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.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 4

Before continuing with my analysis of Patsy's role in all this, I want to add one more bit of evidence to the long list offered in my previous posts. Not sure why I failed to mention it before -- it's important because it involves hard evidence rather than logical inference. The broken window glass was examined by forensic experts, but their conclusions have never been made public. When James Kolar was asked about this in his Reddit AMA, he replied that, to his knowledge, "there is no method to determine when the window was broken." He adds the following: "My examination of the video and 35 mm photos strongly suggested no recent entry had been made through that location."


Here's what I wrote about Kolars's response in my book (second edition only):
Finally, after all these years, we have an explanation – of sorts – for why the investigators were willing to buy John’s story. As I originally suspected, the evidence must have confused them. If the edges of the broken glass had been lined with a layer of accumulated dust or grime, then that certainly would have enabled them to determine without question that the window had been broken months earlier. So when Kolar asserts “there is no method to determine when the window was broken,” he is indirectly informing us that no such evidence was found – from which we can infer that the edges must have been clean.
This would be consistent with the fact that both John and Patsy were interviewed at length regarding John's break-in story, and repeatedly asked whether the window had ever been repaired. There would have been no reason to question them on this topic if the edges had been encrusted with dirt and dust, indicating an old break. When Kolar mentions that his examination of the photographic evidence "strongly suggested no recent entry had been made," this gives us a clue as to why the investigators were so willing to accept John's story. Because it gibed with their own conviction that no one had recently passed through that window. The bits of spider web visible on the video might also have played a role, as cobwebs can easily be seen as a sign of age. But spiders never weave bits and pieces of their webs, they weave them whole. It looks like the investigators wanted to believe John's story because it appeared to explain the condition of the window on the morning of the 26th, and they couldn't understand why, if the scene had been staged, John would have wanted to undercut his own staging by providing an innocent explanation of that broken window. It never seems to have occurred to them that what they observed that morning was the product of a botched staging, and that John's story was the equivalent of an alibi.

What this boils down to is the presence of some bits of broken glass presumably still sitting in an evidence bin somewhere -- protected, one would assume, by an airtight plastic container. If push ever comes to shove in this case, then that glass will, hopefully, be available as hard evidence of John's big lie. I feel sure that, if these shards have been properly preserved, those edges will turn out to be as clean as they were on the night the window was broken. Seen in the context of the scenario I've presented, the meaning of this evidence will be as clear as those edges.

Oh, and if anyone might want to argue that the edges were clean because the window had been repaired, then John's whole story would be totally irrelevant, it would be obvious that the window had been broken on the night of the crime, and the evidence that no one passed through that window would be seen for what it clearly implied: staging.
------------------------------------------------------

OK, now, finally we are ready to examine what, for me, is the most puzzling aspect of the entire case: Patsy's support of John's preposterous story by claiming that she herself cleaned up the broken glass. Since we have no reason to believe John, we have no reason to believe Patsy. Looks like she is clearly lying to support his version of what happened. And this presents a problem for me, since, as I've stressed so often both in this blog and in my book, I'm convinced, for reasons already amply provided in so many of these blog posts, that Patsy could have played no conscious role in either the murder of her daughter or the subsequent coverup.

Let's review:
PR: . . . when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .
TT: Uh huh 
PR: Uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass. 
TT: Okay. 
PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. I mean I picked up every chunk, I mean, because the kids played down there in that back area back there. 
TT: Um hum. 
PR: And I mean I scoured that place when, cause they were always down there. Burke particularly and the boys would go down there and play with cars and things and uh, there was just a ton of glass everywhere. 
TT: Okay. 
PR: And I cleaned all that up and then she, she vacuumed a couple of times down there. 
TT: To get all the glass. 
PR: In the fall yeah cause it was just little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.
It sounds as though Patsy is uncomfortable with this little vignette, providing too many details, trying too hard to convince. And as I've already noted, there could not have been "a ton of glass everywhere" -- it was a partial hole covering roughly half of a small pane in an already small window. Also, she mentions that the "kids played down there," which seems unlikely. Judging from the video released some years ago by James Kolar, that area was a total mess, with all sorts of junk strewn around on the floor. John made the same point when describing how he gingerly let himself down onto that messy floor after breaking in. Not a likely setting for childhood play. Looks to me like Patsy is confusing this area with the train room.

Later, during her 1998 interview, Patsy also says something strange:
TRIP DEMUTH: [Pointing to a photo] What about this mark on the wall?PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, gosh, I don't know if I was in there. I think I would have noticed that because I had all that painted. 
Demuth is pointing to the smudge located just beneath the broken window. And Patsy says "I don't know if I was in there." She's been describing how she cleaned up all the glass on the floor just under that wall, and she's not sure if she was ever there? Clearly she is confused.

The strangest part of this testimony is her inclusion of the housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann Pugh, in the cleanup procedure: "PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum." She includes Linda in her 1998 interview as well. And as we know, Linda denied any knowledge of any broken window and accused Patsy of lying.

Was she actually lying? Does her description of what happened really come across as a lie? If this were an out and out lie, contrived in collaboration with her husband, it seems to me that they'd have taken pains to get her story straight. Why exaggerate? Why invoke "a ton of glass everywhere" when only a small amount would have been involved? Why claim this was an area where the children regularly played if she knew from having cleaned up in there how messy that floor was? Why would she let herself wonder aloud whether she was in the area where the breakin, and subsequent cleanup, actually took place? ("I don't know if I was in there.") And if she and John were collaborating to spin a phony tale about an earlier breakin that never happened, why oh why would she be so foolish as to include Linda in her story, knowing full well that if it never happened Linda would deny it?

My first reaction was that John must have manipulated her into lying about this incident, just as he manipulated her into lying about whose idea it was to call 911. On second thought, however, I realized that, if she were lying, she would not have included Linda in her lie. Nor would she have been so obviously confused about the amount of glass, the area where the children played, etc. Then, at one point in our online discussion, an anonymous commenter suggested something called "gaslighting," a term I had never heard before. According to a recent article in Psychology Today,
Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. It is done slowly, so the victim doesn't realize how much they've been brainwashed.
The more I learned about gaslighting the more it made sense as an explanation of Patsy's confused support of John's window story -- and possibly some other aspects of the case as well, where she appears confused and "can't recall" certain details. And it would also explain why John refused to permit her to be separately interviewed by the police in the early days of the investigation, before he'd have time to work on her.

But certain people commenting here have been bothered by the term "gaslighting," which seems a bit too esoteric and unlikely a recourse for John to have used. Was the suggestion of gaslighting an act of desperation on my part, to "make the evidence fit the theory"?

In response, I will argue that "gaslighting" may be too extreme a measure to apply in this case. What we are really talking about is not an attempt to somehow hypnotize someone into doubting his or her own senses, but the subtle manipulation of an already vulnerable and dependent person into accepting the possibility that there may be gaps in his or her memory. Recall that Patsy had undergone very intensive chemotherapy over a long period, a process known to produce a condition called chemo brain. According to this article from the American Cancer Society, one of the symptoms of chemo brain is "Forgetting things that they usually have no trouble recalling (memory lapses)." Another is "Trouble remembering details like names, dates, and sometimes larger events." Also,
For most people, brain effects happen quickly and only last a short time. Others have long-term mental changes. Usually the changes that patients notice are very subtle, and others around them might not even notice any changes at all. Still, the people who are having problems are well aware of the differences in their thinking.
We must add to the effects of "chemo brain" the effects of the heavy medications Patsy had been taking during this entire period to help her deal with the shock of her daughter's brutal murder. Under these circumstances, it would not, as I see it, have been difficult for John to convince Patsy that, thanks to her "chemo brain" and heavy medications, she had forgotten all about his window breakin and her subsequent cleanup of the glass, and to supply her with just enough information to fill in the gaps in her memory. And he might well have reminded her of how important her testimony would be, since she was the only "eye witness" who could corroborate his story. She might well have been skeptical at first, but given the "fact" that John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, any suspicions of his involvement in her daughter's death would have been allayed. Since she didn't write that note and he could not have written it, it could only have been written by "the intruder," meaning that, in her eyes, John had to be innocent.

Over time, as John continually reminded her of what she had "forgotten," it would not have been difficult for him to gradually implant this memory in her mind until she was sure it actually happened. You can call it "gaslighting" if you prefer, or you can call it manipulation, but the phenomenon of false memory is not at all uncommon and has been long accepted by psychologists. While without question John would not have wanted to include Linda in the memory he'd been implanting, it makes sense that Patsy would, in her own mind, have made her a part of the cleanup process, since that's the sort of thing she always did around the house.

Of course, this is all pure speculation. There is no solid evidence to back it up. But as I see it, the implantation of a false memory is the only explanation of Patsy's involvement in this deception that makes sense. If we pull back to consider the case as a whole, there are just too many reasons to exclude Patsy from any conscious role in either the crime or the coverup, so the notion that she could have deliberately lied to support a story she knew to be fictitious strikes me as, literally, inconceivable.

130 comments:

  1. Thanks Doc. Your analysis makes sense to be. I read a little about gaslighting today and was surprised to learn how common it is, and also to learn that anyone can be a victim. I was also thinking about the things that make us most vulnerable in life such as loss of a loved one, home, normal routines, safety, trust(so many issues that Patsy was dealing with all at once). She would certainly be susceptible to manipulation of that type.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  2. Barbara Walters: It was reported also Mr Ramsey that shortly after you found your daughters body that you called the pilot of your plane to arrange a flight to Atlanta is that true?John Ramsey: "I did , we had to um....to leave the house within minutes of that happening the police the police took the house over we had Nowhere to go Atlanta was our home uh...we lived in Atlanta 25 yrs , it was our home , that's where our family was, we wanted to go home" ...///unquote.
    There you have it , I have already analyze it , here is a millionaire and they had nowhere to go? and on and on...again recently in an interview/ John Ramsey: I don't know now I don't dwell on it ,its not critical to my future , when asked about JonBenet..... "don't dwell on it" how cold, but a P***K has no conscience so what do we expect..... I remember hearing JR say he really liked Boulder a safe place to raise kids ? how long have they resided in Boulder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, I'd want to know what question he is answering - what exactly does he "not dwell on"?

      Why? It is widely reported online among those who blame the McCanns for the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, that at one stage Gerry McCann, her father, stated to an interviewer that the feeling he had when he found out she had been abducted, perhaps never to be seen again, was 'like the feeling when you're a student and you're overdrawn at the bank' (I'm paraphrasing from memory but it was pretty close to that). Now in fact if you read a transcript of the interview he did indeed say that, but to an altogether different question: he was being asked how he found the strength and the willpower to go on fighting day after day for so long. The quote was accurately reported, but tacked onto a question to which it was not the answer, in order to damage him.

      (Not that I think THAT fake intruder / abduction scenario was any more true than the Ramsey concoction, but we should demand honesty from ourselves, even where killers are concerned.)

      Delete
    2. I believe it was with (People) magazine he said "I would like to know" "told People" of his daughters mysterious death, check it out!!and that he doesn't dwell on it , its not critical to my future" I don't know what he meant by that statement ?

      Delete
    3. MHN - thanks for that last mention of demanding honesty even where killers are concerned.

      Many things just aren't a known fact. And when it gets mentioned here about John's travels overseas, some make the leap that he had to be indulging in the sex trade as that city was "known" for that. Just because a person has a history of cheating, doesn't mean they would hire a prostitute (adult or minor) or stop at every Boobie Bungalow along the highway.

      Delete
  3. Is it possible Burke or John accidently hit Jonbenet too hard and John knew an autopsy would be performed and they would trace the sexual abuse to him that he staged the crime?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possible? Sure. It has the added advantage of explaining almost none of the facts in this case and of making no sense whatsoever.

      Delete
  4. Here's a thought...

    If PR was totally innocent, and knew that she had cleaned up that glass with Linda behind her with the vacuum, etc, even asking Linda to go over it a couple of times to ensure all the glass was picked up...wouldn't PR then suspect Linda, because she lied about not cleaning up any glass.

    I would've said to her..."what do you mean you don't remember cleaning up that glass with me?!" You know damn well we both picked up that glass. Does anyone know if PR ever confronted Linda about lying?

    Or does EVERYONE in Boulder have selective amnesia?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy named Linda as a possible suspect from the start. And when Linda heard about it she was furious. I doubt that either one was interested in confronting the other. From what we've learned about Patsy she seemed content to let the police and the detectives they hired do the investigating.

      Delete
    2. EG, I think everyone that the Ramseys named as possible suspects John and Patsy stopped all contact with shortly thereafter. It's been reported that any friend or acquaintance that spoke to/cooperated with the police were also shunned by the Ramseys.
      I can understand LHP's anger if Patsy was bearing false witness against her.

      Delete
  5. There were shards of broken glass from the window frame that clearly had grime or dirt on the edges but Doc refuses to see it.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The official crime scene video.

      Hercule

      Delete
    2. Hercule, I to have seen that video and clearly there is no way to determine the condition of those edges from that source. What you think you see is probably a shadow. If the forensic experts examined those shards and were unable to determine whether or not the break was old, then obviously what you think you see in that video is not there.

      Delete
    3. You can post the photo that I sent you for those who have not seen it.

      Hercule

      Delete
    4. I've already posted a link to the entire video, Hercule. That should be sufficient.

      The bottom line is that, according to Kolar, who should know, "there is no method to determine when the window was broken." The forensics people were in a position to carefully examine that glass first-hand, with a microscope if need be, and if they had seen an accumulation of dirt and/or dust on the edges of the window glass, that would have told them in no uncertain terms that the break was old.

      Also there would have been no reason to question both Patsy and John, on two occasions one year apart, as to whether the window had ever been repaired. Obviously if the forensics people saw what you think you see, there would have been no need to ask such a question. Or to question John at length about his break-in story.

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

      Delete
    6. If the window had not been cleaned recently then the break could be fresh and the shards still be dirty.

      Delete
    7. I don't think the video/photo is clear enough to say for sure one way or the other, but I think Doc gives the investigators too much credit. Even if the forensics people were in a position to carefully examine the dust and dirt on the glass, that doesn't mean they actually did. Also, some dirt could certainly have blown onto the glass from the window well during the night.

      Delete
  6. I follow several cases involving what I believe to be faked intruder scenarios.

    Knox and Sollecito went to great lengths to stage an improbable break-in in Perugia. Kate and Gerry McCann claimed an intruder had opened the shutters and entered through the window to abduct their daughter Madeleine on holiday in Portugal, and when this was shown to be all but impossible they began claiming that they were in the extraordinary habit of leaving three toddlers (and their belongings) unattended in their vacation apartment with the french windows unlocked, for several hours every night, while they wined and dined at a restaurant with no clear view of the apartment. Unbelieveable, but those were the lengths they *had* to go to in order to have the required intruder enter the apartment.

    And then the odd one out. The curious case of the fake kidnapping in Boulder. A ransom note but no kidnapping. The body concealed within the house, in the basement. And no possible point of entry anywhere, except.... except a broken window, in that same basement. This is where the true crime buff expects the father to rush to the police shouting about having found the point of entry, the broken window. But no.... In this most frustrating case the father "finds" it but keeps quiet. And when it is finally noticed he paints the most absurd picture, bends over backwards, tells the most risible story ever, in an effort to disqualify it, this single possible point of entry.

    I need more time to think about Patsy's role in this lie about the window, but for now.... it's amazing. Doc, you're asking us to believe that the man got away with murder despite coming up with a plan that literally fell to pieces at every stage! He wrote a long ransom note to silence his wife and buy himself time. But she *immediately* ignored the warnings and called 911. The police came. He hid the body and waited for someone else to discover it. Nobody did, and the cops wouldn't leave, so he found it himself. He broke a window to fake a point of entry, then when he realised it was incomplete and not going to convince anyone, he had to invent an even stupider story about stripping off in the garden and breaking it himself months earlier when he had forgotten his keys. He was so incompetent he was basically forced into the position of inventing lies to disqualify the only possible point of entry for the intruder he had invented. He put *himself* in the position of inadvertently having to prove to cops it was an inside job.

    All of this stems, as Doc surmises, from that pesky 911 call. So my question remains the same as it has been for months: if Patsy was weak, pliable, chemo-addled, and suggestible, as Doc implies, then WHY, given the lengths he had gone to in the RN, was JR not able to forcibly prevent her from making the call that ruined everything?

    She has never so much as hinted that there was any disagreement. She's never said, "John was worried that if I called 911 we might be putting JB's life at risk, he told me to calm down and think clearly, told me to wait, told me he'd make the call himself..." Nothing like that. Conflicting casual accounts of whose idea it was to make the call don't quite cut it for me, Doc, I must say.

    Your theory is fantastically logical, and explains more than any other I've read. But with this window story, and the story of the 911 call, Patsy is still the fly in the ointment.

    She doesn't merely give a bare-bones corroboration, she embellishes. Why?

    How could John have persuaded her of the importance of her corrobration without explaining to her that without it, it looked like a staged crime scene and therefore an inside job? If he has to explain that to her, and asks her to remember things that she really didn't, surely her radar will start to detect something? Surely then some suspicions must arise in her mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your skepticism. But this case took some truly incredible turns that made it all but impossible for the authorities to puzzle out. One was the decision to rule John out, which turned all the attention onto Patsy and left him practically invulnerable no matter how many mistakes he made. Another was Patsy's phone call, which clearly caught John by surprise, and prompted him to undo the incomplete staging he'd so carefully prepared. There was no way he could have prevented her from making that call. And the two versions of what happened prior to that call were totally different, not simply "casual."

      If any suspicions arose in Patsy's mind she'd have been in too vulnerable a position to report them to the authorities since, after all, John had been "ruled out" and she had not. Why would they believe her and not him?

      The various twists and turns have made this case especially difficult to puzzle out, no question. But I do think I've been on the right track.

      Delete
    2. In regards to the chemo brain-
      I thought it had been about 2 years that she was in remission or "healed" per Patsy so no heavy cancer drugs at the time, but I may be wrong on that. One thing is certain, she had been surgically thrown into menopause, and while I don't believe that causes false memories or a preponderance to lie, it can affect memory, such as forgetfulness.
      Not sure if she was already on antidepressants anti anxiety meds due to dealing with her cancer as well as the step daughter's death.
      What is known is she held it together well enough post treatment to volunteer at the school and be active in the pageant scene and travel.

      Delete
    3. http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TOJLEA3QPR9HFHHK9
      This is for Zed or J if they care to read it, or possibly have already. Not about the window, but the "discovery" of the ransom note. The discussion on the first page is thankfully free of the usual topix trolls. I know JDI's have their own explanation for how/why so don't think that has to be re-posted. This is for those open to the idea of some involvement of Patsy. Doesn't have to be re-discussed either.

      Delete
    4. There's no evidence that Patsy's phone call caught John by surprise, or that he ever undid anything in the basement.

      As for the decision made to rule John out, I don't have much confidence in the validity of handwriting identification to begin with. See for example:

      http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3835&context=penn_law_review

      But even so, has any certified document examiner ever actually *identified* John as the writer of the ransom note?

      Delete
    5. John, there was crime photo/video evidence that some items had been moved during that day, and JR was asked about that. Arndt couldn't account for a passage of John's time, but some guests and John give accounts for that.

      Delete
    6. ". . . has any certified document examiner ever actually *identified* John as the writer of the ransom note?"

      Fausto Brugnatelli, an Italian document examiner identified several close matches between John's writing and the note, though he never claimed any of that was proof. See his website at http://www.examina.net/en/ramseyit.htm

      Delete
  7. Doc, don't get me wrong - I think you're on the right track too. I'd go so far as to say that the Patsy elements are the only thing preventing me from saying case closed (to my own satisfaction anyway).

    When I said 'casual' I was referring to the tone of those recollections regarding the idea for the 911 call. Though the stories do differ, there is no weight, no heaviness, nothing evidently contrived or embellished. There is certainly no indication that any prolonged discussion had taken place, or even a single attempt by John to persuade Patsy to think twice before calling. The two accounts may be different, but what they have in common is that none of the above is even hinted at. And I don't think we can discount that, there has to be a limit; we can't suppose Patsy innocent and yet have her constantly inventing this or suppressing that at John's behest without imagining that alarm bells would've been cumulatively ringing.

    Which just puzzles the hell out of me. Because I think John did it and Patsy didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHN, we simply don't have any way of knowing what went on prior to the 911 call. Patsy may have come to a decision immediately after reading the first few lines or paragraphs, totally faking John out. Or there might have been a prolonged discussion or even argument about whether or not to call the police.

      What we DO have is a very clear statement from Patsy, telling us that the 911 call was her idea and that, after informing John that she was going to call the police, she ran downstairs to make the call while John was, she thought, checking on Burke.

      That is totally different from the story she tells in their book, where he is on the kitchen floor beside her and tells her to call the police. Which she then does using the phone right next to her.

      I see no reason to believe that either version tells the whole story. What it DOES tell us is that there is no reason to assume John told her to make the call.

      And as far as I'm concerned, her version as presented in the A&E documentary, is more believable, because it's consistent with the logic I outlined in my second blog post. If they were in it together the call would not have been made. And since Patsy made the call, it tells us 1. that she must have been innocent, and 2. that this must have been her decision, not his.

      We know, of course, that they presented a mutual defense and that their lawyers were obviously working as a team, so it's extremely unlikely that she'd have testified regarding any serious disagreement between them. Thus I have no problem assuming that both versions might well omit several meaningful details.

      We'll never know the whole truth, that's for sure.

      As far as Patsy "inventing this or suppressing that," I'm sorry but I don't see it. There are only two places where she is clearly deceptive and in both cases it's in support of John's version of what happened. It's not much of a stretch to presume that he was manipulating her.

      Delete
    2. It is quite the inconsistency, isn't it? They are two very different versions.

      And you mention lawyers. Of course, the lawyers. I sometimes forget, John wouldn't have been coaching Patsy in a vacuum. If John tells her, "you need to corroborate my story here" she might have suspicions, sure. But if her lawyer tells her they need a consistent story, she goes with it, I see that. The lawyers angle changes everything.

      Delete
    3. I went back and read the transcript of their first interview on CNN on Jan. 1, 1997. I figured John would want to get out his preferred version of the events right then and there, and yes, at first opportunity clearly states he directed Patsy to call the police. He got that out for the record as early as he possibly could. I think those earliest interviews give very interesting clues as to how he planned to protect himself. He also states he wanted to know 'why (rather than who) killed Jonbenet. And this was less than 1 week after the murder. Get that focus off himself he's thinking.

      Delete
    4. Another thing in that initial interview. Patsy says she only read the first couple lines. John says he read the entire letter. Why in the world didn't he call 911 then? He had all the pertinent information--she didn't Just amazing.

      Delete
    5. Yes, the fact that he "let" her make the call instead of making it himself is telling. If he'd read those threats and had any degree of responsibility, he would not have allowed his hysterical wife to deal with the authorities. Making sure uniformed police didn't arrive at the scene was vital, let John made no attempt to interfere with Patsy's call, or call back reminding them of the circumstances, and also reminding them to call the FBI. This was the CEO of a billion dollar company and he didn't know enough to take charge in such crucial circumstances?

      Delete
    6. The fact that John made no attempt to interfere with Patsy's call is a sign that he had no plan that depended on her *not* calling 911.

      Delete
    7. "If John tells her, "you need to corroborate my story here" she might have suspicions, sure. But if her lawyer tells her they need a consistent story, she goes with it, I see that."

      This is inconsistent with a completely innocent Patsy. At the very least it means she's willingly helping with a cover-up.

      Delete
    8. "The fact that John made no attempt to interfere with Patsy's call is a sign that he had no plan that depended on her *not* calling 911."

      No, it's a sign that he was in shock after realizing that his carefully worked out plan was going down the drain. The last thing he'd have wanted at that point would be for the FBI to get involved.

      And implanted memories are not as rare as you might think. From Psychology Today:

      ". . . strong evidence exists that suggests our memories are highly complex, malleable, and extremely falliable. Through effective suggestion, we can be made to remember things that never happened, or in less extreme cases, change the details of things that really did happen." https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/false-memories



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

      Delete
    10. Not much of a carefully worked out plan to do a partial staging that wouldn't fool anybody and then allow Patsy to so easily completely ruin the plan. Then hope that he can later manipulate her into false memories.

      I agree that memories are malleable, and extremely fallable though. That's why I think everybody puts way too much significance on the details of stories changing over time. It's not necessarily a sign of deception.

      Delete
  8. Doc, it occurs to me that maybe we're reading more into Patsy's statement than she meant. (Unless there are other more detailed accounts somewhere else?) She states that she picked up all the glass and then had Linda vacuum the area. Maybe she never meant to imply that they were working together at the same time. Maybe she simply meant that after she picked up the glass she asked Linda to vacuum the craft room area in the basement. She may have meant that she mentioned it a day or two later to Linda. This would explain how she came to give what we thought was a made up story that INCLUDED Linda on the scene. I believe that your theory is the only one that makes sense and I admire how clearly you're able to explain it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree MissB. It could be as well that Patsy was shown John's statement by their attorneys as to what John said regarding the broken window, she could then corroborate it. That she embellished on it is, to me, all on her. Linda could have been required to vacuum the play area in the basement at some point so that Patsy could bring her in to the narrative as you said. I think though, like MsD, I need to take a break. It's starting to wear.

      Delete
    2. Here's what Patsy said:

      "PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."

      Going behind her clearly implies that both were present at the same time. If she were consciously lying she'd have known better than to involve Linda at all, under any circumstances.

      Delete
    3. "PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."

      "Going behind her clearly implies that both were present at the same time." ---Doc

      Does it?

      "Oh, gosh, I don't know if I was in THERE. I think I would have noticed that because I had all that painted."

      PR: Uh, (I) went down THERE and cleaned up all the glass....because the kids played down THERE in that back area BACK THERE."

      Doc:

      It sounds to me like Patsy was confusing two real events, not regurgitating one false implanted memory. If the train room window was broken, John could have used that as the basis to toy with, manipulate, and ultimately alter Patsy's memory of cleaning up glass, down THERE, in the basement.

      Given the family's propensity to break windows, it's does seem strange no actual repairs have ever been corroborated.
      There must be receipts or cancelled checks. Why are all these important "facts" regarding broken windows being kept from the public?

      Mike G







      Delete
  9. If they were both innocent, they wouldn't need to have consistent stories, they'd only need the truth.

    And if JR asked PR to back him up and corroborate his story, and she was innocent, she'd ask him why the hell she needed to do that.

    EG



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why he didn't dare permit her to be questioned by the authorities until he (and his lawyer) had time to work on her.

      Delete
    2. So they "worked on her" to lie on John's behalf, and she went along with it....why?

      Delete
    3. You have a tendency to read very selectively, John. I never said she "went along with it." I said she was manipulated into believing a false memory.

      Delete
  10. "I've already posted a link to the entire video, Hercule. That should be sufficient."

    I disagree. The evidence I am referring to is easy to miss unless you are looking for it. Why not share the photo? Perhaps you do not want everyone to see? By the way, the dust/grime/dirt on the shard of glass could not possibly be a shadow. I have never seen a grayish white shadow before.

    "The forensics people were in a position to carefully examine that glass first-hand, with a microscope if need be, and if they had seen an accumulation of dirt and/or dust on the edges of the window glass, that would have told them in no uncertain terms that the break was old."

    You are confused, Doc. Kolar was speaking in scientific terms. There is no official scientific test that can be conducted that will give them anything specific on when the window was broken. That does not mean that someone could not apply common sense to see that the window was broken previously. That's why investigators concluded that John's story was true. It was easy to see that the break was old, but as Kolar said, there was no scientific method to determine how far back the break occurred. I think you have read too much into Kolar's statement so that it would fit your theory.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is getting tedious, Hercule. I have no idea what photo you're referring to. If you have something to share, then post the link here. And please explain why you think you know more about forensics than the scientists.

      Delete
    2. Really? You can tell from the edge of a broken piece of glass whether it's a dirty break or a clean one? Now the shards, that's a different matter. But even if the shards were dirty, that just means the window had not been cleaned in a while. John could just have easily broken a dirty window that night as he could have broken a dirty window three months prior. If, however, Patsy says that window had been cleaned recently then that's a different matter, and "shard analysis" would have been beneficial.

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

      Delete
    4. Forget the shards on the floor, Inq; We're talking about the EDGES of the broken glass remaining in the frame. Had the break been there for months and the edges exposed to the elements, they would have been dirty. Had it occurred only hours before, they would have been clean.

      Delete
    5. I must apologize to Hercule. He recently sent me the photo he's referred to via email, but I don't check that email server on a regular basis, so I missed it. In any case, it can now be found, I hope, at the following link:

      https://attachment.outlook.office.net/owa/doktorgosh@live.com/service.svc/s/GetFileAttachment?id=AQMkADAwATNiZmYAZC04ZjdiLWI0ZTEtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADeki%2FjiUPIku9F0mGq3%2B1hAcAN5M9zhuh30KBsSsXE4KPZgAAAgEMAAAAN5M9zhuh30KBsSsXE4KPZgABhH4gEgAAAAESABAAnKS5MLw9kkKExXoXBWGHkw%3D%3D&X-OWA-CANARY=dDu2UfjVQEqgPVQftwo2VxCxm8h5dNQY-zVmGC9ioTHS3acatf_sxy85_0v5tk67X3MECGMPOcc.&token=a9cd19be-ba23-4c90-a042-e2460489e4a6&owa=outlook.live.com&isc=1&isImagePreview=True

      And yes, Hercule, I can see what you're referring to. But studying a photo of this kind is not really a meaningful way to make the assessment you are claiming to make. What I see on the edge of that glass is either a shadow or a reflection of a dark surface elsewhere. Only someone actually handling that glass, studying those edges under different lighting conditions and also, ideally, through a microscope, could determine whether that dark area is due to an accumulation of dust or just a shadow.

      And forgive me if I repeat myself. IF they found any sign of accumulated dust or dirt, there would be no question that the glass had been broken at some time in the past, and no reason to question John any further on that matter. But, as we learn from Kolar, that was NOT the case. And they DID question both of them at length regarding that story. Which tells us that the edges must have been clean.

      Why then didn't they conclude that the break was fresh and John was lying? Well, as I see it, they must have been confused -- because of the fact that so little glass was found on the floor; because they couldn't understand why John would have wanted to undercut his own staging; and because, as they knew, no one had passed through that window on the night of the crime. Since there is no sign that anyone involved in the investigation ever considered that John might have cleaned up the broken glass because his original plan had failed, it's not difficult to understand why it would be so difficult for them to reach a definite conclusion. Which is why they questioned both John and Patsy at such length regarding this incident.

      I'm speculating of course, because we have no way of knowing for sure why they were unable to draw the obvious conclusions from the examination of that glass. Maybe they weren't sure if dust or dirt would have accumulated over time. But if they DID find dust or dirt there would have been no question and John's story would have been accepted without any need to question him further.

      Delete
  11. Shockingly, I agree with Herc on this point, though for different reasons.

    Had the edges of the broken glass remaining in the window been clean, LE would have been all over John in his interviews rather than tamely asking him to simply repeat his break-in story, which they appeared to accept at face value rather than challenging him on its variations. Had those edges been clean the questioning would have been skeptical and much more aggressive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, CC, but you are wrong. Kolar said it all. No way to tell if it was an old break. Which is why they questioned both of them on that window at some length. And asked whether the window had been repaired. If an examination of the glass had indicated that this was an old break, then there would have been no need to question them at all regarding John's break-in story.

      You seem to forget that the rules agreed on in advance made this an "interview" rather than an "interrogation." Nothing anywhere in any of their questions was couched in the form of a challenge, because the ground rules prevented it. And also, as I thought I made clear, they actually wanted to accept John's story because it gibed with their own observations that no one had recently passed through that window.

      For some odd reason you've decided to accept John's fantastic story at face value and I can't imagine why. And in spite of all the evidence I've presented you can't let go. Sorry, but that's your problem.

      Delete
    2. You have presented no evidence whatsoever, merely your personal conclusions based on available facts and your deductive reasoning. Why should you be surprised that I, or anyone, should reach a different conclusion based on our own reasoning?

      I base mine on Patsy. She told Barbara Fernie that John broke in when locked out. She has a memory of picking up broken glass, and as I reject "gaslighting" utterly, I believe it to be a real, if foggy, memory.

      No more or less evidentiary than your conclusion, just different, and hardly a problem.

      Delete
    3. The transcripts are my evidence, CC. John's story just doesn't add up. And I'm certainly not alone in drawing that conclusion, it's hardly "personal." During my many years on the forums it became evident that almost everyone but die hard Ramsey defenders agreed that that story was phony. Though I was the only one to analyze it in any detail. To insist that it has to be true, despite all the huge holes and inconsistencies in John's story, so obvious to so many, simply because you can't accept "gaslighting" strikes me as pedantic.

      I appreciate that you too see Patsy as innocent and that you would prefer to see her testimony as consistently factual. But as you well know, it is not. Her version of what happened prior to the 911 call, as outlined in their book, is clearly a lie. Patsy was innocent, yes -- but as I've described her many times in the past: an innocent DUPE. She was certainly manipulated by John. And if you don't like "gaslighting" then fine, I'm perfectly happy with "manipulation."

      Delete
    4. The transcripts of John's LE interviews are evidence of nothing but John's ever-changing stories about the broken window and his duplicity, not of his guilt, just as Patsy's inconsistencies do not prove her complicity.

      I'm not insisting that the summer break-in must be true, merely maintaining that it may be true, and your insistence that this could only have happened one way - your way - is a logical fallacy.

      If that gibes with your definition of pedantic, I accept the mantle.

      Delete
    5. CC doesn't accept gaslighting/manipulation for a good reason. There's no evidence that John ever manipulated Patsy or anybody else in that manner, and there's no evidence that Patsy ever was manipulated in such a manner. It's just a contrived excuse for why an innocent Patsy would ever corroborate a phony story.

      Delete
    6. CC, the best response I can come up with is a quote from the venerable Horace Rumpole: "Let's let the jury decide, your honor."

      In an actual trial the question of whether or not Patsy was "gaslighted" need never come up. John would be on trial, not Patsy. And her supposed corroboration of that story would mean little since, as is well known, wives often support their husbands' alibis.

      In any case, the clincher would be the presence of the suitcase, clear evidence of staging regardless of whether the jury buys John's story.

      Delete
    7. "It's just a contrived excuse for why an innocent Patsy would ever corroborate a phony story."

      No, it's the ONLY explanation anyone has ever come up with for why Patsy would include Linda in her story if she were lying. And if she were telling the truth, Linda wouldn't have been there either, as she denies being there.

      It's not an excuse. It's an explanation.

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

      Delete
    9. It's not true that it's the ONLY explanation anyone has ever come up with. It's just the only one that you are willing to accept. People on this forum have suggested several explanations:

      - Patsy is telling the truth but mistaken about Linda's involvement
      - Patsy is telling the truth but Linda wasn't aware when she vacuumed the room that Patsy had cleaned up glass there.
      - Patsy is telling the truth, but Linda's malleable memory caused her to forget the incident
      -Linda is lying in retaliation of being called out as a possible suspect
      - Patsy is lying because she was complicit in the deception, but failed to consider the possibility of Linda being asked about it before speaking
      - etc

      Delete
    10. Ok, fine, thank you, John. Let's take these "explanations" one by one.

      -But if Patsy is telling the truth, then Linda was lying when she denied any knowledge of any broken window.

      -She said Linda followed her with the vacuum. According to this account, therefore, Linda must have been right there with her. Besides, how could Linda possibly have not been aware that a window in that house was broken -- over a period of 6 months???

      -Or maybe LINDA was gaslighted. Ever thought of that? :-)

      Even if Linda had forgotten the incident she would certainly have known about that broken window.

      -Linda reported having no knowledge of any broken window before she learned she was a suspect and while she was praising Patsy to the skies as a wonderful mother.

      -how could she not know that Linda would be asked about it? Patsy may not have been much of a sleuth but she was no fool.

      -etc. Anyone else with a theory?

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

      Delete
    12. You sure are stuck on the window having to either have been broken for 6 months or broken that night. No, I don't think it's certain at all that Linda knew about the summer broken window. Nor is it certain that Linda is telling the truth. As for Patsy being no fool, I agree. But why is it that Patsy is an addled, chemobrain, confused woman only when it suits your argument? Just because Patsy included Linda in her memory doesn't mean that she can't be willfully lying and just screwed up. You also can't just assume that either Patsy or Linda will have perfect recall of an insignificant (at the time) event that occurred 6 months earlier.

      Patsy didn't say Linda *followed* her with a vacuum, she said "I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum". Also, please cite how you know exactly when Linda said she couldn't recall a broken window.

      Delete
    13. From Perfect Murder Perfect Town:

      When the police asked if she’d seen a broken window in the basement or had ever cleaned up broken glass from a broken window, she said she couldn’t recall anything like that. That same Friday, December 27, the police fingerprinted the housekeeper’s entire family, including her daughters and sons-in-law.

      Schiller, Lawrence. Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (p. 81). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

      Delete
    14. Thanks, I'll look it up in my copy of Schiller when I get home. Does he provide a source for that info?

      Delete
  12. It's so very obvious to me that his prior breakin story was a fabrication so that no one would think that he broke it early that morning, or night before. He even tells Fleet the same story - his second alibi for not staging it himself:

    Death of Innocence:

    "(John) took Fleet over to the broken windowpane and explains my breaking in there last summer. I tell him that I had found this window broken earlier. We look for glass splinters...

    JOHN: So I went down to the basement. I went into this room with Fleet. I explained to him tha 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 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."

    He brings Fleet into it to corroborate telling him about thinking it was not a fresh break as Fleet can then tell LE "yeah, he said he thought he broke it earlier that summer" so no one would think he broke it that night. And, Smit bought it. Smit even went so far as to believe an intruder doing it, incredibly without noticing there were no footprints on the windowsill and an old cobweb clinging to the window frame. IF John had broken in just three months prior then that cobweb would have been busted and there would have been traces of shoe print (remember, John said he left his shoes on) on that dusty window sill.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just want to say one more thing here, for a while This should be a place we can discuss our theories, and not have to argue others down. No one really knows who did what so why can't be explore different ideas without focus on trying to prove each other wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the idea is to arrive at a unified theory that works, while encompassing all the known facts. FACTS. What's the point of encouraging misinformation that doesn't advance that cause, but rather undermines it by sowing confusion?

      Delete
    2. Have you been able to do that, in four years? Arrive at a unified theory that works while encompassing "all the known facts"? It's disputable even what those facts are, or if they are all "known."

      Delete
    3. No, I have not. Nor has Doc, despite the fact that he's gotten closer than anyone.

      Doesn't excuse the repeated publication of misinformation, Inq.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I know that's your thing, saying I disseminate misinformation, yet I can footnote everything I post here. And although I do agree that Doc has done a brilliant job of dissecting this case, most of us in here still have questions, and there are pieces of this puzzle that do not fit with every detail he has posited here. That he has gotten closer than anyone, is your opinion, because most of what he has said, you agree with. Many in here feel that Patsy was involved and although some may think it was all on her, or some may think she had John's help, it doesn't sit well that she was duped, gaslit, convinced, or that she messed up John's plan by calling 911. I won't get into that. Just suffice it to say there are still questions. I appreciate though that you cleared up for me that there was no glass on the inside of the window well, which then eliminated Burke having broken that window that night. And I think you are right, that more staging was going to be necessary but J ran out of time. I continue to read about this case, it's ongoing, not just here but in books that still continue to be written. By the way, there are many "facts" in PMPT that Schiller did not report accurately, so I will not quote him as the definitive bible on this case.

      Delete
    5. Nor should you. Nor do I.

      I'm sorry, Inq, footnotes or no, you're wrong more often than not, and I wouldn't care but for the fact that you post so much, so often, that newcomers may inadvertently take you for a knowledgeable source. Why not do a little fact-checking, think things through a bit, formulate a cohesive thought, before typing?

      Delete
    6. Sorry, Inq, there's no way to discuss a theory without examining both its strengths and its weaknesses. One doesn't have to have her/his own unified theory in order to assess the strengths/weaknesses of another.

      Delete
  14. I would think, by looking at the edges of the glass remaining in the window, that you would be able to determine whether or not it was an old break. Would you really need a forensic scientist to tell you that? Geez, if old, there'd be a bunch of dirt on the edges along with dust, etc. due to age. If it was a fresh break, it would be clean.

    As I said in an earlier post. Either way, JR covered himself. Old break= he locked himself out six months earlier
    New break= intruder

    Another oddity - PR was SO concerned over that broken glass that she cleaned up every piece and even had Linda vacuum it a couple of times to ensure no glass was remaining. Her concern was for the children playing down there. However, she gave no thought to having it repaired. It's laughable in its hypocrisy.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes -- and she gave no thought as well to the shards of glass still in place in that window pane, ready to break off and fall to the floor at the slightest disturbance.

      Delete
    2. Whether old or a new break, if it gave the possibility of someone from the outside stooped down in the window well reaching thru the broken pane to unlatch it. It appears it was enough possibility to have certain people connected to the case believe it. Now Burke DID say on Dr Phil's show he wondered if *HE* forgot to lock the front door Christmas night. source-Dr Phil show, 3 episodes with Burke 2016

      Delete
  15. I know that to determine guilt or innocence you need hard evidence. But what about common sense. When you study the behavior of the R's before during and after the murder, you see inconsistencies, contradictions, dysfunction, negligence, encumbrance, obstruction, hostility towards LE and on and on and on. Does that count for anything? Evidently it must have, because the GJ got it, even if AH didn't have the spine to go forward with an indictment.

    I am not a member of LE, but that would have pissed me off royally and I may have quit as well. It's just so frustrating, I can't even imagine being a part of an investigation where you were told to treat the suspects with kid gloves even though you knew that all the evidence pointed in their direction.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  16. If John knows that window is an entry point to the house and doesn't immediately tell police, that's suspect. If John describes in detail, down to his underwear, how he came through that window a few months earlier, and then says I THINK I came through that window once before, that's suspect as well. If John ,thinking his daughter has been kidnapped, reaches up and latches the window for no logical reason, that also is suspect. The whole window story is ridiculous to me.

    So, why didn't LE suspect John? Did they think he was covering for Patsy? Could that have been his secondary plan? I know...he always supported her innocence. But there's something that nags at me. If he wrote the note, he wrote it in her pad.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  17. If Patsy believes the window was an old break and she and linda cleaned it all up, how does she account for the shards fleet and John picked up. If she believes it's a new break, she should be thinking why is there only a couple of pieces. Why is she not questioning why John didn't immediately report the window ajar.Then we have the discarded titled note in the bin, surely whoever started writing that note wouldn't have been so forgetful to dispose of something so significant?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Doc, I emailed the photo to you several hours ago. Please share it with everyone here.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  19. Doc, the link you provided sends us to the Microsoft Outlook Login page. Please upload the photo to this blog thread or create a new thread with the photo uploaded so that no link is necessary. Thank you.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's funny, because that link works for me every time. I can probably display the image itself in a new blog post. Stay tuned.

      Delete
  20. Thanks Hercule, I was unable to open it as well.

    Just a reminder, the Sundance film "Casting JonBenet" debuts on Netflix this Thurs., March 23. It has a nice high rating, the trailer is intriguing, and it promises not to be a fluff piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. April 28th.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_JonBenet

      Delete
    2. yes, sorry about that, I was going to access it from yesmovies.too. Trailer came out in March but quite right Zach, movie comes out on Netflix April 28 as you said.

      Delete
  21. I've been involved in many web sleuth communities and have a pretty good track record. In the Knox case, at one stage everyone assumed she was guilty and I stated a thousand times that she wasn't (only to be shut down and shunned time and time again). It didn't really phase me though because with the evidence present, I knew I was right. And we all know now that I was right in the Knox case. The JBR case is actually a much more simple case to solve:

    1. There was no intruder. No evidence whatsoever of an intruder except the dna on the panties and the RN...both which can be explained logically.

    2. Both parents were involved. To suggest only one is ludicrous. There is ample evidence to suggest this, which I've posted over this blog on various pages. There was no gaslighting or anything similar...thats just a fantasy made up to strengthen an extremely weak theory.

    3. Patsy acted in her phone call. Fact. John made Patsy make the call (or they agreed on this together..and it was the correct decision). But ultimately there is probably a dozen or more things in that call that give it away as being staged. All the experts agree. It was an act from Patsy. People here are going to whinge that its not a fact. But sorry to spoil your party, but it is.

    4. Neither parent would cover for each other.

    That leaves Burke. Even with no more evidence, Burke looks pretty obvious straight away. But luckily, to cement this likely scenario, we have a lot of evidence that places Burke with JBR at the time of her murder. Burke didn't finish the pineapple that he made for himself (what kid does that), there was train track marks on her body and 45min in between head blow and garotte. Both of those point to Burke also. He is the only person in the house to have intentionally strike JBR in the past and his demeanour after the crime, and even to this day all point to him. Yes, some of that is circumstantial evidence but when you add it all together there is only one theory that adds up.

    To quote Spitz:

    “If you really, really use your free time to think about this case, you cannot come to a different conclusion,” Spitz told CBS Detroit. “It’s the boy who did it, whether he was jealous, or mentally unfit or something … I don’t know the why, I’m not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here. And the parents changed the scene to make it look like something it wasn’t."

    Case solved. The end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed, you are certainly entitled to develop a theory that makes the most sense to you, but you can't change the definition of the word, "fact."

      Delete
    2. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck...then it's most likely a duck.

      Delete
    3. It is still not a fact.

      Delete
    4. But it doesn't look like a duck. Previous sexual abuse looks like John, not nine year old Burke. Acute sexual assault, with digital penetration, looks like John, not nine year old Burke. Strangulation with a garotte-like device looks like someone with naval training, not a nine year old Cub Scout. I don't doubt Burke knew how to tie some knots, but this device involved much more than knot tying. It's the sort of thing you learn to construct in the military, not Cub Scouts. Or Macrame either, for that matter. The writing of a 2 1/2 page ransom note with the vocabulary of a college educated person looks like John, not nine year old Burke. It was John, not Burke, who went AWOL for over an hour while everyone else was in the sun room with Arndt. It was John, not Burke, who discovered a basement window open and closed it without telling anyone. It was John, not Burke, who took charge of the Ramsey defense from the start and stonewalled the police for months.

      The ONLY reason it looks like Burke is based on the assumption that both Ramseys were in it together -- and everyone (now) seems to agree that neither would want to cover for the other, but MIGHT be willing to cover for their son. That's IT. The pineapple story is just fantasy with nothing to back it up either solid or circumstantial. Since hardly anyone investigating or reporting on the case has suggested that John could have done this on his own, it's all too easy to rule out all other possibilities but Burke. That was clerly the assumption of the CBS team, as they systematically considered every possibility but that. Once you consider that possibility then suddenly all sorts of things fall into place.

      Delete
  22. Unless Burke somehow was able to author the ransom note, I do not think it is possible that he was the killer.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How so???? Burke definitely did not write the RN.

      Delete
    2. BR did not write that RN. But it doesn't necessarily mean he is not the killer. If his parents were covering for him, they would've written the note.

      And while they wouldn't cover for each other, they would come together and corroborate each other's stories to save their one remaining child.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Exactly EG. Not sure why so many on this blog cannot understand that and then go down avenues of daddy abusing daughter and husband gaslighting wife, which are way more far-fetched. Patsy must be ruled in as being involved which is just one thing which rules out Docs theory. After that its easy and despite the Ramseys best efforts, all avenues point to them covering for their son.

      When you consider what we know, this is actually a very simple case. Its only made difficult when people over anaylse it (which most people do). If LE got their way, both parent's would have been convicted.

      For what its worth, do I think JR and PR were bad people? No.

      Were they manipulative people? Most definitely.

      Delete
    4. Zed,

      I think it's because most people can't conceive of an almost ten year old committing such a heinous crime. I must admit, the garrote is the one part of this that I struggle with.

      However, that doesn't mean that I don't think BR was incapable of making it, and then using it. I believe he was a disturbed child and equally disturbed man today. That interview on Dr Phil was very telling. The guy is just not normal. And unfortunately, as we all know there ARE many cases on the books to show that kids DO kill.

      I just cant accept PR covering for JR, and I don't buy the chemo brain, gaslighting theories at all. The ONLY reason she'd cover for JR, is to protect her one remaining child, BR. I think it's quite possible that they were both up that night working hard to come up with a cover up to cast just enough doubt as to have everyone doing exactly what we are doing here today.

      There are too many things that don't add up, starting with completely ignoring the instructions in the RN. We all know what followed.

      EG

      Delete
    5. It would just have been SO easy to call 911 and then tell the police, "Look, the kids were fighting and Burke got mad, hit her over the head, and knocked her out by accident." No need to stage BOTH a sexual assault, culminating in a garotte strangulation, AND a failed kidnapping, complete with detailed ransom note, left by a "small foreign faction" who forgot to take their now meaningless note with them after taking care to hide the body in that windowless room, and wrap it carefully in a blanket.

      Sorry, but BDI won't fly.

      Delete
    6. Doc,

      I admit that it's a stretch to think that BR made that garrote and then used it. That is something I wrestle with. However, kids DO torture and kill. It's not impossible. And it would account for PR backing JR without question AND would also answer the suspect behavior displayed by both after the fact.

      EG

      Delete
    7. The police themselves believe the writer of the ransom note is the killer. Too bad they thought it was Patsy when it's really John.

      Delete
  23. If the only purpose of the ransom note was to provide a cover for Burke, why give the police an unnecessarily long sample of your handwriting? I don't think John and Patsy working together would think the note looked like a legitimate ransom note. To me, the note was written with another purpose, and Doc's theory makes a lot of sense.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. K, because that was all part of their plan. The note was the only evidence of an intruder and they wanted to make sure it painted a picture and gave an image of someone who hated John. Thats why it grew into a letter of that size. Simple as that and not at all hard to fathom.

      Doca theory once again falls down again at the note. If the whole idea of the note was to scare Patsy into not dialling 911, then he would made the first few sentences more meaningful...instead of just noise.

      Plus John would have made sure he was right behind Patsy when she found it so there was no chance of 911 call going ahead. Plus the call was an act based on a multitude of give aways.

      A short note probably would have seen John and Patsy arrested. A long confused the hell out of people. So their plan worked!

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure I'm following you Zed, how would the parents know she was not just comatose? They wouldn't be able to see that skull fracture. Wouldn't you still call 911? And why was she hidden in the wine cellar?

      Zed, I respect everyone's opinions. I want this case to be solved, no matter who's theory was closest.

      K

      Delete
    3. Exactly, K. The fact that she was hidden in that "wine cellar" in itself tells us this could not have been the staging of a failed kidnapping. If a kidnapping attempt had failed, the killer would simply have left the body of his victim where it lay, and fled as quickly as possible -- taking his note with him, by the way. He would not have wrapped his victim in a blanket, "like a papoose" and hidden her in the most remote room in that (very large) house. And that is certainly not how you'd stage it if you were so foolish as to stage a failed kidnapping at all.

      And if it weren't the staging of either a real kidnapping or a failed kidnapping, then what was it? What should have been obvious from the start was that this was the staging of a real kidnapping, a very clever attempt that failed -- because Patsy Ramsey called the police instead of following the instructions in the note.

      That's the aspect of this case that's simple. It's only when one tries to follow every nuance of John's desperate plan B that it gets complicated.

      Delete
    4. K - I'm not completely locked into one set theory but just things I've considered.
      Not calling 911 with just the head blow/unconscious-
      concern that it would look like abuse/deliberate and all three would be questioned.
      Fear that if she comes to, she will say who attacked her, that it wasn't an accident (DocG/others believes this about the sexual abuse and that Jonbenet was going to tell believing that a pelvic exam would occur after the Michigan trip/cruise trip)

      Delete
    5. No Doc.

      Doc states: "The fact that she was hidden in that "wine cellar" in itself tells us this could not have been the staging of a failed kidnapping"

      This simple minded thinking is why your JDI theory is so flawed and why you quite regularly show undue arrogance in your posts.

      The wine cellar was pefect for the crime they staged...away from the family so the family couldnt possibly hear anything. Once again, its Doc way or the highway. Ill take the highway, which is the much more sensible option.

      And K, there is plenty of reasons why the parents would have staged this. Diamondlil has already mentioned a few. Maybe Burke dragged her into the basement. The prod marks on her body. Maybe even Burke put the garotte around her. I too am open to any theory and would love for it to be solved. But the simple fact is that the parents covering for their child is the ONLY theory which makes sense. The experts on this case agree completely as well...all of whom know much more than we all do.

      Delete
    6. Zed:

      Why didn't the parents just go along with the demands in the ransom note? They could have dumped JB's body, withdrawn $118,000 dollars from the bank, staged the window so as to leave no doubt it was the intruders point of entry, had Patsy beat John's face to a bloody pulp, then called the police and an ambulance.

      Mike G

      Delete
    7. Zed, I think parents covering for their child makes even less sense than gaslighting. No 9-year-old is going to go to prison for accidentally killing his sister.

      Delete
    8. Nope, no way, no how, and you don't need a law degree to realize that.

      The GJ indicted the Ramseys for aiding and abetting someone in the commission of FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Under the law, a child does not have the wherewithal to commit that offense; ergo, whomever they had in mind, it sure wasn't Burke.

      You can keep your CBS experts, Zed. They didn't see what the GJ did, and nor have we.

      Delete
  24. This Sun article from last year has image grabs of the Radar online crime scene video with the window, along with the video links. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2451465/basement-jonbenet-ramsey-broken-window-boulder-colorado/amp/

    ReplyDelete
  25. Doc, just finished your book!! Wow!! The handwriting analysis of John and word analysis amazing! Why can't Boulder police take your work into consideration?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome, Ruby, to the Hotel California. You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave...

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the kind words, Ruby -- and welcome. The Boulder police, like just about everyone else following this case, are so focused on Patsy and/or Burke that John is simply off their radar. He was "ruled out," remember?

      Delete
  26. Mike G - not trying to answer for Zed, but one scenario is running out of time.
    Many people that morning were expecting them to be elsewhere and before any banks opened. The pilot would've eventually called when they were a no show. Same as the adult kids for the Michigan visit.
    If covering for Burke but they leave him in the dark about a kidnapping, they very well can't take him along for a body dump or leave him alone, as the letter was clear John had to do the money drop. Any calls telling the pilot or the kids why the trip is cancelled due to a kidnapping, those people are going to ask about police being called.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lil: I don't buy that scenario at all. Besides, you could make that argument for two Ramsey's covering for the other. The "many" people" expecting the Ramsey's to be elsewhere were in fact just a few family members and the pilot. Surely Patsy and John's "plan" anticipated calls to all those people, canceling their plans due to a family crisis they were not a liberty to share for a few more days. Remember, the note said every move of John's was being monitored; any sign he was trying to go around them to get to the police would result in his daughter being beheaded. John was a CEO of a company. He could easily cancel plans with a pilot under his employ and a family vacation under terms he could insist upon explaining later.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. The fact is that both Ramseys defied that letter. Many knew of that trip, at least those they dropped gifts off and at the party. You have some scenario where Patsy should have beat up John and done a body dump before calling police. If you think Burke was completely in the dark about everything then one of the parents would have to distract him while the other does the banking and dumping and the things you suggested.
      I think both parents were complicit and you don't, same as Doc and many here.
      Y'all have an adult woman "gaslit" and "manipulated" with Jedi mind tricks but believe it impossible that a 9+ year old boy or a 6 year old girl could be "gaslighted" or manipulated. So the littlest one has to be murdered pre-planned so she doesn't tell on the CEO. I just can't come to that conclusion.

      Delete
  27. Mike - do you really think John was dumb enough to consider putting his dead daughter in his car? If so, he would have been caught and it would have been game over. I'm not sure exaclty what their plans were or what him and Patsy discussed that night, but it was agreed leaving the body in the house was the smartest option...which in all honesty, was a pretty easy decision I am sure compared with other decisions they made that night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If leaving the body in the house was the smartest option, then why compose a 2 1/2 page RANSOM NOTE informing the Ramseys that their child had been kidnapped? And why call the police knowing full well that she had NOT been kidnapped and that her body would eventually be found IN THE HOUSE? Excuse me for shouting but sometimes that's necessary to get through to some people.

      John was most likely planning on wrapping the body in a garbage bag, which would have insulated any odors, fibers, DNA, etc. from the trunk. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Dead bodies in the trunks of cars are a long standing tradition in the annals of crime, as you should know. It's a lot smarter to get the body out of the house than report a kidnapping while the body is still IN the house.

      If there is any one reason why half the population of the developed world is convinced of "the Ramseys" guilt it's because of that obviously phony note.

      Delete
    2. good one Doc, here is a little humor "arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good you are the bird is going to S*** on the board and strut around like it won anyway, lol, Jess.

      Delete
    3. LOl! Thanks, Jess. I really ought to delete that one, but my funny bone won't let me.

      Delete
    4. Are you serious Doc. Wow sometimes your lack of realisation astounds me.

      Delete
    5. Ill repeat for the one millionth time. The RN was needed!!!

      Delete
  28. Doc, Jameson complimented you on Topix the other day:


    "DocG believes John did it -- and while I disagree I have to respect his is a considered theory. The BORG doesn't care about the evidence, don't waste time on anything that might confuse their very popular position.(It is fun to be in a gang.)"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HKH, I too read that on topix this week. Was surprised to see so many old threads bumped but it is interesting to read some great stuff by blue crab and others that really seem sharp.

      Delete
    2. I agree, Lil, some of the old posts are interesting, but that poster who is on there 24/7 commenting and bumping everything is starting to drive me bonkers! LOL.

      Delete
  29. The case has not been solved because they've focused so long on Patsy that they've forgotten that John was their initial first suspect and have given him a free pass.

    ReplyDelete