Still waiting for new developments in the Burke Ramsey lawsuit. No word yet from CBS. Will they or won't they try for a settlement? No word either on the new "scientific" testing of evidence in the Teresa Halbach case. It's been a long time since that process began and Avery's lawyer has been uncharacteristically quiet, after tweeting on an almost daily basis for months.
Meanwhile, here's some room for more comments.
Okay Doc, I will start out since we have gone from older post to loading to now a newer post and most of my inquiries were on the previous page. In an attempt to get answers regarding why the garrote, why the sexual assault, why leave her like that if your intention was to remove the body anyway, I went back to one of your earlier posts, December 1, 2012. And so, I can answer my own question now and see that it was an unnecessary question. And for those that think in any way Patsy was an accessory to murder, December 2, 2012 summation may dispel you of that idea, thank you.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, this IS how he murdered her. This is how she was found because he could not get her out of the house. That's the simple explanation but Dec. 1, 2012 synopsis may help clarify if anyone else was mystified.
Inq - how in the world do you go from being convinced Patsy DID IT to now JDI??????? You do realize the JDI theory absolutely cannot involve Patsy as being involved or aware of anything right? See, you had it partially correct before...PR was absolutely involved one way or another. Therefore JDI is total garbage, unless you want to explain why she covered for the man who abused and then killed her pride and joy.
ReplyDelete-J
The same way she went from BR to IDI to PR. Why ask why.
DeleteIt was a very very slow transition J. After exploring, and arguing, for every other possible scenario right on up to thinking it was a "team" effort (Jatsy) I began reading all of the link Lil sent. Even there it seemed that the two discussing it were headed in a Patsy scenario completely. But I noticed how very confused she seemed. And that it could not have been an act. Not an act that could be sustained during her eventual sit down with LE, or subsequently all of those years right on up to her death. Her fumbling around, therefore, was viewed in contrast to the calm demeanor projected by John in his words, his changing of the facts and story. Culminating finally in our discussion a week or so ago regarding the flashlight as I could no longer think of any rational reason "the mother" would lash out in such a ferocious manner at her daughter. What could have precipitated that? We know it was not bed wetting. Then what? She didn't want to go back to bed? Patsy was just overwhelmed from the holiday season? And if Patsy had struck JB and then enlisted John's help, did she hide her ears and eyes and shield herself from his participation in such a brutal manner to cover up for her unfortunate accidental head bashing? That made no sense. Was she able to sit and write a note describing a kidnapping? Did he dictate the note to her? Possible. But NOT probable.
ReplyDeleteAdd to that her absolute hysteria during and after the 911 call as observed by others. Now compare that to John's demeanor. He's separated himself from the others, he reads his mail, he's not concerned a call hasn't come in, he's made trips where he's disappeared from sight and she's having a mental breakdown. It all seemed to fit then. Logic and emotion merged. Re read December 1, 2012 thread and see if it can make sense to you the way it does to me now. And I know I abandoned the Burke, Intruder, and Patsy, Patsy and John theory in what, five months, but I was committed to having it make sense, and now it has. Doesn't change anything, she's still dead, and I do appreciate everyone's journey in here as I know you are all committed to understanding why it hasn't been "solved". And for me, it's so very disturbing why the killer is still sitting comfortably in his new home with his new wife, continuing to spin his yarns.
I am glad you asked me though J. I do have to be held accountable for the flip flopping. If you could see the volume of notes I've written though - two spiral notebooks full, in my attempts to make "sense" of this. But the proof is always as they say - in the pudding. In otherwords, it's right in front of us.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, still puzzled how you went from PDI to JDI when they are a giant contradiction to each other, but you are entitled to change your mind :-)
DeleteI will say that Patsy's behavior directly AFTER the 911 call is the puzzling part. If you believe we hear her voice after she thinks they hung up, her tone changes. Couple that with 8 min after the "frantic" call, she is dialing up friends to come over. Too strange to be written off which is why I don't.
-J
Because J there is no rational explanation for a theory called "accidental killing." I wanted to rule that flashlight out very badly as I could not for the life of me figure out why Patsy would have a flashlight in JonBenet's room in the first place (if she had gotten her up and found she had wet the bed). I thought then, okay, let's not rule out a golf club - certainly Burke would have been familiar with golf clubs (:)) and a little game in the basement could have led to a hard swing in the direction of her head. But it would had done more than dent her skull and crack it, it would have drawn blood - and besides you then have the brutal strangulation and assault. Did he do all of that too? So how about a trophy in JB's room as weapon - again, that kind of blunt force trauma with a faux marble base would have cut her skin. Hercule mentioned a toilet lid, and I have to admit Hercule does his homework - they did take a toilet seat with them from the warrant.
DeleteBut, ultimately I have to rule out an accident. And who would have taken a flashlight to go into the basement if for no other reason than to molest someone so that it would not be heard. (My theory). And when she panicked, HE panicked. A hard hit would have stopped that noise. At which point he thought her dead. It now becomes intentional homicide, no accident.
As for the call (and I love the way you WANT to work it out, so keep thinking) we haven't heard her tone changing, have we? This is what the 911 operator says but I didn't hear that, did you? I think "instincts" play a big part in this case - Linda Arnt's instincts (knowing who did it, and reaching for her gun and mentally counting the bullets) and Patsy's own may have played a part as well. She could have suspected something about John, and knew he would be of little support, so called over friends not to add confusion, but for support. And good that she had it, John remained separated from her all day, not comforting her at all.
Mike G.
ReplyDeleteI just learned Psychology Today is doing a six-part story on the JonBenet Ramsey Case. Here are parts one and two.
Part One: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201701/who-killed-jonbenet
Part Two: http://www.topix.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/2017/02/who-killed-jonbenet-part-2-the-ransom-note
I just read this Mike. Very disappointing. His conclusions are to look for an intruder. In Part 1 he mentions the intruder, or Patsy or John may have left the note on the stairs but thinks Patsy would have left it there to deceive John, but does not consider that John could have left it to deceive Patsy. In Part 2 where he analyzes the note he's missed the mark. He is taking the note literally, and if he wants to do that then I would ask him why a small foreign faction, who had the technical skill and capacity to electronically monitor the house, would have asked for such a piddling amount of ransom money. He thinks it could have been someone who worked for John who held a grudge. But he hasn't done a very good job of explaining why she would have been killed and left there rather than removed.
ReplyDeleteThe Psych Today article is total crap. If you read 5 postings on this blog, you know more about this case than the author. And he makes broad claims about what one can interpret, based on his flawed knowledge. Don't bother.
ReplyDeleteDaffodilgal
Inq/Anon:
DeleteAgreed...total crap...
Mike G
Someone posted that article on Topix. I read part one and part two. The author is clueless. As I said on Topix, had I started with part one and skipped to the comments section, I could have saved myself a lot of time. Jameson commented that she agreed with everything the author said, minus the part that JBR was sodomized.
DeleteIn the Cherokee thread, Doc wrote:
ReplyDelete"The gaslighting of Patsy by John is the only explanation any of us has been able to come up with that could explain Patsy's story about cleaning up the broken glass from John's fictitious earlier breakin. It can't be true because his story is clearly a fabrication. But it can't be a lie either because she included Linda in her story and if she were lying she would never have done that, because she'd have known Linda would have denied it. As I see it, the only explanation is that it is a false memory implanted by John at a time when she was especially vulnerable."
This makes no sense to me. If John broke the window that night to stage a break-in then why would he ever want to claim to have broken it months earlier?
The break-in was staged to fool Patsy IF she went down to the cellar to look for JB. Once Patsy foiled his plan by calling 911, he was afraid the break-in would look to the Police, along with the ransom note, as so obviously staged, they would find the body within minutes and arrest him for murder.
DeleteIf the plan had worked, with Patsy and Burke out of the house the following night, John would have, after dumping the body, completed the staging, perhaps by breaking the entire window, removing the cobwebs, leaving the grate off, etc....
Mike G
I think that's pretty contrived. The whole thing looked like a staging, so I don't see John ever preemptively claiming to the police to have broken the window months earlier, when nobody else would have corroborated that window having been broken. It makes him look *more* suspicious, not less.
DeleteLooks to me like that story was a Hail Mary pass. Risky, yes. But if he hadn't provided some innocent reason for that window being broken, the incomplete staging would have looked very much like a crude attempt to stage a breakin by an intruder on the night of the crime. The Ramseys would probably have been arrested that day.
DeleteNo evidence consistent with anyone having either entered or left via that window -- or even lifted the grate. So how did it get broken and when? The obvious answer: staging. Now John comes along with his story about breaking the window months earlier. He gets lucky. They buy it.
In spite of Linda's testimony that she knew nothing about any broken window or any broken glass. In spite of her husband's having cleaned all the windows in the house and never reporting a broken window. In spite of the absurdity of neither of them being able to recall whether or not that window had been repaired. In spite of the unlikelihood that a broken window would go unrepaired for months in the home of a millionaire while workmen were present on other projects in the home during that time. Not even a piece of cardboard? During a Colorado winter?
While you may think John's story sounds suspicious and I certaintly agree, the police bought it. Why did they buy it? For the same reason you yourself have provided: "why would anyone go to the trouble of staging a breakin and then undermine his own staging by claiming he himself broke in earlier?" Why indeed?
So John was savvy enough to come up with an excuse in the moment for a really bad staging, but not savvy enough to avoid doing the bad staging in the first place?
DeleteThe staging was "bad" only because he never had a chance to complete it. If all had gone according to plan he'd have completed it the following day (after getting Patsy and Burke out of the house), and he could have made it very convincing indeed.
DeleteThen why do a partial staging of a break-in at all? Just to fool Patsy? He thought that the police would never buy it but that Patsy would? She knew better than the police if he did or did not break the window months earlier. And if he thought Patsy was likely enough to go down to the basement that he needed to partially stage a break-in to fool her, why would he hide the body there?
DeleteYou're not getting it, John. He didn't do a partial staging deliberately -- and the primary purpose was not to fool Patsy but to fool the police by staging an intruder break-in via that window.
DeleteTo complete his staging he'd have had to enter the window well and crawl through the window himself. His clothing would have been a royal mess after that and Patsy would certainly have become suspicious. That's why I think he was planning to complete the staging once he'd been able to get Patsy and Burke out of the house to stay with friends.
The plan was to call the cops AFTER disposing of the body and all other evidence. By that time he'd have been able to complete the staging to make it look like an intruder broke in.
Then why wouldn't he have waited until Patsy was out of the house before doing ANY staging? That's the part that doesn't make sense.
DeleteIt was Mike who suggested that a partial staging was done to fool Patsy.
The bottom line is that John's story is not credible, for all the many reasons that have already been presented. So the window must have been broken on the night of the crime. If it had been broken by John and Patsy as part of their plan to stage an intruder before calling the police the following morning, then why wasn't the staging more complete -- and why wasn't more glass found on the floor?
DeleteOn the other hand, if John broke it and didn't have time to complete his staging, then we can see the absence of glass as part of his effort to UN-stage his incomplete staging. Can you think of a more plausible explanation?
Considering your question in the light of the above, we can only speculate as to why John didn't wait until the next day to break that window. The fact is: the window was found broken the morning after the crime and only a couple of shards were found on the floor.
Perhaps he'd been planning to show Patsy the broken window the next morning to convince her that an intruder had broken in and taken JonBenet. Once she'd been convinced her daughter had been kidnapped there'd be no point in searching the house for her.
Maybe there was some other reason. Who knows? It's not possible to account for every single detail as we have no way of knowing what was going on in his head at the time. But if we consider all the facts and put them together logically then the basic outline becomes clear. That's how I see it, anyhow.
Doc made a good argument in the last thread for the reason to stage a kidnapping rather than just having JBR disappear -- in order to buy time. But I'm wondering how that would play out. Let's say the 911 call never happens. How does John make the phone call from the "kidnappers" happen? Patsy would be waiting for that call too. Does John hope she has to go to the bathroom sometime between 8 and 10 tomorrow, and then pretend that the call just happened to come in while she was gone?
ReplyDeleteYou ask good questions, but they've already been answered on this blog some time ago. See especially the blog post titled "A Scenario." Also "The Purpose of the Note."
DeleteThanks for the pointers. So, the answer is that he would have tried to get Patsy and Burke out of the house before then "for their safety". I can't imagine Patsy ever going along with not waiting there for the phone call (what was the risk to *her* safety), but ok.
DeletePlease refresh my memory - does the RN detail where the money is supposed to be dropped off? Or was that going to be discussed during the call?
ReplyDeleteWhat if PR read the entire note and said to JR - "we can't call anyone or do anything until we get the call...the RN says JBR will be killed otherwise". If JR was supposed to go to the bank to get the money, what was going to happen when the call didn't come in? I guess JBR's body would have been disposed by then by JR? Hmmm, ok, I can see this setup being believed for the JDI theory, but it doesn't definitively explain away a BDI or PDI theory. For the JDI theory to make sense, you have to explain why PR did not freak out after reading the entire RN that detailed JBR would be killed if anyone was called or anyone came to the house. You have to explain her going on the porch to wait for the police, knowing that killers were monitoring her home. You have to explain the lack of fear over when "tomorrow" in the RN was supposed to be. There is no way of knowing if the RN was written on the 25th or 26th. You have to explain the lack of concern over BR while they stumbled around the house and why they let BR go to a friend's home if there was a "kidnapper/killer" on the loose who was targeting their family. You have to explain why at no point did PR or JR blame themselves for calling all those people over to the house which might have led to the "intruder" killing their daughter since they disregarded the RN. You have to explain the lack of effort into finding the "intruder" after the murder.
I find it interesting that BR was scurried out of the house prior to JBR's body being found. Maybe JR and PR didn't want BR there when JBR's body was found, thinking it would be too traumatic?
You'll save yourself some time by reading the first three posts on this blog, followed by several of the other early posts. All the issues you raise are based on assumptions. My take on the case is based on facts. And simple logical inferences based on those facts. NO assumptions.
Delete"For the JDI theory to make sense, you have to explain why PR did not freak out after reading the entire RN that detailed JBR would be killed if anyone was called or anyone came to the house."
DeletePatsy testified that she made the call before reading the kidnappers' warnings. Anyone familiar with the fundamental facts in this case knows Patsy was an emotional wreck the entire morning, and had what amounted to a nervous breakdown after John found her daughter dead.
"You have to explain her going on the porch to wait for the police, knowing that killers were monitoring her home."
The call had been placed and the police were on their way when Patsy went outside. Had there been "intruders" monitoring the house, there was nothing at that point Patsy could do--they would be tipped off to the call when they saw the police; Patsy, for all they knew, may have just stepped outside to get some fresh air and look for "them", not the police.
"You have to explain the lack of fear over when "tomorrow" in the RN was supposed to be."
The "Ramsey's" explained their calling the police by saying they couldn't handle it emotionally waiting potentially 24 hours for the call. But that doesn't mean the decision to call 911 was John's, that John was privy to Patsy making the call, or that Patsy didn't make the call despite John's best efforts to stop her.
"You have to explain the lack of concern over BR while they stumbled around the house and why they let BR go to a friend's home if there was a "kidnapper/killer" on the loose who was targeting their family."
John, not Patsy, made the decision to send Burke off to a friend's house. Patsy was too "freaked out", to put it in your terms, to do much of anything. And John, of course, knew Burke would be just fine, didn't he?
"You have to explain why at no point did PR or JR blame themselves for calling all those people over to the house which might have led to the "intruder" killing their daughter since they disregarded the RN."
The body was found in the house and had been dead for hours prior to Patsy finding the ransom note. Whatever it was that "triggered" the "intruder" to kill JonBenet, it wasn't any "Ramsey" not following the note's instructions. Even if some "intruder" had been hiding, and killed JB in the seven minutes between Patsy calling 911 and the police arriving, there was no way "he, she, or they" could escape from the basement, then from the house, undetected.
"You have to explain the lack of effort into finding the "intruder" after the murder."
I'm not sure why you think JDI theories need to explain this. Again, your knowledge of basic facts in this case is seriously lacking. You really need to read Doc's book before posting here again.
John hired his own investigators looking for "intruders" immediately after the murder because the police were focused on he and Patsy. Of course his "efforts" to find "intruders" were intended to deceive police into thinking he really cared. The same goes for his scurrying Burke out of the house early on. Burke heard his parents arguing loudly that morning, a fact that just recently came out.
So now that I've explained everything that heretofore made no sense, you can now rest assured that BDDI, PDDI, RDDI, and an IDDI.
Mike G
so many things point to John. Even the 911 call and the purported statement to Burke by John that "we are not talking to you"! Why is John so terse? Is it because John actually escorted Burke to bed sometime in the night with flashlight as Burke states during Dr. Phil interview. John is basically trying to quiet Burke's inquiry so Patsy won't discover that John was up late into the night.
ReplyDeleteMany things point to John, but this "purported statement to Burke", is not one of them. Burke never told Dr. Phil he saw John with the flashlight that night; John let it slip during his own interview with Dr. Phil that he thought he might have used it to escort Burke to bed, shortly after Patsy had gone to bed, not "late in (sic) the night".
DeleteIt does raise an interesting question, though, as to what Burke's current suspicions are, if any, regarding his father. If they've grown since filing the lawsuit against CBS, what he might do with them? Let them leak at trial just enough to ensure a nice payday, or try to win keeping them in check? Or does he drop the suit altogether at the risk of drawing more attention to him and his father and away from intruder theories? Either way, it should be interesting unless CBS does the weak thing and agrees to an undisclosed settlement.
Mike G.
Mike, in this sightly old article from Variety
Deletevariety.com/2016/biz/news/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-1201949899/
"CBS and other defendants are likely to seek an immediate dismissal, but, Sammataro (Partner with Stroock & Stroock, national head of the firm's entertainment litigation practice group) notes, even if they don't succeed there, they get to 'conduct discovery on whether Burke had any involvement in his sister's death.'"
You can draw your own conclusions as to what this could mean for Burke, and John.
I'm going to guess that since CBS is in the entertainment business and not the fact-checking business, they will pay the money - although not the whopping sum Lin Wood is demanding. And Lin will take a reduced settlement rather than open up an inquiry into just exactly what happened that night and what Burke may or may not have seen, done, or heard.
DeleteHLN Friday night 3/3/17 aired How It Really Happened who killed Jonbenet, the aftermath. Several panelists on. And it was mentioned about Patsy being on medication that day and night (which we knew) but what I don't recall hearing, was that after John left the home to stay with friends he started drinking. The officer working that day said that tonight. Paula Woodward said to the former cop that the police should have taken both parents in at 1:30pm before the drinking started and before the medication for questioning, but the cop said the family already had cars outside waiting as well as mentioned the family getting attorneys.
ReplyDeleteAnyone interested may be able to catch this in repeats.
It's on tonight where I live from 8-10 PM EST followed by an "aftermath" from 10-10:30. This looks like something new, not a rerun from last year. My fingers are crossed it doesn't "rule out" John early on based on the damn ransom note.
DeleteMike G
I only caught the aftermath part, and yes, it's new from what I could tell. Thanks for checking that it will re-air.
DeleteI think the next court hearing is to be this coming week March 8 for the lawsuit. But there doesn't seem to be any buzz on that in mainstream media.
The police officer that was on the case back then and is on the new HLN show is Fred Patterson.
DeleteI started reading "PMPT" again after all these years. I thought it was Alex Hunter who "dismissed" the FBI, it was Commander Eller. He had a dislike for officers who had had FBI training as he was a former cop with "street smarts" who thought the BPD should have the case and solve the case. He also wanted to treat the parents as victims and he was satisfied with a 3 1/2 hour search of the house, which got overruled and turned into a 10 day comb of the house.
ReplyDeleteJust now responded to former thread on "reload" section - should remember to return to "older post" before moving on. Thanks for responses.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone found who called 911 on Dec 23rd from the party? The police responded, but were turned away? pc
ReplyDeleteAllegedly the call was made by Fleet. But I can't recall if he ever gave a statement to that, or if that other people at the party just tossed out Fleet's name. It was Susan Stine that spoke to the responding officer and did not the officer enter the home.
DeleteI got the feeling Fred Patterson thought that Patsy did it. He was one of the first detectives on the seen. He said JR was very helpful with the investigation and Patsy was stand offish and not helpful at all.
ReplyDeleteOf course JR was helpful...it was his game with his rules "they" were playing.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzZNh0P9K38
Mike G
Well of course Patsy was stand offish. That was part of her act. She called 911 in spite of all the warnings in her note for that same reason. And called her friends over for that same reason too. It was all a big act -- to make herself look guilty so everyone would think she was innocent. Reverse psychology. How clever.
DeleteShe was able to keep it going too - throughout all of her interviews forgetting certain details just to make it look like she was devastated .
DeleteFred said he did speak to Burke 45 minutes after Jonbenet's body had been found. At least we know that HLN recently asked for the rest of the grand jury indictments, but were denied.
DeleteAnd the butt print was brought up, ha. No one seemed to be in Mary Lacy's corner.
Why not be helpful when the police arrive. Why avoid answering any questions when the only hope of getting your daughter back arrives. Only one reason I can think of. You already know the outcome. The very obvious answer is the person being helpful still is holding out hope and the person not being helpful already knows the outcome.
ReplyDeleteDoc - Well of course Patsy was stand offish. That was part of her act. She called 911 in spite of all the warnings in her note for that same reason. And called her friends over for that same reason too. It was all a big act -- to make herself look guilty so everyone would think she was innocent. Reverse psychology. How clever.
ReplyDelete----> what? I thought you said that PR had nothing to do with anything and genuinely called 911 out of sheer fear.
The sarcasm oozing from Doc's comment seems to be lost on you ;)
DeleteOn more than a few D! This is hilarious! Doc...you're responsible for InQ's waffling from this point forward! LOL.
Delete"Why not be helpful when the police arrive...only one reason I can think of. You already know the outcome. The very obvious answer is the person being helpful still is holding out hope and the person not being helpful already knows the outcome." Anon
Anon: All I can say is, if Crime 101 was offered as an elective for a basket weaving Associates degree, you'd flunk it!
Mike G
Tsk! I hope my sarcastic answer was also not lost (3/4 10:34 a.m.)
DeleteMy one difference with Doc is the blood swipe on her leg and droplets (there were more than one) in her underpants had to have come from NOT ONLY digital penetration but a "stick" - used to cover the molestation and possibly (if he were actually thinking ahead to what an ME might find) prior abuse. I don't think the use of the stick is a fallacy. For now, that's where we differ.
I tend to agree, Inq. It might also explain why a portion of the paintbrush handle was never found - the part of the paintbrush that was used to defile JB's vagina, which John may have worried picked up traces of his sperm. After all, her killer didn't feel the other two portions of the handle were incriminating enough to dispose of.....so what evidence did this third, missing piece contain?
DeleteThese are all facts. She calls 911 then hangs up, which pretty much all law enforcement say is unheard of. Then the police arrive, she is still wearing clothes from the night before which people who knew her said she never wore the same clothes twice. She refuses to cooperate with LE as soon as they arrive. Her prints are on the spoon and bowl of pineapple. But says JB never had pineapple, and the note is from her notepad. The garrotte is from her craft kit.
ReplyDeleteExactly, but some like to ignore those facts since they don't fit in the facts of the JDI theory.
DeleteIf you guys want to explain away the PR facts, then we can explain away the JR facts in this investigation.
DeleteYou also have a detective who first arrived on the scene and was there when JR brought up JBR's body who said she felt something was off with JR. You have a detective or police person who stated that they saw PR peek through her fingers when she had her face covered when she was crying. All these things irked people. Of course it doesn't prove anything, but they are issues noted by other people.
@Anon 11:33 PM,
DeleteI think when someone (regardless of their personal theory) states the facts of this case, it should be done so without adding anything that is not a cold hard fact. You said that hanging up after placing a 911 call is unheard of. I'm not sure where you got this information, or whether or not it's true, but how many 911 calls involve reporting a kidnapping for ransom? It's a bit different than the typical reasons for a 911 call, so how can it be compared? You also said that people who knew PR say she never wore the same clothes twice. How do any of these people know what PR wore on the days they didn't see her? Isn't it possible that PR put on the same outfit because she didn't think she was going to see anyone from the night before? If you want to state facts, they should read: PR called 911. PR was wearing the same clothes as the night before.
I've read a lot about this case, but I don't claim to know all. Can you back up your statement that PR refused to cooperate with LE as soon as they arrived?
PR's prints were on the bowl of pineapple. BR's were on the bowl and the glass. No mention, as far as I know, of any prints on the spoon. That being said, I'm fairly certain that my prints would be found on most of the clean dishes in my house. I'm usually the one who empties the dishwasher.
The last two things you said are facts: the RN was written on PR's notepad, and the paintbrush used to make the garrote came from PR's art supplies. However, why would PR use all of her own belongings and directly link herself to the crime?
I did not watch the HLN: How it Really Happened, but I see there are other shows in that lineup that can be seen on youtube after a short period of time - as long as you type in the title of the episode correctly. For those who saw it last night weren't they going to interview LHP and Bill McReynolds (deceased now)? If so please let us know the content of the show. I do think though that these shows are never going to go in the direction of John as lone perpetrator. It's as if the public developed a mindset long ago - with one exception - Kolar's book, which began to crack away at the on-going theory that Patsy had done this with a slight possibility there was an intruder, to now Burke. Burke is the flavor of the year now. But no television producer seems to want to take a crack at the very real probability that the wealthy, and by all accounts "nice" and generous family-oriented successful pillar-of-the-community father could have done this. Being seen as a collective unit of possible wrong-doing he could present a united front so that even if the law turned on them "they did it", "they were somehow involved," "they both knew." And how would you get a husband to testify against his wife and vice versa. So here we are, 20 years later, and "they" have been exonerated, the DNA wasn't "theirs," and the handwriting was a combination of inconclusive and conclusively not his. "They" got away with it.
ReplyDeleteHLN did have video portions with both Bill and Linda, among others. It spanned the original local news pieces thru the years, along with snippets with LKL. Also, local news of residents back then that felt the parents needed to be questioned more.
DeleteI thought they did a nice job of not forgetting Jonbenet as the victim.
Random question for the group regarding the intruder theory; why is it predicated on coming through the broken window in the basement? If there was an intruder, which I don't think there was, wouldn't it make more sense that they came in through a door using a key? Seems like it would be really difficult getting a child through a window compared to a door.
ReplyDeleteThat was gone over in here what seems like eons ago Gumshoe. The old antiquated theory of an intruder is Lou Smit's. He takes great pains to lift the window grate saying how easy it would have been, then plops himself down into the window well, pokes the window open and inches his rather long body through the opening. He points to a scuff mark on the wall and damage to the top of the suitcase suggesting that would have been the leverage needed to boost himself back up and through the window. But investigators noticed the cobwebs were undisturbed, and many other items in the basement appeared moved around. So then the "someone had a key" intruder theory began. The Ramsey's gave out multiple keys, six out of nine were recovered and many did not have solid alibis. So a new intruder theory was born, one with a key.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with any and all intruder theories, however, is the intimate familiarity said intruder would have had to have had with this family. The time it took to have fashioned a kidnap for ransom note, and a kidnap for ransom that did not take place. So why leave the "calling card" - a note. I suggest though that you really thoroughly investigate for yourself the intruder theories, get down in with it, roll around, be the intruder yourself, see what you would have done in that house and why and I think in the end you will see - just not possible, and in particular, not probable.
Just to add on here - with a key scenario and the likelihood of complete familiarity of the layout of the house and intimate details of the family - it should have been obvious in a short amount of time who LE could zero in on, and they did, and they were all cleared.
DeleteYes, I'm very aware of Lou Smit's theory as well as others. My question still remains, why does it focus on the basement window despite copious other doors and windows in that house.
DeleteAs CC has pointed out, I have a yeoman's interest in the law. I'll probably never put it to use in any true legal capacity; I'm too old and tired to seek the credentials it would require. But it has helped me tremendously to understand THIS case and to learn from others who are smarter than me. It is also, in my opinion, the most full proof self litmus test for confirmation bias available.
DeleteAnon:
1) "Then the police arrive, she is still wearing clothes from the night before which people who knew her said she never wore the same clothes twice."
If you were John's defense attorney, would you ask friends of hers to testify she never wore the same thing twice? Don't you think a capable prosecutor could blow your MO for doing so clean out of the water, and in the process, score points with the judge and jury?
"Your Honor, in the interest of saving time, the State will stipulate that Patsy rarely, if ever wore the same thing twice two days in a row, if opposing council will stipulate that none of their witnesses in this matter know whether Patsy did in fact SLEEP in those clothes the night of the murder."
2) "She refuses to cooperate when LE first arrives."
What evidence are you using to support that statement? Careful...I'm not asking you what evidence you HAVE to support it. Why? Because I know, from the pool of evidence AVAILABLE, your statement can easily be refuted if not used entirely against you. Furthermore, laws regarding admissibility of "experts' opinions" as to how a case should be decided are strictly governed. (see below, page 4)
http://www.sdap.org/downloads/research/criminal/expert.pdf
3) Her prints are on the spoon and bowl of pineapple...but (she) says JB never had pineapple...
Again, if that's your affirmative defense, bring it on!
"Cross your honor?"
"Go ahead counselor."
"Office Doe, did Patsy tell you she stayed awake all night in the company of JBR and saw, without a doubt, that she never ate Pineapple?"
"No"
"And was it ever determined when and where the fingerprints appearing on the bowl and spoon were placed?"
"No"
"Did the bowl and spoon go directly from the dishwasher to the kitchen table in the hands of one or more persons, or were they first transferred to a cabinet or drawer, only later to be brought out by one or more persons, and placed on the kitchen table?"
"I don't know."
"Was it determined if the spoon and bowl was ever washed and clean to begin with."
"No"
"Was the pineapple placed in the bowl after the bowl had been placed on the table or had it been placed in the bowl earlier and kept, along with the bowl, in the refrigerator, there to stay cold, until such time as the person or persons wanting it for themselves or to serve to others, brought it out and placed it along, with a spoon, on the table?"
"I don't know."
" Was it ever determined whether the person who put the bowl and spoon on the table prevented their fingerprints from being transferred to those items, either outright by wearing gloves, or surreptitiously, by holding them with a dish cloth?
"No"
"Officer Doe, what do the fingerprints discovered on the bowl and spoon tell you about who might have murdered JonBenet Ramsey?"
"OBJECTION!"
"Withdrawn. No more questions, your honor."
Continued.....
Mike G
4) "The note is from her notepad...and the garrotte was from her craft kit."
DeleteTo make a long story short, the notepad was from the house. All this tells us is that whoever wrote the note and used the paintbrush to fashion a garrotte (big difference!) did so from within the house, or, in the case of the notepad, brought it out of the house at an earlier date, wrote the note, and returned it to the house the night of the murder. The note was addressed to John, not Patsy. The paintbrush was Patsy's not John's. So what? Reverse psychology theories can work both ways and, like particles of matter colliding with particles of anti-matter, cancel each other out. But the fact that they CAN, doesn't mean they have to. I'd stack my inferences from Patsy owning the notepad and paintbrush up against yours as more logical to a jury any day of the week.
Mike G
Nicely done, Mike.
DeleteI can play this game too, and I have no interest in law.
Delete- detective Steve Thomas, do you believe JR killed his daughter.. No I believe PR did it.
-detective Fred Patterson you were one of the first detectives on the scene can you describe JR and PR demeanor when you arrived on scene? JR was very helpful trying to assist us anyway he could. I would say this is consistent or normal behavior of a father who was trying to find his daughter. PR was stand offish, not being helpful and was trying to avoid us.. not what I would consider normal at all.
-lead detective Mark Beckner do you think Patsy's 911 call was sincere? LOL.. no comment!
-Kim Archuletta 911 operator - What was your initial impression of the 911 call? I knew when I was talking to her something was not right.. something was not right with this call.
3 of the prime detectives in the case feel that PR did it alone or was heavily involved. With your legal background, how would you prosecute JR?
DeleteYour question was "why is (the intruder theory) predicated on coming through the broken window in the basement?" And I said because that was the popular theory, for a while, propagated by Lou Smit. And, because John had staged the basement area to make it look like an intruder could have come in that way, by breaking some glass, scattering packing peanuts on the floor as if to suggest a wind had blown them around there, opening the window, and shoving a suitcase against the wall. He also says something to the effect that the suitcase looked out of place there, "leading" the investigation. But because Officer French WAS in the basement area, where the body was hidden and further staging needed to take place, John was helpful - saying that he had broken in earlier one summer and had to crawl through there himself, which since French was looking for an entryway passage used by an intruder then thought that the reason for the open window and went back upstairs. It was a classic example of "misdirection" and mixed messages.
ReplyDeleteAll other doors and windows were locked as well. Later on it was speculated that the intruder could have used a key. Notice too that John blurs the lines of reality yet again by suggesting that the butler door may have been unlocked.
One need only to read John's many changing statements to see that something was going on, and you will start to see what he was capable of in his answers and ever-changing stories.
So if John staged the basement window, where was all of the remaining glass?
DeleteHe didn't break the entire window, just poked a hole.
DeleteBut I should defer to Doc on this issue as it is somewhat of a mind twister.
DeleteWell, first of all, there WAS some glass remaining. Fleet found some shards of glass on the floor and placed them on the window sill. Another small shard can be seen sitting on the top of the suitcase. If the breakin had taken place months ago, how did that item get on that suitcase?
DeleteAs I see it, once Patsy called 911 John must have realized his intruder staging was not going to fly, as it had not yet been completed and there was now no time to do that. It's possible also that he could have overheard the police discussing the presence of the undisturbed spider web on the grate just above the window well.
Since the hole in the window pane was relatively small there would not have been that much glass in the first place, so he could easily have collected most of it into a paper or plastic bag and hidden it among the basement clutter. Later, when he went AWOL from Arndt he could have crushed it into tiny bits with his foot and flushed it down the toilet.
If he had left the broken glass on the floor he would no doubt have been arrested on the spot, since his earlier staging would have been obvious.
And I think one should just look at how many little AWOL adventures John partook in, moving things around, staging here and there that day - the night/morning of, prior to the 911 call, during his own "look around", and from 10-11, etc. While Patsy was crying, throwing up, curled in a fetal position, at times catatonic, unable to move without assistance - John was thinking, John was on the move.
DeleteHowever the simple answer is that the "copious" other doors and windows were locked.
ReplyDeleteThe HLN 2017 special said there were entries that were *not* locked. The important fact to always remember is that the Grand Jury did not believe in the intruder theory period.
DeleteLet me ask you something Gumshoe. The following:
ReplyDelete1. If you believe Patsy accidentally struck her child with a blunt object, waited to see if she was dead, then strangled her and sexually assaulted her and regained her composure enough to compose a note - then was able to feign hysterics on the 911 call and maintain emotional hysteria the rest of the day does that seem logical?
2. And if not, if Patsy enlisted the help of John to stage a phony kidnap for ransom with note stating thus and so, the intention of a kidnap to remove a body and hold it for ransom, why would she foil her own plan by calling 911? "Our daughter's been kidnapped, get over here now but she's really in the basement." Makes 0 sense. Working with John they would have removed the body before calling 911.
Are you familiar with the Zahra Baker case? The stepmom called 911, there was a ransom note...
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Zahra_Baker
Sometimes the guilty party/ies do contact police.
I'm not familiar with the Baker case but how many people write a kidnap-for-ransom note and then leave the body there and call 911 on themselves?
DeleteInq, I'm more BDI than PDI. The two scenarios you describe above, in my opinion, are more likely than John being an incestuous, murdering father.
DeleteI'd be curious to hear of other cases where a father molested his daughter yet had no history of abuse himself nor any mental illness.
"I'd be curious to hear of other cases where a father molested his daughter yet had no history of abuse himself nor any mental illness."
DeleteHow many of them would it take to change your mind on the matter?
Mike G
Mike, let me start by saying that I'm not far from fully buying in to the JDI theory. Give me a few current cases of this, and by current, I mean last 10 years.
DeleteThe thing is with abusers who have no history, is that often times there's no alleged history only because no one speaks up. Sexual abuse is not something that is spoken about, so for every documented case you hear of, there's maybe twenty more. Trust me, sexual abusers come in all ages and all forms - CEOs, lawyers, politicians, cops, bank tellers, construction workers, grocery store baggers.....and if they're "good" at it, they'll probably take their secrets with them to their graves. I know from personal experience just how successfully duplicitous they can be. Mine wasn't a family member, it was my best friend's father, and it went on for five, long, years and I never told a soul. My friend never suspected a thing, my own parents didn't and I don't think my abuser's wife did either, as she had no issue with him driving me home at night - which is usually when the abuse took place. He held a very good job, he was not a drinker or drug user and had a lot of friends. To this day - 30+ years later - no one knows the things he did to me and he will likely die with that secret, with his family always believing he was a great guy who would never hurt anyone.
DeleteIt blows my mind that if John wasn't allowed to roam around the house unsupervised for an hour, that he'd be arrested and we wouldn't be here discussing the case at such length.
ReplyDeleteAuthor Woodward said on the HLN special that John wasn't by himself for an hour, that the church pastor was with him during that time, as well as John was making phone calls. Arndt may not have seen him, but allegedly others did, specifically the pastor.
DeleteDid the church pastor accompany John during his missing hour when Arnt declared he was out of sight? Arnt doesn't mention the Pastor AWOL as well.
DeleteI don't believe he was with the Rev. John said that in the time Arnt couldn't account for him, he was getting his mail (because that's what you do when you've just learned your daughter may possibly be the victim of a beheading), and he was in Burke's room peering through binoculars. If John had been with his pastor, as claimed on this program, he would have maintained this fact twenty years ago and none of us would even be discussing the 90 minutes he was unaccounted for, yet this is the first I've heard of it.
DeleteIt's a pity MsD that these "specials" on television keep rolling out nonsense on this case yet none of them have done any specials theorizing how John could have done it.
DeleteInq, do you believe Woodward when she wrote that fruit cocktail - cherries and grapes, were found in the digestive system of Jonbenet? Perhaps she interviewed the pastor. Perhaps she read police reports that the public has not seen about the pastor's statements. Perhaps the pastor testified at the grand jury. Perhaps Arndt wasn't that aware of the pastor. I don't know, and you didnt watch the program. Doesn't make Arndt, Woodward, or the pastor liars just because no one heard about this for the past 20 years or that John didn't mention it in his many interviews and books.
DeleteThe problem, diamondlil, is that because John lies so often, it is impossible to determine when he might be telling the truth. As most of what comes out of his mouth is demonstrably false, I have to take all of what he says with a grain of salt.
DeleteWhy should I trust a liar to tell the truth?
I think Lil, what we think we know about this case we don't know, that certain pieces of evidence are being withheld, that the ME didn't take fluids from her eyes which would have pinpointed a better time of death, that when someone like Woodward comes in after years and offers something new it's suspect, that if there were ten tiny pieces of glass from the window or just five who knows, the window was closed, then open, the chair was next to the door, then moved, did JB get up by herself or did someone get her up. And if Woodward has been withholding information for 20 years then shouldn't she be hauled in for questioning rather than presenting her "new" information on a television show for money and ratings?
DeleteAbout getting paid, Burke would have been paid by the Dr Phil show. He also said a few things that no one has heard in 20 years.
DeleteYou don't find anything that John says or Woodward says as credible. I however, include Patsy as not being credible.
Of course anything put on tv the station wants it to bring in ratings. But for those that don't watch the programming, whether it's the Dr Phil show, the CBS one, or any of the others for the 20th anniversary, to give a review or opinion on something they didn't see, is pointless.
I posted about the HLN special in case someone wanted to watch it, because no one had mentioned it here. Some did watch it. Others would rather listen to podcasts. Others would rather read an e-book. There will still be 'new' information that has yet to be told.
I'd like to imagine a scenario Zach where John would have been handcuffed to the desk and only allowed to wait for the call.
ReplyDeleteI watched that special last night as well, and yes, learned that other entry points were left open, therefore could have been accessed easily by an intruder.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what intruder would have spent that much time in a house after killing the kidnap victim? Why bother to re dress her once he cleaned the evidence away? If he meant to kidnap her where did he get the cleaning material to wipe her down? Are you saying he went up the stairs and into the bathroom for wipes or washcloths? Why chance getting caught by spending additional time there? None of that makes sense if it was an intruder.
Also, how did he know the oversized underwear was in one of the wrapped presents that was ripped open? How did he know the blanket was in the dryer?
The garrote is what puzzles me...there were marks on her neck indicating it had been tightened once or twice before the fatal and final mark which embedded the cord into her neck and killed her. Why? Sex game? Parent hesitating and unable to go through with it initially?
EG
Sounds like this HLN special was a crock, probably engineered by long-time Ramsey apologist Paula Woodward.
DeleteThis is the first I've heard of John being accompanied by his pastor. And I don't recall him saying anything about that in his police interviews. All he said was that he looked over his mail and then went upstairs to surveille nearby streets with his binoculars. If Holverstock was with him why didn't he mention it?
And no, there were no other entry points left open. The Butler door red herring was debunked years ago and the "7 open doors and windows" story was totally inconsistent with the police reports which reported no such thing.
The multiple sets of cord imprints on her neck could simply mean the thing was readjusted a couple times. Or it could mean an interval of time between each strangulation. Woodward would of course be promoting the notion that she'd been tortured with this device but there is no evidence of that. All the evidence points to her being unconscious when the "garotte" was applied. What Smit wanted to see as nail marks were petechial hemorrhages, as reported by the ME.
Aha, I knew I'd read somewhere that there was panties wrapped up
Delete"Author Woodward said on the HLN special that John wasn't by himself for an hour, that the church pastor was with him during that time, as well as John was making phone calls. Arndt may not have seen him, but allegedly others did, specifically the pastor."
ReplyDeleteDoc....I was going to ask the same question. Actually, I think Woodward said John was with the Pastor the entire 90 minutes he was purported missing, IN THE STUDY!
And yes, this made the "aftermath" portion of HLN's documentary crap, because Woodward used this assertion to profess her belief in John's innocence! And just like the ransom note "ruling" him out, the others at the table seemed to go along with her! What the hell is it about John that even the slightest hint of exculpatory testimony or "expert" opinion rules him out?
As far as the two hour documentary before the "aftermath" round table discussion, it may be the most objective one I've seen. Although some key facts and controversies were left out, the ones presented were presented fairly. I think it left most viewers skeptical about intruders without inviting them to lean towards Patsy or Burke. I think you should watch it when you can, but forget about the "aftermath".
Mike G
Gumshoe, I will give you AN article. You are looking for cases that are specific to the Ramsey case but this study and article is helpful, I believe, in explaining how HE could have molested his daughter, and why. This will be a long quote, and an equally long link, but I will quote one passage and you can read the rest of the article if you are interested. It's titled:
ReplyDeleteMen Who Molest Their Sexually Immature Daughters: Is a Special Explanation Required? by Marnie E. Rice and Grant T. Harris, Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene
"A third possible explanatory construct is mate deprivation, the idea that men who are deprived of sex with partners of their preferred age-gender category target individuals from the next most preferred available category. Intrafamilial child molesters frequently report disturbed family relationships in which the daughter becomes a surrogate sexual partner. Until recently at least, deprivation has been the most commonly accepted explanation for father-daughter incest (Quinsey, 1977, 1986) and this explanation fits with the finding that intrafamilial child molestors have often been found to have less deviant sexual preferences than other child molestors. This suggestion predicts that incestuous fathers are men who have been relatively deprived of sexual opportunities with preferred partners."
There are four reasons cited, or they suggest a combination of four could be offered as explanation but I thought the 3rd point was perhaps the most relevant to our situation we are discussing. That, and coupled with how JB was dressed in the pageants could have contributed to John's sexual feelings for his daughter. Tough to imagine, tough to read about, but this article I thought was illuminating. Link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11368470_men_who_molest_their_sexually_immature_daughters_Is_a_special_explanation_required
Thanks Inq. I'll have a look.
DeleteDoc, above you note that glass was found on the suitcase. According to Foreign Faction, Fleet found one shard on the floor. This was within 15 minutes of arriving at the scene. When do you speculate that John broke it that morning?
No, Fleet found more than one. And we don't know when he was down there. There are several timelines, all are different and the whole scene was confused and confusing. We don't really know when Fleet arrived, only his recollection which could be off by several minutes or more.
DeleteI don't know exactly when John would have broken that window, but it was certainly before Patsy got up and discovered the note. After she called 911, I imagine John would have been down in the basement as soon as possible, doing damage control. He said he found the window cracked open and then closed it. According to Fleet it was shut when he went down there. Thus it seems likely John had been down there after the 911 call but before Fleet came down. The timing of who did what when is awfully hard to estimate because of all the contradictory and confusing information from various sources. The bottom line: John's story about breaking the window prior to the night of the crime is clearly a fabrication, as attested by both the housekeeper and her husband, not to mention the failure of both John and Patsy to recall if that window had ever been repaired, which is not credible. AND HENCE: John had to have been down there cleaning up the glass prior to Fleet's being down there and finding only a few shards.
So if John lied about the window, wouldn't that be absurdly obvious to Patsy?
DeleteDo you think Patsy would have had sleuthing on her mind - wondering if John broke the glass himself, cleaned it up, whether she asked the housekeeper to or whether she might have noticed it - when her daughter has just been murdered? What would be obvious to me is that I am going to spend the rest of my life without my daughter and she is never coming back.
DeleteInq, actually, YES! To just brush Patsy aside and claim she's a distraught mother and nothing else is lazy and unfair. Sure she probably had an extremely heavy grieving period but I also suspect she spent countless hours with people like Lou Smit trying to determine who the "intruder" was. I find it near impossible that she would not have realized one of her windows was broken for 4-5 months; so I don't see her going along with this story. Burke likely would have mentioned this as well too since he played with his train set down there.
DeleteFirst of all, we have no reason to believe Patsy learned about John's window story until some time after the murder. He mentioned it to Fleet, and according to one report I recall reading, he mentioned it to a police officer. She most likely WAS extremely distraught at this time and in no mood to play the sleuth. She wanted her daughter returned to her and anything pertaining to that window would have been irrelevant at the time. She may not even have learned it was broken at that time. After JonBenet's body was found Patsy was a heavily sedated basket case for weeks and, once again, in no mood to investigate why or how that window had gotten broken. As for the rest, see the segment titled "Why Patsy Lied" in the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-4.html
DeleteAfter writing that segment I learned from one of the comments about the existence of what has come to be known as "gaslighting." And, I must say, that would seem to be the most logical explanation of Patsy's testimony regarding that window. It can't be true, because John's story is an obvious fabrication. And it can't be a lie, because she includes the housekeeper in her story and they both would have known that Linda would NOT have corroborated her story. The only explanation that makes any sense (as bizarre as it may sound) is gaslighting.
DeleteFair enough. And I'm a different animal, I would want to get to the bottom of it and question everything and everyone as I am from that generation, but as I posed much earlier what's worse than knowing your child has been murdered. And that is that you think your husband may have done it. I would like to see a transcript of whether Patsy was questioned about the window extensively, last time she was in the basement, what she was in the basement for to her recollection, was the laundry machines near the broken window, when was the last time she noticed the window at all, just when was it that she asked the housekeeper to clean up the glass, would surprise her to know that the housekeeper never claimed to have swept up the glass, etc. Was she hammered on the broken window? I don't think so. So whatever John told her happened, she likely believed.
DeleteFor the record, I could go with that the glass was already broken, not cleaned up, and John could have used it as an opportunity to scatter a few pieces,and tell LE he thought he broke it the summer before in order to get them to leave the basement and continue looking upstairs for a point of entry. He's changed his stories so many times.
DeleteAbove was in response to Gumshoe.
DeleteAlso if you recall, John allowed Lou Smit to come up with the window break in and open window as point of entry theory. He went along, but didn't actually come up with it.
DeleteAfter writing that segment I learned from one of the comments about the existence of what has come to be known as "gaslighting." And, I must say, that would seem to be the most logical explanation of Patsy's testimony regarding that window. It can't be true, because John's story is an obvious fabrication. And it can't be a lie, because she includes the housekeeper in her story and they both would have known that Linda would NOT have corroborated her story. The only explanation that makes any sense (as bizarre as it may sound) is gaslighting.
DeleteJohn has told so many lies about the basement window, I often wonder if the breaking of it had less to do with staging and more to do with an event that occurred during the actual crime that John doesn't want known. For the record - before IDIs or BDIs get excited - I don't believe for a second that an intruder broke the window or that Burke did either. All I know is that John felt it very important to fabricate a story regarding said window.
DeleteMs. D - I think the basement window was total staging when John was initially going for the deflection...aka setting and staging his intruder theory. Doesn't make sense (to me) that the window situation had anything to do with the actual crime. Just my thinking...
DeleteYes, I think you're right. I'm spending too much time unnecessarily revising my original theory and I'm losing perspective.
DeleteMark G
ReplyDeleteCan you explain why the evidence is so much more compelling against JR? Since they all lived in the house together I doesn't take Perry Mason to explain away any circumstantial and DNA evidence. How is the evidence against JR so much stronger?
Your question reflects someone who would sneak into an MIT physics class, raise his hand, and ask the professor to explain the relationship between mass and energy. There is wealth of information on this web-site staring you in the face. Horses at watering holes capable of, yet refusing to drink, don't get IV's inserted to receive fluids needed to survive. Why should someone smarter than Mr. Ed get one for something that's not a matter of life and death?
DeleteMike G
All of it is easily refutable in a court of law since that is now the standard you introduced in this forum. I am not going to go line by line to refute it no need too. Again if we are talking about a court of law, do you honestly believe you would successfully prosecute JR with 3 of the lead detectives believing it was PR and not JR? Again I am not legally trained like you, but if I was a defense attorney, those would be my first 3 witnesses. I think that would introduce reasonable doubt.
DeleteNice deflection by the way instead of a direct answer to question. Oldest trick in the book.
DeleteThe only way to introduce reasonable doubt on the basis of testimony implicating Patsy would be to acknowledge that John has been lying through his teeth for the last 20 plus years. No defense lawyer would be so foolish as to adopt such a self-defeating strategy.
DeleteYou're correct, Anon. The evidence, such as it is, does not point to any particular resident of the house; hence all the conflicting theories, even among members of LE.
ReplyDeleteJRs interrogation 1997. }"then I went from there to the cellar"pulled on the door"it was latched ,I reached up and unlatched it ,and then I saw the white blanket" unquote.. mmmm wonder who latched it?
ReplyDeletefrom this 1997-04-30 John Ramsey Interrogation by Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo
ReplyDeleteST: Is there any reason that window went unrepaired?
JR: No. I mean it's, Patsy usually took care of those things, and I just rarely went into the basement, so it just, I guess, got overlooked. Although she did think that she asked the cleaning lady's husband to fix it over Thanksgiving when they were doing some repair work there, but I don't know if that's been confirmed whether he fixed it or not."
Here is my very subjective analysis of his statement. He's asked if there was any reason that one would leave a broken window broken. No, he states. But then he realizes it's important because what kind of a homeowner would leave a broken window that an intruder, any intruder, at any time, could have used to come in and perhaps the very intruder that killed his daughter. So then he uses Patsy, the patsy. "Patsy usually took care of those things," John is implying he just never went into the basement (and it's implied that he certainly didn't go into it on the night of the 25th), so oh well, may be it just got overlooked.
But then he thinks of a story. "Although she did think that she asked the cleaning lady's husband to fix it over Thanksgiving", he remembers that clearly - a conversation that his wife had with the cleaning lady's husband that she shared with him, he would not have any reason to go into the basement or even notice that the window needed fixing but he remembers his wife asked the handyman to take care of it. He's specific too - "over Thanksgiving". But, lest it be followed up on, he offers that he doesn't know if it's been confirmed or not, so he has provided some kind of an "out" and added some confusion, if Patsy actually asked the handyman to fix it or whether or not he fixed it.
See Inq, this is where you and I disagree. I see no way in hell Patsy would like about a window being broken that directly points to an intruder, but also the entry/exit point. Do you see how crazy that sounds?
DeleteImagine you are Patsy and you wake up to find your daughter murdered. There is a broken window in the basement which is one of the biggest pieces of evidence (in your mind) yet your husband tells you to lie about it because the cops always look at the parents first. Patsy wasn't stupid. Anyone would see right through this and think they're spouse was insane. If Patsy was truly innocent, she wouldn't care if the cops thought it was her. She'd be wanting to clear her name ASAP so they can find the real killer; just like Marc Klaas said.
See, this is where you keep going wrong, Gumshoe:
Delete"Your husband tells you to lie about it because the cops always look at the parents first. Patsy wasn't stupid. Anyone would see right through this and think they're spouse was insane."
No one here has ever suggested that John asked Patsy to lie. If you had read Doc's first few blogs, you'd know that already. Or, if you have indeed read them, but disagree with his premise - which is entirely your prerogative of course - there's no need to muddy the waters by declaring JDIs have made such outrageous claims that John asked Patsy to lie for him, it simply isn't true. If that were the case, Patsy would be complicit, and JDIs obviously do not accept that she was.
Gumshoe- Gotta agree with Mrs. D here. Plus, you have to remember that Patsy had been drugged up for a while and had her whol "Chemo brain" thing going on. I doubt it would have taken much coaxing and/or "planting" memories for to believe anything John said. I mentioned somewhere earlier that I had brain surgery several years ago. My short-term memory was effed. I relied heavily on other folks to help me put the pieces together for a six month window of time post-op. I know it's not an exact comparison, but I can certainly understand how Patsy would just "buy-in" to what she was told about what happened (even if it didn't make complete sense.)
DeleteI agree Gumshoe. Most parents don't care what questions they're asked, just so long as they do it quickly to clear them so the police can continue the investigation and find the real killer/s. Not so, with the R's. They didn't want to answer any questions.
ReplyDeleteEG
Testimonies regarding the broken window and suitcase are voluminous yet key to cracking this case. What's needed is a chart of who said what about it to whom and when they said it. The players would include Fleet White, John Ramsey, Rick French, Patsy Ramsey, the cleaning lady, the cleaning lady's husband, Burke Ramsey, and Linda Arndt. (Am I missing any?) If all the statements were laid out in sequential order, it would be easier to discern, and draw logical inferences from, who lied, flip-flopped, or testified consistently through the years. If a statement is hearsay, it should be identified as such, perhaps by using a different color font. This would also make it easier to determine what testimonies, if any, have remain sealed.
ReplyDeleteDoc, in his book, has already already done a lot of what I've suggested here, but not on the same scale or in the same format. It would be a huge undertaking---one requiring many hours of planning research, and finger-tip access to all available transcripts, to execute.
Mike G
Here's what Patsy had to say about the basement window when interviewed in 1997:
DeleteTT: Okay. Any reason why that one wasn’t replaced or the pane wasn’t fixed or anything?
PR: No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that, um, I remember when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .
TT: Um hum.
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.
TT: Do you ever recall getting that window replaced?
PR: Yeah, uh, I can’t remember. I just can’t remember whether I got it replaced or not.
And here's what she had to say when interviewed in '98:
20 TRIP DEMUTH: What did you do after the
21 window was broken, did you have some involvement with
22 that at all?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, yes. When I came back,
24 you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass
25 everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out --
0418
1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned
2 it up, obviously, and cleaned it up, and I had Linda
3 sweep down there because the kids, the boys would
4 sometimes play in here.
So in her testimony from BOTH 1997 AND 1998 she places Linda, her housekeeper, in that same basement room, cleaning up the glass that John had supposedly broken during the summer of 1996.
(continued in my next post:)
And here's what Linda the housekeeper had to say on this matter during an interview published in The Star of June 20, 2000:
DeleteI used to clean their house three times a week. If something was broken, Patsy had me clean it up. On the morning of the murder, police found a broken window in the basement, just a few feet from the room where JonBenet's body was found. John Ramsey told the police that he had broken the window to get into the house months before when he was accidentally locked out. But I think that is a lie. If there had been broken glass in the basement, Patsy would have told me to clean it up.
Obviously Linda knew nothing about that broken window and did not help Patsy clean up any broken glass as Patsy had TWICE claimed during both police interviews.
So what are we to make of Patsy's story?
If it were true, then why did Linda deny any knowledge of this incident? And if it were a lie, why would Patsy have been so stupid as to include Linda in her story not only the first time she was asked, but also a full year later, after she'd have had plenty of time to go over her story with John and correct her error?
Answer: 1. The incident never happened, obviously.
2. If John and Patsy were in it together, then he might well have asked her to lie about this incident to corroborate his story. But he would certainly not have told her to include Linda, as he'd have known very well that Linda would have denied any involvement.
3. As it seems to me, we have no choice but to conclude that Patsy was relating a memory that had been implanted in her mind by John. Call it manipulation, call it "gaslighting," but Patsy would have been extremely vulnerable during this time. She rarely went into that basement area anyhow so she might well have failed to notice whether the window had been broken or not. She'd had a long bout of chemotherapy and had been under heavy sedation for weeks after the murder, so it would not have been difficult for John to convince her that she'd cleaned up that glass but had forgotten about it. Since he'd been ruled out as writer of the note, she'd have had no reason to suspect him, nor would she have wanted to suspect her husband of being involved in such a horrendous crime against his own child. And how would it have looked if she'd openly challenged John's version of what happened?
It's not difficult to see from her testimony that she's very ill at ease and confused when discussing the broken glass. And since she'd always relied on Linda to help clean up any mess, it makes sense that she'd have included Linda in her (false) memory of that incident.
I just don't see why Patsy would go along with such an egregious lie. One that would be such invaluable evidence to police on the intruder. It makes no sense. Reading your two posts above Doc, it's clear to me that Patsy is lying as part of the cover-up that she is involved with.
DeleteI fully appreciate your skepticism, Gumshoe. What you say certainly makes sense. But in order to understand this case we need to pull back, focus on the big picture, and not let ourselves get bogged down in all the many details.
DeleteIf Patsy were involved in the cover-up, then what, exactly, would she be covering up? Is she the one who killed her child? Can you really believe that? What could have been her motive? Bed-wetting? Really? And if she struck JonBenet over bedwetting or for any other reason why wouldn't she have immediately called 911 to report an accident? Even if it was a deliberate act it could still have been reported as an accident, no? And how would it have been possible for her to pull herself together and write that very carefully crafted 2 1/2 page note? Not to mention penetrating her child's vagina and then going on to strangle her, tightening the noose so tightly that the string was deeply embedded in her neck? Does such behavior on the part of a loving mother who has just lost her favorite child make sense to you?
Or was she covering for John? If John had killed her beloved child, the child she doted on so extravagently, do you really think she'd have wanted to cover for him? To protect the family name? Really? To ensure their millionaire lifestyle? If he'd been convicted she could have sued for divorce and gotten an enormous settlement. She'd have been set for life.
Or was she covering for her son? That does seem reasonable -- until we ask ourselves all the same questions I've raised above. If Burke had clobbered his sister, the parents would have called 911, not staged an elaborate coverup, complete with sexual assault, garotte strangulation and 2 1/2 page kidnap note. And once again, can you really picture Patsy pulling herself together to write that note in the state she'd have been in? Carefully adhering to the left margin, dotting every i, crossing every t, maintaining a perfectly consistent spacing between words?
I'm sorry, Gumshoe, but if we want to deal rationally with is case we need to consider it as a whole, not bit by bit. To me, gaslighting, as flaky as it might sound, seems far more likely than any of the possibilities outlined above.
Doc, I appreciate your points above. At the end of the day, as I've said before, any theory you buy into requires a leap of faith at some point and the ability to put logic aside on a number of facts regarding the case.
DeleteDoc, what of Burke's story that he was with him when John had broken the basement window in order to "break in" to the home? What do you make of that? Is Burke telling a bold faced lie (if so, why?) or had John, in fact, broken the basement window once in the past in order to get in to the house, and it subsequently gave him the idea that such a scenario would work well in promoting the intruder theory?
DeleteGumshoe, with all respect, I don't see any reason to put logic aside regarding any of the facts of this case. Conan Doyle's dictum still holds: "Once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, has to be the truth.)" That does not invite us to accept what is illogical -- but it does encourage us to use our imaginations to reveal possibilities that may never have been considered.
DeleteMs. D: Frankly I don't know what to make of Burke's story. It's occurred to me that he was just "being helpful" by supporting his father's version of the window breakin -- not realizing that John claimed to have been alone at the time.
DeleteIt's also possible that he was telling the truth and that Johh actually did break into that window in the past while in Burke's presence. That does not make John's story more credible, for all the many reasons I've provided on this blog.
"That does not make John's story more credible, for all the many reasons I've provided on this blog."
DeleteOh, I absolutely agree with you. John lied about the window - several times - and each time, the story changes, because whilst John is a pathological liar, he is not a consistent one. But I just wonder, if John had indeed broken the basement window more than once in order to gain access to the house, then Patsy may genuinely be unsure as to whether/when she had previously cleaned up broken basement window shards, as perhaps she had done it once or twice before. As for the reason as to why John would have ever needed to break into his own home when several friends had keys, that's a big, red, flag as to the authenticity of his story. But if he didn't break in, then Burke is lying. And I cannot come up with a valid reason as to why Burke would lie about such a thing - even in the unlikely event Burke killed JonBenet on Christmas night. If it is an outright fabrication, then Burke surely knows more than he is letting on, as he is telling a blatantly false story in order to add credibility to his father's bogus account, knowing full well it never happened.
I believe the false story was that John broke the window when he got locked out. In fact that break looks to me like a baseball went through it, or the gardener could have poked a rake there. You are right Ms D with so many neighbors with keys John would only need to make a phone call to ask to be let in. Why even risk cutting up your wrist putting your hand through jagged glass and reaching around to unlatch a window? I think John noticed that break perhaps for the first time (since by his own admission he rarely goes down to the basement) and used it to allow OTHERS to come to a conclusion that an intruder may have broken it to gain entry. Patsy says over and over in her interview that Burke and his friends would have played down there, and she would have had "every piece", "every chunk" not only swept up but Linda would vacuum behind her. This to me shows she is so very sad over the loss of one child she wants the interviewers to know that she would not allow glass to be on the floor where her son could be hurt. This is a very distraught woman, who has had one child murdered, and feels she didn't protect her child, she'll spend the rest of her life protecting her other child. I'm not so sure she is protecting John's story, but she is under great emotional and mental strain and IF glass were all over the floor, then she and Linda would have picked up all of it. Every stitch.
DeleteWe will have to go back and see if it was Officer French who first pointed out the broken window, or if it was John who mentioned it to Fleet, or Fleet who mentions it to John. In any event, if Officer French noticed it, and pointed to it as a point of entry, I believe John had more staging to do in the basement and wanted to deny that an intruder came in there (as he had broken in, he said) so that they would leave the area (and presumably not find JB). He was not ready for her to be found yet.
You raise an interesting point, Ms.D. Burke would almost certainly have known if that window had actually been broken the previous summer. Which makes him an unreliable witness for sure. I've always suspected he knew more than he's ever been willing to acknowledge and I think we need to take everything he's said with a grain of salt.
DeleteInquisitive, it seems to me that you are overthinking the details of this case. All sorts of things are possible for sure, but there's no point in speculating without any evidence to back it up. A gardner's rake would have been stopped by the grate. Same with a baseball. And if the window had been broken by accident there'd have been no reason for John to concoct some other explanation.
Yes, I suppose so. I started out with wanting to show John's lying, then tried to see just why he did lie, and show evidence of lying. The many changing stories and yes, I always have wanted every piece of the puzzle to fit - breaking down everything down to it's least common denominator in order to make sense and yet I can see how that then obscures the bigger picture. I enjoy thinking and in particular thinking in the abstract (you should see my abstract art - it's intricate, detailed, ordered, and yet seen in other ways as ordered chaos - beautiful, in my opinion!). Which is why I also love jazz. But in this case perhaps the simplest explanation is the best explanation.
DeleteI've been doing a little too much overthinking myself lately in regards to certain details of the case, which is something I generally try not to do as it tends to further muddy already murky waters. Perhaps it is because there's no longer anything new under the sun, so we feel compelled to rehash old details in the minute hope we'll discover something new and compelling.....but Doc already did that, didn't he, lol?
DeleteYes, Doc already did that. However there are some explanations Doc provided explaining the evidence that I might have a different explanation - while still remaining true to the premise that JR had to have done this. I'm not dead set on it, but I think it's entirely possible that that window was already broken and John's staging had more to do with opening the window to go with the break, than not. Then however, Doc offers that why would John then concoct some other explanation for the break. Yes, why indeed. Because he seems to be saying that the intruder DID NOT break it, he did. And that makes 0 sense to me. What I came up with is that he wants to direct the investigation back upstairs so that he can get back downstairs for further staging.
DeleteI think, Gumshoe, you are trying to look at it and make it fit rationally. Because to me, clearly, what Patsy says is irrational, and not true. But was she lying? I don't see that she was. And if so, she isn't lying very effectively - she's all over the place.
ReplyDelete1. First of all she says she does not remember if it was fixed or not. She says she can't even remember trying to remember it.
2. She cleaned up all the glass, every chunk, and Linda went around her and vacuumed up she says.
3. It was just little pieces she says, and big pieces, everything.
4. She cleaned it up, picked up pieces of glass - "He" never cleaned it up - is that "he" John?
She's clearly embellished on her story as it gathers steam but is it an indication of lying as part of a cover-up? If so, she's not a very good liar. She sounds befuddled to me, not exhibiting signs of someone with very good memory of that time and someone who has added here and there to make her story jive with what John told her, which is CLEARLY a lie - that he broke the window when he got locked out. Notice HE adds that he thinks she told the handyman (Linda's husband) to fix it over Thanksgiving.
If John and Patsy shared an attorney she could have been privy to anything he said as well, or she may have been allowed to sit in on his interviews. I don't know how that works of if that's possible.
Mike if you would want to take that on - analyze John's statements juxtaposed with Patsy's it would indeed be a huge undertaking. Perhaps the first Gumshoe could help - he's compiled quite a huge dossier on JR from what he's said in here previously. But just what is note worthy, to me, is that everyone has their own particular lying style if you will. And you can identify it by reading statements over and over. Then it becomes obvious, so you can catch it in future statements.
ReplyDeleteFor instance one of John's tells is that he likes to portend to be helpful. He also is very suggestive - suggesting for instance that one should ask others to see if something might have happened or not or be true or not. For instance when he couldn't recognize the flashlight. He's fond of saying things don't look right or appear right, but that John Andrew should be consulted to see if that is the flashlight he gave him. He's helpful! And, he wants to suggest that others should be consulted in order to corroborate his story, or any story. That gives his own story plausibility, and probably a business tactic. Verify. Corroborate. And defer.
I think the question of the window is a mind twister, at least for me but dawn is breaking. In any event weren't we talking about John sweeping up some of the glass pieces? That is what is mind boggling to me. I've gone back to find your original thread on this and I can't pinpoint it by date, thus, I can't find it. Obviously he left some of the shards there, as Fleet picked one up and placed it on top of the suitcase. So John, presumably staged a break-in - then attempted to unstage it? I believe at the time we were discussing it Doc, you said CC found your flaw-in-the-window so to speak. Could you possibly go over it again, or point me to the specific thread. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteSee the section titled "The Gospel According to DocG" in the following post: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-3.html
DeleteFor more details check out the post after that one as well.
The only thing I can really come up with is that John wanted LE out of the basement - to look for a point of entry upstairs, as he had more staging to do and didn't want the body found yet. This is interesting:
ReplyDelete1998 June 25,26,27 Taped Interrogation interview of JR by Lou Smit and Michael Kane in Colorado NE Book Page 304
LS: What made you go downstairs?
JR: I just wanted to start logically from the bottom up, I guess...so I went down to the basement...I explained to (Fleet) that this window had been cracked open. And I closed it...that the window was broken, but I think it was broken by me...we got down on our hands and knees - looking for some glass just to see.
LS: what did you find?
JR: I think we found a few fragments of glass...not enough to indicate that it was a fresh break...we might have put them on the ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We had only found one or two.
Now why wouldn't he want the broken glass to indicate a "fresh break"? Either he didn't want the implication that he had freshly broken it himself, or he is being "helpful," or to me he wants French and Fleet out of the basement. I can't come up with any other plausible reason why he would take credit for the broken window when he would want it to be an intruder who broke it. I get that breaking it and crawling in the window (sans business suit) was a lie.
I have another theory here: that the window break was already there but the window being OPENED was not. That that was what John staged, and later allowed others to conclude that a window break had to go along with an opened window.
There is just no way Patsy would go along with a bold faced lie and say that John broke the window when in fact that would be one of the most important pieces of evidence regarding the intruder. Do you realize how crazy that sounds? If John was this much of a psychopath, why wouldn't he just have killed Patsy the minute she tried to call the police? I find it odd he would allow that to happen before his staging was complete. To just hope Patsy would NOT call the police has to be one of the biggest gambles in history. Why take that chance after everything he had done up to that point?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I feel like you all are giving John way too much credit with the way he allegedly wrote the ransom note since some think it was written in a way to get him out of the house and collect the money and dispose of the body. Or I've heard it mentioned that Patsy and Burke would leave while he could then complete the staging. John was not an experienced criminal. Hell, up to that night, he was pretty straight laced by all accounts. I think he and/or Patsy wrote that note to sound the way they thought a ransom note should sound; based on what they see in movies. I also think they rambled on in the note with hopes of truly "selling" it.
Gumshoe, Gumshoe. I do so appreciate you because you are somewhat of a skeptic, and I can appreciate that. And I agree with part of your commentary above, in that movie quotes were used to describe what a kidnapper would do and how he would do it. As you said, to sound the way a ransom note should sound. Agreed. But then you lost me - because this could not have been a joint endeavor. But to argue endlessly over point by point, is getting nowhere. I have a request. Would you be willing to lay out why you believe it was a Patsy-John murder coverup, who you think struck the blow, why you think one parent would enlist another to cover up, what was the motive, what was the purpose of the note if not to stage a crime, etc. However you want to put it together. And I realize we have no proof but give it your best shot. In particular if you believe an accident or intentional and why. Thanks! Or if you believe an intruder. However you want to go. But I'd like you to say why you believe that way if you would. Think of it like a term paper. Footnote it if you wish.
ReplyDeleteInq, let me start by saying I do not fully buy in to a theory yet, other than RDI. But then to go a step further, I'd have to say I rank them, in order of likeliness as BDI, PDI, JDI.
DeleteI have laid out my theory for how Burke could have done this in a previous thread. I'll try to dig it up.
Let me quickly try to point to the ridiculous parts of each theory that prevent me from fully guying in:
BDI: I have no problem believing he could have been responsible for the head blow or even some form of strangulation as evidenced by the markings under her neck. But I struggle to think he could make a garrote. I also struggle with how he could keep this a secret all these years, especially as a young kid.
PDI: I find it hard to believe a mother could strangle her child after delivering the head blow. If Patsy was involved, I tend to think John was too.
JDI: I find it extremely hard to believe he was molesting his 6 year old daughter. I also don't think Patsy would cover for him regarding the broken basement window.
That's where I am. I may have missed something since I quickly put this together.
"I think he and/or Patsy wrote that note to sound the way they thought a ransom note should sound; based on what they see in movies. I also think they rambled on in the note with hopes of truly "selling" it."
DeleteBut why write something that sounds "the way they thought a ransom note should sound" if they weren't planning to stage an actual kidnapping. How did they expect the police to buy that note once the body of the victim was found IN the house?
Sorry, but your logic escapes me.
To stage a kidnapping gone wrong?
DeleteOy Vay!
DeleteDoc has spent countless hours explaining why this cannot be the case, John I. The note was written as a "genuine" ransom note, pure and simple. Yes, the author knew it was obviously never going to be an actual kidnapping, but it's purpose was to fool Patsy and LE into believing it was exactly as the note said it was: a kidnapping for ransom. The *only* reason people believe the note was written in order to stage a "kidnapping gone wrong" is because the cops were called before John had a chance to move the body, so people assume this must have been part of the plan. It wasn't, of course, for the reasons Doc has meticulously outlined in his first few posts. The instructions for the pick up of the money and the subsequent delivery were precise - the note's purpose was not a ruse to confuse LE - this was intended to be viewed as a "genuine" ransom note that John had every intention of following to the letter (of course he did, he wrote it with his best interests in mind). He never counted on having police swarming the house whilst his victim lay dead in the basement......so, onto a hastily improvised "Plan B": the pedophile intruder scenario, hence the staging.
DeleteQuestion: I have read that the Bloomingdale, over sized panties she was wearing at the time of death were from her drawer but also read that they were from a wrapped present for Patsy's niece. Which is it? If the latter, I think that pushes me even farther away from JDI.
ReplyDeletePatsy says they were put in jbr's draw, I read somewhere they were in wrapping in basement but I cannot find where I read this. (Discussed on previous blogs), but anon, back thread, states the same about new and in wrapping paper.
ReplyDeleteI had always thought they were put away in JB's drawer, but then someone else raised the possibility they were in the basement, wrapped. Then couldn't find a notation on Patsy saying one way or the other. Only all the chatter about two trips to New York, buying the panties for Jenny, but JB wanted to keep them for herself so Patsy allowed her to. To me not caring about whether they fit or not is more consistent with John grabbing whatever was handy, be they in the basement or in a drawer, to redress her to get rid of whatever he may have thought from himself, got on her. Or there is the other theory that JB got up herself and changed into the "baggy" panties. I don't know why that would push you even further away from JDI - to me it pushes me further toward him.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe, I found your scenario, it was Feb. 27. You think Burke killed her - struck the head blow, then tried to strangle her with her own sweater, then John made a garrote because it would look better, more sophisticated. Correct me if I've gotten it wrong. Then Patsy wrote the note. Do you still believe that?
ReplyDeleteYes. More or less.
DeleteIn the transcripts diamondlil posted the link for a couple of weeks ago, Patsy states she put the packet of over-sized panties in JB's bathroom drawer.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe, why would Patsy have redressed JB in extra large panties when she knew very well what size she took and where she kept the panties she regularly wore? The fact that JB was wearing such large underwear points specifically to a person who wasn't aware she didn't wear this size - clearly *not* Patsy. The panties being too large actually lends much more credence to the JDI theory.
If Patsy knew what kind of panties she wore, why were extra large panties in her drawer to begin with?
DeleteBecause Patsy bought them for her niece but didn't get around to sending them and JB liked them, so she kept them for her.
DeleteI'm not sure what you're suggesting.....that Patsy *didn't* know what size JonBenet wore, even though she was the person who purchased her clothes and dressed her? I'm genuinely perplexed.....
Ms D, I thought I had read somewhere that the extra large panties were in fact for her niece, as you stated, but that they were wrapped in the basement.
DeleteMy response to you above was more suggesting that it would be ridiculous for any mother to keep size 10-12 panties, or whatever they were, in the drawer of their 6 year old daughter. I also could have sworn that I read an interview transcript where they said only size 4-6 panties were found in JBR's drawers, suggesting that the larger size ones were never found up there.
This is correct gumshoe. Patsy said that she put the larger panties in jbr's draw for her to help herself. But then I read somewhere that around 15 pairs were collected by LE, and all size 4-6.
DeleteYes, the rest of the packet were not recovered, which is very strange, no matter who committed the murder. Even more odd was that around eighteen months later, the rest of the packet was allegedly found by the Ramseys and sent to LE! The underwear issue has always been a head scratcher.....why would John dispose of the rest of the packet? Why would Patsy? Why would Burke? Why would an intruder?! Why would any of these people feel the need to change her panties to begin with, when simply removing the ones she was wearing that may have contained damning evidence would have been adequate?
DeleteLet's just hope we get those DNA results soon and also hear from CBS. We need some new material!
ReplyDeleteChanging JBR's panties for the extra large ones would lead me to believe the changing of her clothes was done last minute....maybe after PR called 911 or when authorities were in the home. Otherwise, why put the large ones on when they had access to panties that fit? I really wish they would have been able to tell what JBR was washed down with (water? alcohol?) I do not think that JR would be able to erase all of his DNA...I really don't. Would love to hear from an expert to see how likely it would be if JR's DNA were on JBR and he wiped her off...how likely it would be that any DNA would be left behind. Traces even.
ReplyDeleteDid the autopsy report state that the blood found on JBR's body came from cuts within her vagina? Where did the blood droplets come from? Were the cuts consistent with small amounts of blood letting out or would there have been more blood that was potentially wiped away?
Honestly, the autopsy report is very lacking. I see better reports on CSI or Law and Order.
Very good points and questions.
DeleteI still question why John's DNA was not found in her vagina if he was molesting her.
Evidently he was using a glove, possibly the latex glove found in a neighbor's garbage.
DeleteThat's another thing that I find utterly bizarre. What guy gets sexual gratification by using a glove for digital penetration? Is that common? I certainly wouldn't think so. If he's a monster who needs that gratification, he isn't going to use a glove because he wouldn't be expecting her to be killed and his DNA to be investigated on her body.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe he wore gloves in this particular instance because he wasn't abusing her for gratification this time, Gumshoe - he was mutilating her vagina in order to cover up previous abuse. It was for misdirection purposes, not for sexual gratification. Though I still think it's possible (I know Doc disagrees) that he used the paintbrush handle to do so, in order not to leave traces of his own DNA inside of her. But I believe he wore gloves throughout - when wiping down her body, fashioning the garrote etc. He naturally wouldn't have wanted to leave prints on anything that could link him directly to the crime. Whoever committed this murder - be it a Ramsey or an intruder - was thorough in their attempts to not leave any trace of DNA, that much we do know, therefore it seems logical to surmise that gloves were used. Of course, John Ramsey left some of his shirt fibres in JonBenet's crotch, which is pretty damning evidence he was the one "poking around" in JB's genital region at the time of her murder.
DeleteWe don't know the sequence of the murder. 1) He could have planned it in advance; 2) He could have hit her first; 3) Could have been staged to cover previous abuse in which case he would not want his DNA found there in any case.
ReplyDeleteIf the ME and Dr. Wecht said she was molested digitally and DNA was not found pointing to any male Ramsey, and we believe John did the digital molesting and not an intruder, then he used a glove. End of story.
Burke Ramsey on Fox2detroit in courtroom with Lin Wood.
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to the video: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/240343703-story
DeleteBurke is no longer smiling.
Wow. Burke needs a shave.
DeleteI may have missed this. Why when It was asked for writing samples would be give the police the pad of paper the RN was written on.
ReplyDeleteAuto correct messed that up. Why would JR when asked for a writing sample give police the pad the RN was written on
ReplyDeleteWhy try to hide it? He knew very well it was going to be examined by forensics, so why not be "cooperative"?
DeleteYes, Doc, but the question is.....why was the pad he used to write the ransom note still in the house to begin with?! Three possible scenarios:
Delete1. He didn't know the note could be traced back to Patsy's pad.
Perhaps he believed that by removing the six or seven pages underneath, any indentations the pen may have made in the lower pages would be gone, thus there'd be no evidence this particular tablet of paper had been used to pen the note - it would explain why he was so willing to hand it over, he may have legitimately thought he'd covered his tracks well.
2. He knew damn well it would be traced back to Patsy's pad, which is what he was counting on.
3. He was planning on dumping the pad when he dumped JB's body.
1 and/or 3. NOT 2. I've examined this type of pad and noticed that the perforations are really tiny and easy to overlook. So it's possible John never anticipated that his note could be traced to that pad. And if that had been a concern, he would certainly have planned to get rid of it the following night, when he dumped the body.
DeleteI'm still puzzled as to why you think he might have been trying to implicate Patsy. His aim would have been to steer the investigation outside of the house, not inside. And nothing about Patsy's unexpected 911 call would have changed that, as far as I can see.
Patsy was questioned extensively regarding the oversized underwear. Just re- read the interview with Patsy on acandyrose re Bloomies underwear, which I don't want to type out in full here. She's questioned extensively about it. First she thinks she bought two packages - one for Jenny, one for JB. Finally thinks perhaps she only bought one, and then would have put them in the underwear drawer. She's not sure about that though. They were purchased in November she believes. She does recall that Dec. 24 JonBenet bathed, and no one but Patsy bathes her, but she did not have a bath Dec. 25. She said JB was capable of getting dressed on her own, but she doesn't know if the oversized panties were on her that night when she pulled off her velvet leggings and changed her into the longjohns after returning from the White's. She does recall that she had on panties, she would notice if she did not, but she did not notice if they were oversized or not. She admits it was dark in the bedroom, she did not turn on the overhead lights, but used the light from the bathroom to get JB re-dressed for bed. So I think it's entirely possible Patsy did not know if JB had on the oversized panties or not. If she put them in the drawer then they were "fair game" she says and JB could have put them on herself. She could have lied and said they were on her. What she says is she didn't notice if they were small, or large. And I believe her. Of course John is off the hook, since Patsy got JB ready for bed. He only put her on the bed. Helped Burke with his toy, then went upstairs and took his melatonin. Or two.
ReplyDeleteI think DocG already posted the link I was going to post. A few days ago I mentioned that Burke would be back in court on the 8th.
ReplyDeleteBurke looks rough. Maybe buzzed? The guy next to him, at least his profile, is tasty! If this goes to a jury, and they are allowed to hear of all of the previous lawsuits and the coin he and Wood, et al have made, the jurors may not feel he needs to line his pockets with that many more millions.
DeleteCouple things:
Delete1. I find it odd that Lin Wood told the the judge that while on Patsy's deathbed, he promised her that he would protect Burke from accusations on the murder. Why would there ever be a need to make that kind of promise?
2. Why didn't Burke sue James Kolar after his book was released?
I can think of reasons Gummy bear.
Delete1. Because Burke had already been maligned in the tabloids
2. Kolar never offered a scenario. On advice of attorney he stayed away from that kind of commitment.
Quite frankly it was a surprise to me when I saw Kolar was going to be on the CBS special. He's even been cagey in Q&A's after his book release.
Thanks Inq.
DeleteI decided to re-read PMPT. In the first chapter of the book, the guy who maintained the Ramsey's yards indicated that in the fall prior to the murder, JBR was talking to him about how much she missed her dad because he was traveling and even started crying about it. To me, that doesn't sound like a girl who is being sexually abused by her father.
Oh yeah? What kind of experience do you have with child psychology?
DeleteProbably about as much as you Zach.
DeleteSo zero? Fair to say you don't know what you're talking about?
DeleteGood one Zach. Let me ask you this, how much experience do you or anyone on this site have with police or detective work? If the answer is none, then why are we all having this discussion? Let's lose the attitude ok?
DeleteIt doesn't take a child psychologist to question why a child would miss her father so much if she's being molested by her father. If you have a contrary point of view, please offer it up. I'll be sure to avoid giving you a snarky comment.
Judging by all the women in the last decade who have spoken out about childhood incest, feelings of affection for their fathers and abuse at their hands are not mutually exclusive.
DeleteYes, CC. The word "abuse" is misleading. There's no evidence JBR had been beaten or anything like that. She was too young to understand about sex, so she may well have welcomed all the attention from her Dad. Until it went too far.
DeleteThe word abuse may be misleading but we absolutely know what it means in this case.
DeleteGumshoe, we don't know how long she was being molested. She could have had other molestors who would have had time alone with her. But of all the possible molestors, who would have had means, motive and opportunity to kill her Dec. 25/26? I don't think you believe there was an intruder, so we have to go with the three in the house. Do you think Patsy was molesting her daughter? Do you think Burke was molesting his sister? Or could it have been John.
ReplyDeleteAll victims of incest are different, but it's more likely she would have ratted on her brother if it were he, and she would have had profound resentment toward her mother if it were she - and might have even have told the school nurse - but a father - more likely to have been enrolled to see it as a loving act, especially if he could convince her of that being so. It also may have been presented as their little secret so that he could essentially get her to collaborate and go along, at least for a while. She didn't make it past age 6, had she, it would have continued on from there.
And I do know something about child pyschology, although Experimental was my bag. Little girls idolize their fathers. If you want to go with Freud, boys go through an Oedipal stage, girls Electra. But let's not go with Freud. Little girls, in stages of their development wish to marry their fathers and compete with their mothers for daddy's attention. Fathers are little girl's role model of the man she will eventually want to marry. I'm sure, at her young age, she did idolize her father and love him very much. Had the abuse gone on longer she would have become resentful. It's possible she may have been coming to an age where she knew it was not right, but still had conflicted feelings about it. So that's my Child Psychology 101 course synopsis, but you can do your own research on this.
ReplyDeleteThanks CC and Doc. Those are good points.
DeleteOne other thing I thought about; why do you think John chose for all of this to happen on Christmas night? It seems like he would have been very excited for his entire family to be together for the Holidays. Also, why on earth would Christmas night be the night to kill your daughter?
I have a pet theory that Patsy's three after hours calls to the pediatrician eight days before the murder were to report that JBR had yet another vaginal infection, and
DeleteDr Beuf suggested a pelvic exam after the holidays. It then took John several days to formulate a plan, write the RN and muster the nerve.
I was just reading about those three after hour calls last night CC. Patsy said she called Dr. Beuf's office, not his home. This is peculiar to me because since it was after hours it would imply an emergency. Then there were three calls within a few minutes of the next so did no one answer? Was there not an emergency nurse on call, or an emergency operator? She must not have gotten through given three rapid calls. Yet, she does not remember any significance to these three calls in her interview. So:
ReplyDelete1. Three calls in a row - no one answered the call?
2. Three calls in a row - no emergency operator on call?
3. How did she get hold of Dr. Beuf enough to have had a suggestion of pelvic exam - on the third and last call?
Unfortunately we don't have her phone records enough to know if she then, after the third call, called him at home.
Another way to interpret the three calls in less than an hour.
ReplyDelete1. First call was at 6:28 p.m. Since she called his office and it was after-hours, she could have very well spoken to the on call nurse or operator, in any event Dr. Beuf's service, who relayed the message.
2. 22 minutes later at 6:50 she calls again. Is Patsy just impatient or was there some sense of emergency, enough that she felt she needed to call again as Beuf had not returned her call.
3. Now at 6:59 she calls again. That is only 9 minutes after the last call. And Patsy doesn't remember making any of those calls which is peculiar as either she is just a very impatient person or there was an emergency situation in which she needed to consult with Dr. Beuf immediately and she had not received the call back.
In conclusion I believe it was something other than just another vaginal infection. Something for which Patsy was too impatient to wait for the call back.
"Just another vaginal infection"? In a child of six? It was her third or fourth that year, and by that time Patsy was likely alarmed. They'd been at a pageant in Denver on the 17th; after hours was her first opportunity to make a call.
ReplyDeleteHad it been a true emergency the hospital was five minutes away. Had it been a mundane complaint Patsy by that time had fifteen years cumulative child-rearing experience and could have managed on her own. No, it was a matter of some urgency that she speak with him and she probably called repeatedly until she was connected or got a call back.
She "doesn't remember" in her interview because by then she had been told about the sexual abuse and didn't want to say anything to further that line of questioning.
I can indulge in useless speculation, too.
She made the call on Dec. 7, not the 17th
ReplyDeleteWrong.
DeleteGo look at acandyrose 06-23-98. Right. And she is questioned about the calls to Dr. Beuf previous to the questioning asking her about previous sexual abuse, but same interview.
ReplyDelete