his plan would give him an additional 24 hours to finish the job. He concocted his story to misdirect the authorities into seeing him as "cooperative" rather than guilty as Hell.
And if you doubt me, then please explain why:
1. John would have closed that window without telling anyone for months.
2. Linda forcefully denied any knowledge of any broken window and accused Patsy of lying.
3. Neither Patsy nor John could recall whether that window had ever been repaired, nor could they explain how it could have gone unrepaired for months, including a very cold Colorado December.
4. Why John had such a hard time recalling almost every detail of his story, how he lost his keys, how he got back from the airport, whether he entered the window well forward or backward, whether he had his shoes on, whether he was wearing a shirt, etc.
It's all too easy to dismiss a theory because it doesn't suit you. It's a lot harder to come up with an alternative explanation that takes ALL the evidence into account.
"And, yes, the notion that John was manipulating Patsy makes a great deal of sense."
DeleteIs there any actual confirmed example of John ever gaslighting or manipulating Patsy in such a manner, or did you invent it just to explain away a huge gap in your theory?
"And as you well know, according to my theory it looked so obviously staged because John hadn't completed his staging,"
Yes, I just find that to be contrived. If that was the case, he would have waited to do *any* staging at the window rather than do a partial staging that he knew wouldn't be convincing.
I've already answered these questions. One person's pure speculation isn't any better than another's. My alternative explanation is that John did break the window at an earlier time, that it's normal for people not to remember specific details of things that happened long ago that seem insignificant at the time, and that if the window was newly broken either that night or sometime after Thanksgiving it wasn't necessarily staging by John or any other person.
"Is there any actual confirmed example of John ever gaslighting or manipulating Patsy in such a manner, or did you invent it just to explain away a huge gap in your theory?"
DeleteYou seem to forget that John had an affair for well over a year while married to his first wife. I don't know how he could have managed to keep that secret for so long without manipulating her.
We obviously have different notions of what pure speculation is, as opposed to logical inference based on fact. It's easy to speculate about this case and yes, your speculations are no better than anyone else's. Your "alternative explanation" is no explanation at all, it's just an assertion of what you would prefer to believe, based purely on assumptions. And if the window was newly broken after Thanksgiving, then why would John claim he'd broken it earlier?
Yes, anything is possible, but in a courtroom we go by what is reasonable, as in "reasonable doubt."
It's perfectly possible, even likely, that the findings of the six child sexual abuse experts and forensic pathologists who found evidence of chronic sexual abuse were read into the record. Without any proof who committed the abuse they did the best they could by returning true bills that accused both parents of placing their daughter in a dangerous situation and accusing both of being accessories to murder. It was their intention that Hunter bring those charges and sort it out pre-trial or at trial. I think it was an ingenious solution - but Hunter dropped the ball.
ReplyDeleteThanks CC...your explanation is better than mine.
DeleteMike
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou did fine, Mike - six of one, half dozen of the other.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses. I have limited legal experience or understanding of the law and I appreciate your explanations.
ReplyDeleteI guess my next questions is---if the GJ thought there was enough evidence to indict, whey didn't AH feel the same way? I am assuming he was privy to that same info the GJ was, so what was his decision based on? The GJ spelled it out clearly in those true bills and left anyone who read them with the clear understanding that the parents were guilty of placing JBR in a dangerous situation which caused her death, and then proceeded to cover it up?
EG
The threshold for proof in a grand jury proceeding is only probable cause, while in a trial it's the much more stringent beyond a reasonable doubt. Hunter didn't feel he had the evidence for the latter, had little or no trial experience and a propensity to plea bargain.
DeleteA ballsier prosecutor would have indicted both in hopes that when Patsy learned of the abuse she would turn on John and blow the case wide open.
Good analysis, CC. But tragically John was not in Hunter's sights because he, like all the others, meekly accepted the "expert's" opinion that John could not have written the note. With respect to Patsy and John they were all looking through the wrong end of the telescope, hoping that John would finger Patsy rather than the other way 'round -- which was the only way, as far as I'm concerned.
DeleteI think the results of Drs McCann, Rau, et al. would have forced Hunter to re-consider John when he saw their conclusions in 1997, particularly when coupled with the judicial trend against the admission of handwriting analysis begun in the Timothy McVeigh case the prior year.
DeleteHunter lacked the necessary trial experience and nerve to indict both and play them off against each other, and our best chance for a judicial solution was lost.
Off topic- for those with a Twitter or Facebook account if you don't mind sharing
ReplyDeleteThis amber alert has been on my local tv, along with cell phone alert, and my highway signs all this week but the TBI have an appeal to everyone, not just Tennessee and Alabama now. A 50 year old man has taken a student.
http://www.kvue.com/mb/news/crime/statewide-endangered-child-alert-issued-for-missing-teen/423353375
We could call a draw on the broken window, couldn't we? It was broken, John's not sure what story he's going to spin to Officer French - so he mentions he thinks he broke in there himself, he doesn't think it's a fresh break, because he hasn't yet figured out how it can help the situation. Keep in mind they were looking for point of entry a kidnapper may have used, so his first reaction is to not think it has relevance - until he gets his idea (the thinker) that it could serve to his advantage. He moves the suitcase closer, scatters peanuts, etc. but what he has now done is muddy the waters of his narrative. He tells Smit (in the first paragraph above) that he THINKS he broke it before. So he has two narratives that Smit can mull over, and Fleet as well. It was an old break - but could it be a new break? Lets you and me Fleet get down on our hands and knees and pick up glass. He's gotten Fleet involved now in the broken window and he's still thinking. When someone says "I don't think" something was thus or so my question would then be "then who should I ask?"
ReplyDeleteThis crime was on a continuum,it was ongoing. John's not some maffia hit man who knows how to get in, do a kill, and get back out. He's not sure what may have been left behind, what loose ends need tying up. He really hadn't even gotten his story locked down with Patsy yet most probably. He shoved her into the sunroom with her friends while he continued to think, and stage. Things occurred to him as he went along. That's how I can live with the broken window explanation. Not everything he did was thought out as to how it would be perceived by others, in advance.
Can anyone venture a guess though why Smit wanted to know whether John had opened JA's suitcase and looked inside? That's, of course, a red herring, but what was Smit trying to elicit from John?
John's game is "confounding" or confusion. Also "helpfulness". It's something that got passed along to the younger son as well, only Burke's game is "disinterest" and "move on", although I haven't quite discerned all of Burke's gaming techniques. With John it becomes obvious when you read all of his statements and answers. He may have broken the window previously, but it could be a new break as well, the Maglite might be his but all of his flashlights are dead so why would a flashlight be out - and it looks dirty, yet again it could be the one JA gave him, have to ask JA. The suitcase - it "looks" like JA's, I mean it's a little "darker" but that could be because the room is dark, etc., you get the picture.
ReplyDeleteAs for Patsy instead of the word gaslight we could use the word "influenced." They are a unit, they are one, they are "we". Now obviously they are separate individuals but it's preferable for both of them to be on the same page. In fact right now, it's crucial. Memories don't need to be implanted in her, she knows what he's going to say and she just needs to back it up. Her life is on the line too.
Honestly you are all clutching at straws if you think Patsys 911 call was not an act. No parent would hang up...you would stay on the phone and receive all the comfort and information you could get. Thats a fact and is simply human nature. And no Doc, she would not have stayed on the phone if it was an act because that just puts her act in more jeopardy. She knew exactly what she had to say, got on the phone and said it. Once done she ended the call so her act couldn't be scrutinised any longer. It was always Patsy going to make this call because John just couldn't play stricken dad as well as Patsy could play stricken mum.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many signs in that phone call which lead to it being an act..waaaaay too many to be a coincidence. Experts agree this was a staged phone call and I'll put my faith in the experts...even though a deaf donkey could probably come to that conclusion themselves.
Mike G - you questioned one of my posts above but to be honest hardly any of your posts make sense to me so i wont bother replying to this one.
All opinions are welcome here, Zed.
Delete"Thats a fact and is simply human nature."
Delete---Zed
The truth is, human nature is no simple thing.
Mike G.
I agree....I think it was a staged call.
DeleteAs I've noted before, I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it means, Zed.....
DeleteMs. D:
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with your last post. Do you have Burke's exact words to Dr. Phil about that incident? Like John's words to him about the flashlight, they seem to be conspicuously missing. Or should I say, deliberately unavailable?
Mike G
diamondlilMarch 18, 2017 at 3:00 AM
ReplyDeleteMike G - why the homicidal scenerio directed at John I?
Lil:
Some people just can't be killed with kindness.
Mike G.
I do not believe for one second that Patsy's call was an act. You don't kill your daughter, not take a bath and write a ransom on your own pad. She's either dumb or dumber, if that was the case. Meanwhile, John can't seem to tell a lie with a straight face. And the cops all fell for it. He has really lucked out.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, R Smith.
DeleteThe truth will one day come out. Can't wait
ReplyDeleteDoc, there's an error message when you go over 4,096 characters - the html can't accept it. I also can't delete it for good, so I'm just trying to get rid of the error message here. Nothing more.
ReplyDeleteZed, what do you think Burke meant at the end of the 911 call (assuming he was up and recorded and assuming he did ask a question) when he said "what did you find?" as Van de Leek has a very interesting explanation for that (page 310 2nd book Sequin Star). Have you thought about what Burke meant by that question?
ReplyDeleteNoI havent really thought about that because I'm still not sure if that's what can be heard. It may well be, but I am not set on it.
DeleteIf it indeed Burke and those are the words he said, I think it means exactly what it sounds like. He was asking them what they found. Most likely referring to the ransom note he knew nothing about. I even believe that the parents may have told Burke that JBR was ok (after his headblow to her) and maybe Burke genuinely believed an intruder came in after.
Yep, you got it Zed. I think it's only recently in here on this blog, that we have agreed that Burke was on the tail end of that 911 call, although we don't know exactly what was said, and how could we, the youtube version is terrible. However it was the opinion of the author of the book I'm reading that Burke, if he was in the basement that night with JB and fatally struck the blow and also strangled her (and again, he hasn't laid it out that way - maybe in the other trilogies, haven't read them) but that he may have gone up to bed and either laid awake all night or slept, not knowing exactly what he had done. Prodding her, as Kolar believed, with the train tracks, may have been Burke not knowing she was dead - either after rigging her up to the crude garrotte, or after the head blow. If Patsy then got up to make sure JB uses the bathroom, finds her not in her bed, not in Burke's room, does her own search and finds her dead - perhaps it's Patsy's scream the neighbor heard. Wakes up John and - we now get to the 911 call.
ReplyDeletePatsy says on the 911 call "we found a note." Burke hears and says what did you find? He is not aware and does not know his parents staged "his" murder. What did you find? A note? Then "please, what do I do?" Dad, angry, "we're not talking to you."
The author does not spend much time on this, only a few paragraphs. Mostly throughout this book he makes a case for John and Patsy as accessories to murder. And I think in any BDI theory you have to include Patsy in a BDI scenario. It would make no sense that she was excluded from the night's events.
The author thinks Burke or JB broke the basement window - and this is why John cops to it himself. Accessories. Take the onus off Burke. Remove Burke from that area as much as he can. Mostly this author shows us every incident that John has misdirected, added info, left out info, and orchestrated a masterful deception. So one can either believe it was for himself, or to cover for another. Thanks for your answer.
'Only recently we agreed'??? Not everybody does.
DeleteThere's been some talk of Van Der Leek's books, so I thought I'd offer my two cents.
ReplyDeleteI was thoroughly disappointed with "The Day After Christmas: Book 3." I forced myself to finish it because I was curious to see how he tied Doug Stine to the crime. He didn't lay out his theory until the very end of the book, and when he finally did, he did so in the form of a poem. A freaking poem?!? He offers nothing to link Doug Stine to the crime.
He also completely misinterprets something said by LHP and devotes an entire chapter to delving into an idea which stems from this misinterpretation. Talk about spreading misinformation.
The book is riddled with long, drawn-out analogies, which I found particularly annoying. I mean, a four-page-long rant comparing raising children to gardening--complete with rain symbolizing love, sun symbolizing excessiveness, how one plant can affect the whole garden, blah, blah, blah.
He frequently quotes posters from Websleuths and Topix, which I thought was kind of odd. He also addresses a Reddit user (even identifying the user's "hat") who stated that he wasn't interested in Van Der Leek's book due to his lack of credentials. Not only does Van Der Leek offer a lengthy rebuttal to the user's statement, but five other times throughout the narrative, he refers back to this user with a "take that" kind of attitude. I guess he thought he was being funny, but it just seemed petty and got old quickly.
The only information I found interesting in the book had to do with PR's 1998 BPD interview where she claims that it's the first she's heard of possible chronic sexual abuse. Van Der Leek points out that in a 1997 Ramsey interview with the media, JR says, "There have also been innuendos that she has been or was sexually molested. I can tell you those were the most hurtful innuendos to us as a family." PR was sitting right next to him when he said that (a year before her 1998 interview.)
I too found a mistake in the book I was reading and that was Van der Leeks mulling over JA's comment that he said Burke was "flashy", when in fact JA said Patsy was flashy. Why would JA say Burke was flashy? Makes zero sense.
ReplyDeleteI like the analogies though, to other crimes. Not so much drama in the form of poetry. I have appreciated noticing how John's stories have changed, and how he tries to lead the interrogator down the wrong path. That wasn't quite so obvious on acandyrose, but here there were so many examples I stood up and took notice.
I also have appreciated how he's showed us John's strategy of being victimized by the police, the media, and suing everyone in sight and still continues to do so, further solidifying my low opinion of JR.
But I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so if I find mistakes or misinterpretations or differences in what I think I can still find things that I can learn that I didn't know before.
@Inq, I didn't have an issue with the comparisons to other crimes. Although, in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare this crime to any other. (Unless, of course, it's to highlight the differences between this case and a real kidnapping for ransom.) The analogies I wasn't fond of were the ones that read like a creative writing assignment...a very long creative writing assignment. No wonder he's been able to churn out eight or nine books on the same topic--there's a lot of filler.
DeleteIMO, when it comes to a true crime narrative, it's crucial that there are no mistakes or misinterpretations. Discovering one makes me question the author's credibility and knowledge of the case. I would also seriously question anything that I was hearing for the first time. In fact, after I read the part where he discussed PR's 1998 BPD interview and JR's statement from the May 1997 media interview, I had to verify for myself that what he claimed was accurate.
I was already aware of the premise of his theory before I started reading his book. I wouldn't write someone off just because I may not agree with their conclusion. I could certainly learn something new from the information they present leading up to their theory. I'm also OK with speculation, as long as it's logical and not just pulled out of thin air. Unfortunately, this author didn't offer any brilliant revelations or new information (other than connecting the two events that I mentioned before) and he failed to support his reason for linking another person to the crime.
I had to laugh at your "creative writing" description. When I listened to the podcast done with the two authors, the male author was less pleasing to listen to. I doubt the man can be succinct. The female author did better with her questions or making her point without being long and drawn out. Is it clear in the books which authors are writing which chapter?
Delete@lil, I don't think this guy couldn't be succinct if his life depended on it. I'm pretty the book that I read was written entirely by him, while she did the research. Unless they are BOTH foul-mouthed, long-winded, unorganized writers. ;)
DeleteFor me Lil, Van de (Der?) Leek puts the "players", the characters, the personalities, in context. No one lives their lives in some vacuum where an event happens and nothing preceded it. Wilson has put out some books of her own - in this #shakedown organization they have going, in particular her trilogy on O.J., and she contributes or is the consulting writer on many of Van de Leek's books. I find his writing more interesting. He's comprehensive. And humorous. At the moment there is a long chapter on John's rise, plugging away essentially at Lockheed Martin until he ran his own division and the struggle that was to succeed. Beth's death played a very big role in John's life story, his affair, meeting Patsy, his divorce, his being on the cusp of doubling his fortunes in the next year or so and then the fall. JB's death. Haven't gotten to the small children. Van de Leek is not going to rag on the victim. But there is no doubt in my mind that both children were given anything they wanted, lacked structure - which is the most important thing a parent can give a child, not things, and the environment in the home and out of the home was all about appearances. JB's short life was staged. Is there no surprise her death was as well?
DeleteHow many other books have you read HKH showing Patsy and John to be accessories to murder to compare with Sequin Star 2?
DeleteUgh...that's what I get for typing while talking on the phone. That should have said, I don't think this guy *could be succinct if his life depended on it. And...I'm pretty *sure the book that I read was written entirely by him.
DeleteNone, Inq. Why? To be honest, this is the first book I've ever read on JBR. I have done a lot of reading on the case, but not in the form of books. The next book I plan to read is Doc's. Although, I am already very familiar with his theory, I feel I owe it to him to read his book. Plus, based on Doc's blog posts, his writing style is much more up my alley.
DeleteAside from what I've already posted, my overall impression of Van Der Leek is not all that great. I have no issue with someone writing a book on JBR to present their theory, or share information they feel may be helpful to solving the case. In fact, I appreciate all the info. that is out there thanks to the books written on the case. That being said, when someone(s) pumps out eight or nine books on JBR, I can't help but feel they are trying to capitalize on this tragedy, either in a monetary sense, or as a way to make a name for themselves.
I went back and reread the overview for "The Day After Christmas:Book 3" on the authors' website. The book fails to deliver on all the points promised. It's just a whole lot of hype, IMO.
Also, reading the responses Van Der Leek left for readers who wrote less-than-favorable reviews on Amazon, really left a bad taste in my mouth. He needs to check his ego and learn how to accept criticism.
I guess that's unfortunate then that the first book you have read HKH was one you didn't like, on the case. I read little clips from each book but I decided, since he amended his theory from the Craven Silence books - that I would get the most current one. Not likely I'll buy any more, just fyi. I believe Steve Thomas's book may have been the first I read, but it could have been Perfect Murder Perfect Town. And at least 6 since. I like anything new. But since I have at least narrowed my inquiry down to two theories, and let go of two theories, I would prefer to read anything to bolster those two theories. Mostly I wanted to see what kind of "defense" John masterminded for himself and family, how he obfuscated, a bit about the Lockheed Martin background that Gumshoe went into months ago and in that sense Sequin Star didn't disappoint. I must say though I still have 106 pages more to go. Anyway, good HKH you are wanting to study and read up. Keep going! :)
DeleteThanks for your reply HKH and again, how you wrote it made me laugh, which I needed today. I do understand what you mean, some of the quotes I saw last year did not peak my interest, as I don't care to read something that either contains a lot of texting shorthand or strong language. (It's why I prefer fiction writer Harlan Coben)
DeleteYou mention the author responding to criticism, I saw the same thing with another online blogger/self published author leave ugly retorts on Amazon and later deleted them (that was Rick Baker on the California murder case of the McStays). Just shows anyone can write books but not everyone acts professional and has any decorum.
And thanks too Inq for your impressions as well. It helps flesh out what each book you've read contains.
I like things analyzed, statements, strategies, motivations, and he does that for me. It has to make sense. It can't just all fit because it would be simpler and neater that way, it has to really make sense to me in order for it to fit. Some of what he says I'm left to remember why I had thought the way I did before and see how it jived with what I know now so it caused me to think and not just go along with it. In fact, I'm near the end and still no scenario in this book but Mrs. B had mentioned the premise of the book she had read, still I was waiting for it. I think each book takes a different subject matter in the world of the Ramsey's.
ReplyDeleteI'm now reading another one of their books on Amanda Knox. They have quite a few books in their trilogy series, Pistorius, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, Stephen Avery. He also does his own artwork for the covers and I think having Jodi Arias transform into a reptile is very fitting.
In Sequin Star he talks about the contrast between how both parents were grieving, and in some instances, not grieving at all. In particular Burke who is disconnected, distant, seemingly unaffected.
In the phoney ransom note it looks like the writer does not like John ,If the writer is the killer , they (he) could have kidnapped John (foreign faction)at knife point or gun point, )demanded the amount they wanted ,then kill him, why go to all the bother of entering his home brutally murdering an innocent child JonBenet, because he hated John as John said in his deposition,"someone had it out for him" ,probably someone he had to fire ,oh yeah! if John did NOT physically harm or kill JonBenet , well in my opinion , he MUST have hired someone to do this , and WHY? why didn't the police question the Junk dealer guy the one who had supposedly committed suicide or was it suicide? I have read where someone murdered him and I also read where he had asked someone and (he reported this to police , police ignored his question "what would it be like to crack a skull"? and that he and his accomplis would receive each around $60.000 and according to news reports POLICE would not investigate ,
ReplyDeleteI believe JR tried to get the suitcase out of window broke it and did not close it , glass was found on suitcase ,
I believe he planned on stuffing JonBenets body , so that plan was shot to hell,
he then drags her in wine cellar and LATCHES the Door , when officer French arrives checks basement he did not notice latch only to try doorknob obviously the door would not open , if John had been concerned about finding his daughter why the heck didn't he go to basement with the police and help in the search , jeeze I would have done anything... JOHN knew body was in there, he is the one who wanted to contaminate evidence , what an evil man,
I don't think LE had heard of Helgoth until after his death, when his friend Kennedy? talked to LE or to the Ramsey team investigators. DNA, etc ruled him out. If true what Helgoth's friend said about him, killing and torturing cats then he was a low-life scum and the world is a safer place with him no longer in it, imo.
DeleteI agree, diamondlil. I'm never disappointed to learn there's one less animal torturer in the world. Regardless of his possible involvement in other crimes, anyone who tortures and kills animals doesn't deserve to be walking free as far as I'm concerned.
Deletewould you be able to detect your husbands demeanor or body language if he had committed a heinous crime ? I would , my ex would have had it written all over him , I am sure "In My Opinion" that PR noticed something strange and unusual I think she suspected him immediately and is why she called 911. and to live the next 10 years with him is beyond me..
ReplyDeletenonchalant and almost laughing during deposition , read it or watch it on (YouTube)slowly......{Patsy: I found a ransom note I found my daughter missing from her bed room and "several' hrs later our Daughter was found dead in our home , someone came into my home and murdered her "
ReplyDelete" and to live the next 10 years with him is beyond me.."
DeleteWhich is why this narrative doesn't make much sense. If nothing else, why wouldn't she have said something on her death bed?
I've seen lavish criticism from you, but you've offered no alternate theory of your own of which I'm aware. What's your thinking, John I? Who dunnit?
DeleteAnon,
DeleteI felt the same way when I watched PR during that deposition. She was so nonchalant about her daughter being murdered. As of she was reciting a story, totally detached, smiling, without any type of emotion that you'd expect. I don't care how many times you'd have to explain what happened that morning. You wouldn't EVER explain in the way she did as a mother of a murdered child.
EG
Nonchalance is an understandable affect when the world believes you're guilty and you know you're not.
DeleteMike G
The term "nonchalant" is also debatable.....I, personally, don't see her demeanor that way.
DeleteMany on this blog are quick to point out how much of a drama queen Patsy is, and how that leads them to believe she's acting. Yet, when she's more subdued, it must be a sign of her guilt.
When she shows emotion - she's "faking it", when she doesn't - she's "detached".
These types of comments are proof positive that PDIs can't see past their confirmation bias.....Patsy's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
yes , and believing the ridiculous R-Note why didn't she go along with John to basement and search , had It been my daughter it would have been first place I would have checked thinking someone played a prank, her death bed? she was at her parents home,, probably still afraid of JR, he probably was at her bed side making sure she would not reveal anything, who know?
ReplyDeleteShe did manage to get a message to L. Lin Wood. Take care of Burke.
ReplyDeleteWood was likely grandstanding. Patsy's cancer had metastasized to her brain; she was probably not lucid at the end.
ReplyDeleteyes with my experience being a Heath Care Aide , the patients last moments , they sometime will slip into a Coma and it could be days ...... PR would not have revealed anything even if she knew he was that he was responsible but why would she cover him? he could not harm her while she was ill or because she was already near death , if she didn't trust him to be near Burke ,I can see why.
Deletewhat ever, you are all on here trying to figure this out , DOC has the answers and it will all come out in the wash , ok...JR lied through his teeth , FFS do you believe a man a MILLIONAIRE is going to break the window in that dirty window well of his house in the dark? what ? no locksmith in Boulder? remove his suit and climb in , we are not rich but I have an alarm system I make sure it is activated or set when we leave town or go to bed ,here is a man who had an alarm system and did not set it , with a vulnerable family a (come-on) a welcome mat for an invasion ,what ever , he had and has everyone fooled but he does not fool this cookie with his lies , his interrogation was pathetic his deposition was worst, his dry mouth long pauses cant remember no re-collection , cant recall, drinking water Probably caused from Medication ? cant believe why Law Enforcement could see through him. Ps thanks everyone....
There was no "death bed confession" because Patsy had nothing to confess, pure and simple.
DeleteBeing the devout Christian she was, I do think she would have confessed on her death bed if she had feelings of guilt, she would have believed her eternal salvation depended on it. According to Linda Arndt, she asked her to continue the search for JB's killer after her death. Not something a dying mother covering for a homicidal son is likely to do, nor a wife who has lied for her husband (or herself, or the both of them), for ten years.
Watched a video clip of Lin Wood last night where he pretty much tells the audience how he shook down Mary Lacy into getting that Ramsey exoneration out of her. He brags how he was going to sue the BPD and the whole town if necessary. Yes, I wouldn't doubt that he is a grandstander to the nth degree.
ReplyDeleteYes, and what he so proudly admitted to was highly unethical. I'm surprised he hasn't been disbarred for attempting to intimidate an officer of the law. Borders on blackmail, imo.
DeleteLin Wood ? that Bully. He would take careof Burke?in what fashion ? financially or to protect him from his father?because he might reveal something? or they can find some way of suing more people for $$$ I do not believe Burke had anything to do with the Murder , In My Opinion he is covering his father ,I believe he knows something , or remembers something this is why his father has shielded him for so many years when he was younger, if a kidnapping would have taken place for much $ a million for example , JR could have been kidnapped, who goes into a home and kidnaps for ransome ? I have heard on the way to school or other wise but to enter a home and wait until all is asleep. forget that crap , never happened, one evil sick Bastard killed JonBenet, and for what reason we may never know , the truth will be uncovered some day and I pray I will live to see the culprit brought to trial ,
ReplyDeleteYes, and what is more Wood's participation in this case represents a conflict of interest, because he is John's attorney, not Burke's. If Burke knows something about John that John does not want made public, then obviously his lawyer would make sure that was never brought to light. Burke needs his own lawyer, NOT John's lawyer.
DeleteI've also wondered about conflict of interest. A client should be able to share anything with their attorney that helps their case. If Burke suddenly remembered something from that night that conflicted with John's story, would he feel free to discuss it with his father's lawyer? It might not be a conflict of interest yet, but it could be in the future.
DeleteK
You're wrong, Doc. There is no conflict of interest if they both stick staunchly to the intruder theory and sign informed consents. The minute Wood learned of anything that could possibly become a conflict of interest, such as Burke's resurgent memory, K, he must withdraw from representation of one or the other.
DeleteHow would Lin Wood take care of Burke? By using his legal expertise to sue anyone who would say Burke had anything to do with it.
ReplyDeleteInq,
DeleteI had not read that before, where PR asked Lin Wood to take care of Burke. I would think she would've told JR that. Unless of course she meant it in a legal sense, which I am sure she did. Maybe she felt someday the truth would come out that either BR had something to do with it or JR wasn't to be trusted. Or both.
EG
Lin Wood said it in open court in Michigan two weeks ago, and it was an entirely gratuitous statement, a non sequitur, lawyerly grandstanding at it's worst.
DeleteGoes along with having Burke appear shaggy-haired and unshaven, the implication being that the poor boy is too upset by the allegations to care for himself properly.
Delete"I promised his mother on her deathbed. . ." Ugh. Hate that kind of manipulative lawyering.
yes, thank you CC.
DeleteAnd I guess we are to infer that Burke has now become a member of the Great Unwashed due to his ordeal at the hands of CBS.
Also read transcript of where Lin Wood gets into a nasty personal argument with Darnay Hoffman telling him he makes more money taking a deposition than Darnay makes in a month. That his cash cow are the Ramseys, and if anyone wants the full transcript I can dig it up, copy it and send it here.
ReplyDeleteYes, where Burke is sitting now is in a battle with CBS and Spitz over a defamation suit. And he will likely win, but not the preposterous windfall they are hoping for. If this case were re opened possibly it would put a stop to the lawsuits, and what has been obvious for 20 years from the moment the crime was covered up, that crime pays.
could NOT*** see through him sry... btw , JR is the devil in disguise, meets police that morning of Dec 25/26. and police couldn't detect his demeanor must have had a sweet face on,LOL.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the broken window, I don't believe JR would ever break a window and crawl into his house after having come home from a business trip. He would have called a locksmith or gotten the extra keys that neighbors were given. I also don't believe PR would ever clean up glass from that broken window or anything else for that matter. That was for the peons to do that worked for them.
ReplyDeleteEG
Unless it was in the wee hours of the morning and he, tired from a long international flight, didn't want to disturb the ill, elderly Barnhills or wait around for a locksmith.
DeleteHe said it was around 11 PM. Not all that late. And he could have called ahead from the airport.
Deleteno hotels or motel accommodations in Boulder? lol.don't forget this guy had $$ unless he was frugal, we were on the road too late in Savannah and we stopped and checked in a hotel, PLEASE ...do not believe a word from JRS MOUTH!! Please.
ReplyDeleteHe'd taken a cab home from the airport in Denver, and his car was locked in the garage. You think he should have hitchhiked maybe? At 3:00 am?
DeleteHe had a confirmed history of breaking in when locked out.
I didn't know he had a confirmed history of breaking in when locked out. I wonder if he always chose that particular window to break and climb into.
DeleteEG
According to Patsy, in a conversation with Barbara Fernie about scratches around the back door lock, he didn't always choose that window, no. (PMPT, iirc)
DeleteAnd according to Burke, he'd broken in via that basement window at another time, in Burke's presence.
DeleteHe said it was around 11 PM. He finally figured out that he "must have" taken a cab (though initially he said he couldn't recall how he got home). So why not either call ahead to the Barnhill's to have them place their key under a mat, or else tell the cab driver to head for the nearest motel, from where he could call a locksmith the following morning. Instead he strips to his underwear so he won't soil his valuable "business suit"? What if a neighbor saw him and called the cops?
DeleteBottom line: no one else but Patsy confirmed his story and Linda vociferously denied it ever happened. And if there had been any evidence that the break was months old, the police would never have asked them whether the window had ever been repaired.
The story is obviously a fabrication.
Not to mention the fact there were other, more easily accessible windows he could have chosen, rather than the small window leading to a pitch black basement.....windows that didn't require removing a grate, or removing an expensive business suit in order to climb through. Come on now, the story is beyond unbelievable.....it borders on laughable.
DeleteI have google earth the House at 755 what ever, he arrives in a cab with out his cell @ 3:AM ? he had had a Cell Ph: no? he removes his suit why? Mens SUITS can be cheap and expensive was it an Armani ? why worry that you may "Rip it"or dirty it ? then he may as well have removed his under wear and then perhaps someone would have seen him and called Police had him charged with indecent exposure,lol.. lmao I find this so humorous , a rich man bare naked .. so.. @ 3:am he wasn't afraid that someone would see him discard evidence? he had the greatest chance , who would suspect him ? had I been living across the street or next door I would not suspect anything I would say ("OH there goes JR for an early morning coffee" )yes I can see a person forgetting or locking keys inside their vehicle , but he did not kick the window with his foot (fat lie) , if so someone one would have heard this and believe someone was breaking into his house because the houses aren't that far apart on that street, I believe the window was broken when he tried to put the old Samsonite through it , that's my opinion , Burke was not at home to see his father break the window , have no Idea where that rumor arose from ,btw , I am not Rich and I would NOT have such a luggage in my home It would have been in garbage a long time ago ,it belonged to his son? items inside also belonged to his son ?his sons room was on the second floor? what was the suit case doing in basement , imo it looks like a suit case bought from a garage sale Vintage, had it been fingerprinted? . Patsy did not search basement ? wasn't her crafts and junk down there , she knew the children played in the "Trainroom" . she stored Christmas trees and Decorations as well as gifts somewhere down there, if my daughter was missing not in her bed as early as they stated ,I would have gone to basement with my husband searching EVERYWHERE I wouldn't have cared if I ran into the killer , thanks everyone , I have posted enough for today and I also believe how this murder happened , will do it another time , thanks ..and thanks Doc,
ReplyDeleteAccording to Patsy in her second LE interview, John had lost his cell phone, and not replaced it until the holidays, when she got one as well.
DeleteA little too coincidental he lost his cell phone right around the time of his daughter's murder.....his sexually abused daughter who - coincidentally - happened to have his shirt fibres in her crotch. The daughter he happened to discover himself - coincidentally - in a room previously checked by others, who had failed to locate her. In fact, there were many coincidences when it came to poor, ol' John.
DeleteIf innocent, he is awfully unlucky - everything points to him. If guilty, he is one, damn, lucky guy - everything points to him but he got a free pass anyway.
I'm a little confused by your post. You go from talking about JR's story of breaking the window the previous summer to talk of him discarding evidence at 3 a.m.? At any rate, had a neighbor observed JR outside, or leaving his home at 3 a.m. on the night of the murder, it surely would have been suspicious to LE once they found out.
DeleteThe statement that BR witnessed his father break the window came from BR's 1998 interview with Det. Schuler. The incident BR discusses is presumably in addition to the time JR said he broke the window after returning home from a business trip.
You are assuming that others would act and react the same as you. My parents are fairly wealthy and I can't tell you how much stuff my dad has owned that should have been tossed into the garbage long before it was. Even the governor once told him it was time to buy a new pair of shoes. LOL. Even "rich" people can have junk. Also, just because something isn't stored in someone's room, doesn't mean it's not theirs. However, I don't really see how any of this matters. JR and PR both said the suitcase belonged to JAR (JR's son) and as far as I know, JAR has never disputed that.
Sorry. That^^^ was in response to Anon @ 6:17.
DeleteI'm not wedded to the theory that the window remained broken from August while Patsy and the kids were at the lake, EG. I just find Doc's reasoning, that John broke the window that night and rushed to unstage it in the 5 minutes between the 911 call and the arrival of Officer French, hard to swallow, particularly when combined with his claim that John "gaslighted" his wife into believing she cleaned up the glass.
ReplyDeleteI prefer simple explanations, ones that I can persuade a jury to believe - and "gaslighting" would be a tough sell.
I believe this window had been broken shortly after the murder, why? because the spider webs and debris hadn't been disturbed , if it had been broken in summer I am sure that basement would have been crawling with critters all kinds of bugs , rodents name it, Rain and in winter cold and snow. I'm in Canada so I do not know much about the weather or seasons in Boulder I believe he tried to figure out whether the suitcase would fit and accidently broke it , gave up when it(suitcase)didn't fit and forgot it there. It is possible people do get locked out of their homes but in this case , that IS A LIE just my opinion , the reason ? he is such a liar ,
DeleteWe've heard the suitcase-with-body-through-window theory, and its cousin, suitcase-with-body-in-car, a number of times over the years, and it doesn't work. A number of people have looked up the exact measurements of that piece of Samsonite, compared them to JBR's height, and determined it was impossible to get the child in there without dismembering her. Presumably LE came to the same conclusion early on.
DeleteBoth John's wife and son claimed he broke into the house when locked out, so there's probably some truth to it.
First of all it's not necessary to associate the broken window with the suitcase. To me the most likely explanation is that he broke it to stage an intruder breakin at that point, and was planning to complete his staging the following day. The suitcase was placed there to suggest that the "intruder" boosted himself up to exit via that window. Simple enough for you, CC?
DeleteAs far as Patsy's cleanup story is concerned that need not come up in a court of law at all. Patsy is dead and gone. If anyone is going to be charged it will be John, not Patsy. What would be important in a jury trial would be whether or not John was lying about that window. Whether or not Patsy was in cahoots with him would be beside the point.
If it can be shown he lied about that window, then any possible intruder theory would be toast. And since that would be the core of his defense, he too would be toast.
I understand perfectly why the suitcase was placed there. What I do not understand is why, if he was intent on unstaging, he did not take the necessary two seconds to move it.
DeleteYou'd better believe Patsy's corroboration of the window clean up would be raised - by the defense.
"If it can be shown he lied about the window. . ." It's your thesis that the broken panes remaining in the window frame were clean, and it was therefore a new break. Had that been the case it would be a piece of real evidence, would give LE some probable cause, would at the least have changed the tenor of the questions asked in John's interviews, and at most given Hunter something tangible to support the GJ's true bills and issue indictments. But none of those things happened, Doc. Nary a one.
Well maybe you'd like to explain why you think the suitcase was placed there, CC. I think it was placed there as part of John's staging. And I think he may have left it there because, as you yourself indicated, he would have been pressed for time, in a panic, not thinking clearly, just trying to focus on the most essential element, which would have been cleaning up that glass. Fleet may well have been just on his heels. He too noticed the suitcase.
DeleteThe fragments of glass were certainly clean or there'd have been no reason to ask whether the window had ever been repaired. That question was asked of them on two separate occasions, roughly a year apart. They weren't charged on that basis because obviously the investigators were confused. "Why would John tell a story like that if his intention were to stage a breakin?" Also, John's version confirmed the police's finding that no one had passed through that window on the night of the crime. Classic misdirection. That, plus sheer incompetence, which we see over and over again in the investigation of this crime.
Further, it's Doc's point that the window created some sort of "alibi" for John, and had he not cleaned up the broken glass he and Patsy would have been arrested on the spot, which I don't see at all. Better he should have taken two more seconds and pushed the suitcase aside, if he was intent on unstaging, or left the broken glass and the suitcase and hoped that in conjunction with the RN that would indeed suggest an intruder.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think the suitcase was doing there, CC? Do you really believe "the intruder" placed it there?
DeleteAnd there was no way leaving the broken glass would have worked as staging, since the thick layer of dust and grime on the window sill was undisturbed. What we see is clear evidence of a staging attempt that was either botched or incomplete. I see no other possible explanation when we consider ALL the evidence.
Under the circumstances, John had no choice but to explain it away as best he could.
Or, the window was broken that night for reasons John felt was absolutely necessary to fabricate a story where the window had actually been broken months earlier. Reasons we may not have ever considered. Then, four months later when he realized the broken window may lend credence to an intruder theory, he was a little less sure about the details surrounding it...."maybe" he latched it. "Maybe" he broke it last summer. "Maybe" it was fixed, "maybe" it wasn't. While I don't dismiss it, I'm not sold on the staging/unstaging theory, Doc, and I don't buy John's account of having broken the window the previous year because he forgot his keys. But I don't have a theory myself, I just wonder if the break may have occurred during/before/after the murder, and was somehow integral to the events, hence why John cleaned up the glass and offered LE a preposterous story as to why it was broken.
DeleteIn fact, now that I think about it, Doc's window unstaging after the 911 call is flat-out impossible:
ReplyDeleteJohn was standing near Patsy and the spiral staircase in his briefs when she called 911, and was standing, fully dressed, in the hallway behind Patsy when Officer French arrived five minutes later. No time to rush down to the basement, pulverize and flush glass, rush to the third floor to dress and be standing cool and composed behind his wife to greet first responders.
In addition, wasn't it the basement toilet that was unflushed, and the contents taken as evidence, or is that urban legend? Had John flushed the glass, the toilet bowl would, presumably, hold only clear water.
Yup, according to the 12/27/96 search warrant return, the contents of the basement toilet and one other was collected as evidence.
DeleteI'm not being mindlessly critical here, Doc. I see the window and subsequent gaslighting as the weakest points in your theory, and I'm looking to shore them up.
Thanks but no thanks, CC. John's story is probably the strongest piece of evidence against him. As far as the timing is concerned, the scene was confused and confusing both before and after the police arrived. And there is no one fully "certified" timeline -- they all differ from one another. John would certainly have had an opportunity to rush down into the basement either just after the 911 call or shortly after the arrival of the police.
DeleteFleet was one of the first guests down there, and he reported that the window was closed. So if it were originally open, as John claimed, and John then closed it, he'd have had to be down there prior to Fleet. Cleaning up the small amount of glass from that small hole in the window pane could have taken little more than a minute or two.
And I have no idea what your point is regarding the toilet. It's contents were collected after the body was found -- probably well after. John would have had plenty of opportunities to flush the glass prior to that time, most likely when he went AWOL on Arndt.
Nope, he couldn't have both run down to the basement to clean up AND run to the third floor to dress in only five minutes. He had no way of knowing the BPD would not search the entire house immediately and find the broken glass, or that they'd be such bumblers he'd have an hour to wander about.
DeleteNow you're cherry picking: you assume John is lying about the window break, but assume he's telling the truth about closing the window because it supports your notion that John was down there after the 911 call but before FW.
My point regarding the toilet contents being collected as evidence is that someone, I've heard Burke suggested most often, used it and did not flush. Clearly flushing the ground up glass would have also flushed the "evidence" left by Burke, but that was not the case - there was something there, and it was collected.
DeleteYou're assuming no one could have used that toilet after John flushed the glass? If a bunch of glass had just been flushed, then the toilet may not have flushed completely after that. Anyone who'd been down there that morning could have produced those "contents."
DeleteSeems to me you've been reduced to nit picking, CC. We have no way of knowing for sure how long it took the police to arrive. Could have been 3 minutes, could have been 10 minutes. Also we have no way of knowing how closely the police were keeping tabs on John after they arrived. There would certainly have been many distractions, as both guests and counselors were arriving and the place would have been pandemonium. Yes, John might not have been sure if his activities in the basement might be interrupted, but as I see it, he had to take that chance. As I said, bagging that small amout of glass would have take one or two minutes, and he could have done the crushing and flushing at a later time, when Arndt had lost sight of him. He or someone else could then have used the toilet and it may well have backed up.
The bottom line is that a careful examination of John's window story makes it clear that it's a blatant fabrication. And whether or not Patsy intentionally lied to support his story wouldn't matter in a court of law because a spouse's testimony isn't much of an alibi, as I'm sure you are aware. That plus the strong denial of Linda, who Patsy specifically mentioned, would have sunk him even if the rest of his story were credible, which it isn't. Linda is actually the ONLY fully independent eye witness in this case.
And as I've said many times, the police tended to overlook the many inconsistencies in John's stories because he was off their radar once he'd been "ruled out." See Kolar's book for confirmation on that, since he never even considers the possibility that John could have killed his daughter. Neither does STeve Thomas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOfficers French and Vietch stated they were on the scene in five minutes.
DeleteCC,
ReplyDeleteMy take on the window is that either way, JR has it covered. If it's determined that the break was an old one(am sure it was tested)then JR's story about having forgotten his key works.
If the break is a new one, then his theory of an intruder entering to kidnap and kill his daughter works too.
It's difficult to believe that the R's would not have fixed a broken window which allows easy access into their home when they had workers on premises who could've fixed it the very next day I am sure.
It's also hard to believe that PR didn't remember sweeping up broken glass with the housekeeper. As I said earlier I don't see PR doing anything in the way of housework. She would just assume that the hired help would do those things. She was walking out of her house the day after Christmas with crap all over the kitchen counters, assuming LH was coming the next day to clean up.
I also don't believe she was gaslighted. As I said in an earlier post, JR wasn't the only narcissist in that family. While I do agree that JR ruled the roost, PR was passive aggressive and knew how to work it to her advantage.
EG
"If the break is a new one, then his theory of an intruder entering to kidnap and kill his daughter works too."
DeleteNot at all. The investigators agreed that no one passed through that window. The lack of any displacement of dirt and dust on the window sill made that crystal clear. Also for that break to work as an real intruder breakin, all the broken glass would need to still be seen on the floor. But that was not the case.
Sorry to keep repeating the obvious, but in order to understand this rather complicated case you need to consider ALL the evidence, not just what suits your favorite theory of the moment.
Lots of back and forth on the window. There is evidence in photos and video of a mark on the wall that could be a scuff mark from a shoe.
DeleteOf course, it might be difficult to determine how fresh the mark was.
I doubt that any of the females in the Ramsey family would attempt to enter thru that window for any reason. That does seem more of a male action, whether it be JAR, Burke, John, a friend of Burke's..,but CC is correct, John has admitted to entering his house that way. His wife told investigators she remembers her husband telling her he entered that way, and his youngest son stated he was present at a time son and dad were locked out.
I would think if a fresh break, leaving the glass would've been a wiser decision to direct attention to a break in. However, I can see the need to remove some pieces only if evidence was left on them, clothing threads, blood, hair, prints.
DocG - EG stated it was John's theory about the window. And an investigator DID push that very theory as well, Smit. And later, the team hired by Ramsey attorneys.
DeleteWhile I don't believe it and most others don't either, John does not possess supernatural powers to have known in advance that BPD would determine no one passed through the window that night/morning.
Just a thought. By the time both J and P sat down for their first police interview they would have had their stories coordinated and nailed down.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have considered ALL the evidence and a JDI theory (John all by himself) is simply ludicrous
ReplyDeleteOh Zed, prepare to be lashed by DocG and a few others, but you know that already, lol. Brave soul.
DeleteI have enjoyed reading CC'S thoughts. Sometimes she stays in the shadows but tonight's posts showed me she does know a lot about the case besides the legal angle and did make valid points even though Doc wasn't budging on his stance.
The other day I looked at some of the other blogs of Doc's and I was out of my element with the music theory, film, poetry ones.
It seems some on this site believe Ramsey broke in that window in the train room on more than one occasion. Is it not notable that NO contractor has ever stepped forward and said "I repaired that window for the Ramseys?" The only explanation for that would be that it stayed unrepaired from the first time onward. If that is true, then there was no need to break the window after the first time. Did Ramsey (with Burke's corroboration) not state he had broken in that window before the previous summer on at least one occasion? If so, where is the contractor who fixed it at least once? If, alternatively, it was purposefully left unrepaired because it was a "go to" place to get in the house when keys were misplaced, then why say "I don't recall if it was repaired?" The whole window story is damning. Dr. Phil allowed it to go unanswered and be glossed over in his show last fall. What was Smit's view on where the broken glass went to if the intruder came through there? Would the intruder take the broken glass with him? He left a big piece on the window sill outside the pane if so. Nonsense all around.
ReplyDelete