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

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

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

Monday, April 24, 2017

In Circles

We're going around in circles, folks. And there are way too many posts expressing frustration and indignation with other participants in this increasingly futile discussion. I too am getting both frustrated and impatient.


Someone attacks someone else. The targeted person responds with "righteous" indignation. So instead of discussing the case we are off to the races on a flame war. And when I start deleting such irrelevant and offensive posts to nip the war in the bud, I am attacked. So, to quote the (dis)honorable Richard Nixon, "let me make one thing perfectly clear": offensive posts, whether directed at fellow posters or at me personally WILL be deleted when and if I find them. I will also be deleting posts complaining about my policies, EVEN if the complaints seem reasonable. OK? My policies are my policies, I take responsibility for them, and I'm running the show --  and if you think I've done something unfair, please email me directly. But don't clutter this forum with off-topic issues.

I'm also tempted to delete redundant posts, containing little more than a rehash of what's been said before -- often many times before. So please folks, try to refrain from posting unless you have something fresh to contribute.  And please try to avoid personal remarks, even if you feel they are justified. OK? Thank you.

239 comments:

  1. Good morning all!

    Doc, you're right, and I commend you for the outstanding job you do here keeping things fair and balanced.

    Zed...I agree with you that there might exist a whole other possibility regarding Burke's involvement. I read somewhere that the Stine's had a male babysitter who often babysat for both families when they went out together.
    I often wondered why PR never called The Stines that morning, as they were the closest in proximity to the Ramsey home and they were such good friends of theirs. Also, the Stines took the R's in afterwards and even moved to Georgia with them leaving lucrative jobs behind in Boulder. Doesn't all of that strike you as strange.
    And wasn't it Susan Stine who answered the door when the 911 call was placed, telling police it was a mistake in dialing and all was fine?
    Maybe all wasn't fine. Maybe the kids were playing some bizarre game and someone got hurt and they continued it that night. I know I read something about bicycle tire tread found outside the R's home.

    Any thoughts or info on this from anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes and didn't the Whites and the Fernies dissolve their friendship with the Ramseys shortly thereafter

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Steins were also the last people to see them as an "intact family"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Exactly, which was always odd to me as to why the R's never called them. Their sons were best friends, they had just been there the night before and they were the closest in proximity to the R's.

    And them to quit their jobs, and move to Atlanta with the R's makes no sense. They said Susan Stine was like PR's pitbull not letting anyone near her, protecting her at all costs. One had to wonder, why?

    ReplyDelete
  5. That last comment was mine with several errors, I might add. ;)...darn auto check..EG

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since all of the toilets were removed when search warrants were issued and searches completed they reportedly looked for anything and everything that could have been flushed down those toilets - broken glass, rag, cord, tape, etc. What I read from one of those items retrieved from the house it's stated "broken glass from wine cellar." That could be where the glass from the window was hidden. There is someone we haven't considered who may have broken the window - Patsy. Since she went on and on about picking up every piece, every chunk, isn't it possible it was she who staged the break in? Granted, she missed a shard or two, which Fleet picked up and set on the ledge. The wine cellar room would be a perfect place to hide the glass, a room where other broken bric a brac were kept - screen doors and or windows, buckets of paint, etc. In dissecting Patsy's statements there is always the element of truth. There is truth in her statements. Making her eminently believable. Also I will delete my comments regarding the Stines as they could be considered redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Patsy was in on the plan, then surely before dialing 911 she would have disposed of the window glass in a neighbor's trash can, rather than put it in the very same room where she hid her daughter's body, knowing the police would search every inch of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't a person staging a break-in WANT there to be lots of broken glass left at the scene?

      Delete
    2. Yet MsD they did remove broken glass from the wine cellar room says the search warrant evidence taken. There must have been a reason to think it was relevant and tied in to the broken window, don't you think? I do believe Doc's logic regarding the broken window. That the glass was broken from the inside, and glass was removed and hidden to cover the breaking of the window that night. That the glass was picked up and hidden to disguise that it was broken that night. But it makes more sense to me that it was hidden in the wine cellar room as leaving the house that night/morning may not have been in the "stager's" best interests. Also in the last few weeks I read Linda Hoffman Pugh's entire statement. Not only does she say she never helped Patsy clean up glass, but that she thinks Patsy broke the window (read her entire statement) and that John lied about breaking it. And as you know, if Patsy did absolutely ANYTHING that night, then she knew, and is an accessory. I hope we are long past considering that Patsy would have garrotted her daughter. I believe,as you might too, that the Grand Jury could not decide, in the coverup phase, who did what. If you want to stick with John broke the window that's fine. But Patsy's "picking up every chunk" makes more sense if she were actually telling the truth about that, and broke it herself. Just consider it. Don't buy it if it makes no sense.

      Delete
    3. Ordinarily John, but we went over the reason for removing the glass quite extensively a while back. That it looked too obvious - especially since it was equally obvious that an "intruder" would not have broken it from the inside, filthy dirty window sill, no prints in the dirt, etc., etc.

      Delete
    4. John, I've noticed that you keep repeating the same questions regarding details that have been explained over and over again on this blog. I really don't know what to make of you, man. Can you explain yourself?

      Delete
    5. Ditto, Doc.

      "Wouldn't a person staging a break-in WANT there to be lots of broken glass left at the scene?"

      Yes....if they were actually staging a break in (in which case, they would naturally leave the glass exactly where it fell, not pick it up and place it in the WC) but we've already established that they obviously *weren't* staging a break in through the basement window, hence why John concocted a story about the window being broken last summer. You know this, John I, as it has been repeated here ad nauseam, as have most of the answers to almost all of your questions. Disagree with Doc's theory, by all means, but no need to be obtuse.

      Delete
    6. Yes, because so many of the things that have been "explained" in this blog are either not true, not supported by actual evidence, or contrived. The claim that the window was staged, but not really, is one of the biggest contrivances. There's no good reason to assume that glass was picked up and placed in the WC rather than, for example, just tracked into there.

      Delete
    7. Which begs the question: If so much here is untrue, unsupported by evidence and contrived, why are you wasting your time here?

      Delete
    8. Because not everyone here plays so fast and loose with the facts. Why are you wasting *your* time here if it's all been discussed before, you know everything about the case, and you're not open to having your assumptions questioned?

      Delete
    9. Does NOT make sense that John would break a basement window in Colorado in July and no one would have it fixed, or even covered to avoid letting in months of rain/snow/cold... or even cleaned the glass so the kids don't get cut. They did play down there. How would the maid possibly miss that?

      This is why I think regardless of what actually happened, John was in on it, or at least the cover up. The window was supposed to look like someone broke in/snuck out. Police immediately got suspicious about anyone coming through it & where the glass fell. John thinks, "oh, damn, they're onto the window!" and makes up the whole "Oh, now I remember... that was me," glass breaking story.

      If the glass had been laying there for 6 months wouldn't dust have settled on & around it all making it look like it had been broken quite some time ago?

      But how does Patsy not remember this? How does she not suspect him when he asks her to lie for him?

      This case confuses my head so bad.

      Delete
  9. Thank you for your recent post, Doc. I totally agree with you. In fact, the times I have temporarily left this blog spot are when mud slinging starts. Thanks for reminding people to be respectful, even if they disagree.

    I had somewhat of an epiphany about this case today. And please excuse me if I'm being redundant. I'll try to make this as "fresh" as I can. I believe the ransom note is the key to this murder case. Here's why. Whoever wrote that "manifesto" of a ransom note had a reason to write it. Doc, you have discussed this in detail in your post, "The Purpose of the Note", but I would like to add my thoughts. The note was obviously written by someone with some intelligence. Could the following suspects have written this note?

    INTRUDER (regardless of how they got into house): The only intruder I can see writing this type of note would be someone John knew from his company who perhaps wanted revenge. Someone with some intelligence. I cannot believe a stranger, like Michael Helgoth or Gary Oliva, or even Bill McReynolds (Santa) or Linda Hoffmann-Pugh (housekeeper), had the intelligence to write this note. Furthermore, why would they write such a LONG note and then leave it in the house after their victim was dead? Surely they would have the sense to take the note with them once the kidnapping went bad and she was killed. Why leave evidence behind when you know the body will eventually be found?

    BURKE: He could not have written that note. He was only 9 years old and did not have the intelligence demonstrated in the writing of that note and a 9-year old just would not have such good handwriting. The note was obviously written by an adult.

    PATSY: Sure, she could have written it, either to cover for herself or for Burke if there was an accidental death. But why would she go to the lengths of staging such a horrific attack on her beloved daughter, complete with a garrote strangulation and sexual penetration by her OWN paintbrush? First of all, such additional staging was unnecessary. Second, I don't believe she would have been CAPABLE of completing this staging, having just realized her daughter was dead.

    JOHN: Sure, he could have written it. He was certainly intelligent enough and his handwriting is similar to that in the note, even though he was "ruled out." First of all, if it were an accidental death (as some claim occurred with Patsy), I believe he, too, would have been incapable of staging the scene in such a violent way. And, like the scenario with Patsy, it would not be necessary. In either case of an accidental death (covered by Patsy, John or BOTH), they could have easily taken the body down to the basement, made sure there was a point of entry (open door or window) and left it at that. There would be no need to stage a violent attack on their daughter for police to suspect an intruder. In fact, it's unlikely any intruders would even hang around to do those things to their victim in the house where their family is sleeping.

    However if John wrote the note to cover for murdering Jon Benet, then the possibility that he could do the additional staging to her body becomes more believable. After all, he had already done horrible things to his daughter, so staging the body in such a violent manner would probably not have been difficult for him. His dark side had already come out. And he knew he had to make it appear like someone crazy did those things . . . . certainly not her father.

    lacey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, lacey, I agree. Well thought out.

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

      Delete
    3. Here's the problem with this argument, lacey. It assumes facts not in evidence. I could just as easily say this, and it would be no less valid:

      JOHN: why would he go to the lengths of staging such a horrific attack on his beloved daughter, complete with a garrote strangulation and sexual penetration with a paintbrush? First of all, such additional staging was unnecessary. Second, I don't believe he would have been CAPABLE of completing this staging, having just realized his daughter was dead.

      PATSY: However if Patsy wrote the note to cover for murdering Jon Benet, then the possibility that she could do the additional staging to her body becomes more believable. After all, she had already done horrible things to her daughter, so staging the body in such a violent manner would probably not have been difficult for her. Her dark side had already come out. And she knew she had to make it appear like someone crazy did those things . . . . certainly not her mother.

      Delete
    4. Because he went to school on "Mindhunter", which taught him that a killer's personality is reflected in their M.O. What could be more antithetical to a cool, aloof CEO than a small foreign faction? The garrote, a killing device used by the Spanish and French, was an unnecessary flourish, and served no purpose but to underline the small FOREIGN faction who penned the RN.

      On the contrary, the penetration with the paintbrush was critically necessary, as he hoped it would do sufficient damage to obscure the prior molestation.

      He didn't "just realize[d] his daughter was dead", he premeditated the crime for eight days and made her dead.

      Delete
    5. To phone or not to phone, that is the question.

      By ignoring their warnings to slaughter, to the phone Patsy came to praise her daughter, not to bury her.

      That the decision to phone was Patsy's alone or such, methinks John dost protest way too much.

      All's well that end well!

      Mike G

      Delete
    6. Any and every theory presumes facts not in evidence, John, as there are precious few, and those that exist can, obviously, be interpreted in multiple ways.

      Delete
    7. Correction: By "missing" the warnings, not ignoring them.

      Mike G

      Delete
    8. That's quite a tall tale, CC. Any reason to think that any of it is actually true? Is there even any real evidence that John read "Mindhunter"?

      Delete
    9. There isn't video of him reading it, but it was by his bed side.

      Delete
    10. Sergeant Tom Wickman reported seeing it by John's side of the bed, as reported in Thomas's book, and iirc Lou Smith made reference to it being there as well. John went to great pains to deny having owned it, read it, or heard of it's author, but his law firm snapped John Douglas up for Team Ramsey very early on - no coincidence, since, as I've pointed out, better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in, as did his FBI compatriots, Ressler and Hazelwood.

      Delete
    11. Smit. Damned stupid smartphone.

      Delete
    12. Does this book show up in any evidence lists or crime scene photos?

      Delete
    13. The search warrant did not include any books, so of course none could be collected. I've not seen it - or any other books - in any crime scene photos. It was fairly new, published, I believe, earlier that same year; doubtful many cops recognized it's significance until it was too late.

      Delete
    14. Sorry; warrants, plural.

      Delete
    15. As I see it, you are all on the wrong track. You are trying to interpret the evidence - but the evidence is inconclusive. All of it. And the psychology isn't much better. Which does seem to be John's point, no? But he too is assuming the case can be solved by interpreting the evidence and understanding the psychology. It cannot.

      In this particular case the ONLY thing we have to rely on is certain FACTS. And the very simple logic behind those facts. We know it was John and not Patsy simply because the ransom note is clearly intended to stage a phony kidnapping, and Patsy is the one who called 911, which she would not have done if she were in on the plot. The only alternative is an intruder, which, as we know, makes no sense. It's really that simple.

      Now I must say I too find it impossible to believe that a doting mother like Patsy, totally immersed in the world of her little "pageant princess," could possibly have had a motive to murder her, no less penetrate her vagina, alive OR dead, and strangle her so viciously. Nor do I believe that after having committed such a crime, she would have been capable of sitting down to plan and pen that long, detailed, ice cold "ransom" note.

      I find it much easier to believe, however, that John had been molesting her and molested her again on the night of the murder, which would account for the digital penetration and blood. And I find it much easier to believe that, assuming he'd been molesting her, the need to silence her could have motivated him to club, and then strangle, her. And in such a case, having deliberately murdered his child, the gentleman known as the "ice man" to his associates could have pulled himself together sufficiently to write that note.

      But the above is nothing more than my opinion, worth no more than John I's opinion or anyone else's.

      But the FACT that Patsy is the one who called 911 is NOT an opinion. Nor is the clear logical inference telling us she must therefore have been innocent.

      Many people have attempted to play down the logic behind this conclusion because it seems so simple, so pat, so cut and dried, but its simplicity is extremely deceptive. This case is like a complicated knot that no one can untie, until someone comes along, pulls on one single string, and the whole thing unravels.

      Delete
    16. CC - so the Mindhunter thing is just Thomas's say-so about what Wickman supposedly said, right? Has Wickman ever even said this publicly? Isn't it then a stretch to say that John "went to school on "Mindhunter""?

      Delete
    17. Doc, yes, "Patsy is the one who called 911" is definitely a FACT. Everything else that you think follows from that is most certainly an opinion.

      Delete
    18. Steve Thomas's theory is that PDI without an assist from John. He has nothing to gain by publishing misinformation, nor does Wickman for disseminating it.

      Delete
    19. "Everything else that you think follows from that is most certainly an opinion."

      No, certainly not. There is an important difference between a logical inference and an opinion. This is why logic has been such an important tool for systematic thinking since the ancient Greeks, as it enables us to get beyond opinion to a deeper truth.

      The Ramsey ransom note was in fact a ransom note.

      Assuming that there was no intruder, we can conclude that the note was intended as part of a plan to stage a kidnapping.

      The staging of a kidnapping implies that the body of the victim be removed from the house. If the police find the victim IN the house, then the staging would be nullified and there would have been no point in writing the note in the first place.

      If Patsy had been a party to the plan to stage a kidnapping, she would therefore have NOT wanted to call the police while the body was still in the house.

      Do you see the difference between the above chain of inference and the assertion of an opinion? When I claim that a mother such as Patsy would not have been capable of writing such a note after discovering that her child had been killed, I am stating an opinion. That IS my opinion, but that's all it is.

      But the chain of inference presented above is MORE than just an opinion, as should be obvious.

      Now that doesn't mean that there could not be a flaw in my reasoning, which is always possible.

      Delete
    20. No, I don't see any difference. When you boil it down, these are both unsubstantiated opinions:

      "The staging of a kidnapping implies that the body of the victim be removed from the house"

      "If Patsy had been a party to the plan to stage a kidnapping, she would therefore have NOT wanted to call the police while the body was still in the house."

      You're presupposing a particular plan that may or may not have been the case.

      Delete
    21. CC - that doesn't really answer the question. Thomas is just reporting what he thought Wickman said, either directly to him or through some rumor mill. He didn't report doing anything to try to independently confirm it. And I wasn't even able to find any example of Wickman reporting this directly. This has all the makings of yet another myth about the case.

      Delete
    22. "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong" and the other child-rearing books do not show up on any evidence list or in any crime scene photos, either; their existence in the house is apocryphal and not confirmed, yet the BDIers accept them as gospel.

      Steve Thomas's book was published by St. Martin's Press, a reputable house which would have employed editors and fact-checkers.

      There is little or no evidence,few facts and an abundance of contradictory theories. You know this.

      Got a point? Got anything to add, or is your sole talent for subtracting?

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

      Delete
    24. I don't accept anything as gospel. Are you just assuming that St. Martin's Press fact-checked this statement? How does one even go about fact-checking something as vague as "Wickman "swears up and down that the book was in the house"? Editors aren't investigators.

      My point? That relying on myths and rumors is a lousy path to the truth. And stating something as a fact because one guy claims another guy said so is disingenuous.

      Delete
    25. All publishing houses have legal departments chock-full of lawyers whose sole job is to ensure, to the extent possible, that the house is as protected from litigation as possible. You bet they have fact-checkers.

      What's the big deal? An Affidavit from Wickman saying that's what he saw, and that's that.

      Delete
    26. Is this supposed to show that every statement in Thomas' book must therefore be true? Who exactly are you suggesting would sue over this?

      "What's the big deal? An Affidavit from Wickman saying that's what he saw, and that's that."

      Sure. Does such an affidavit exist?

      Delete
    27. How in the bloody hell would I know? If I worked for that, or any publisher, you can bet I'd corroborate every fact I could.

      I'm sure that won't satisfy you; nothing does. I find your questions tiresome, tedious and largely pointless.

      And no, I'm not deflecting. I'm just sick to death of your silly game, I'm done.

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

      Delete
  10. I look at it simply by the facts and by pure sense

    If an unknown person had come into the house and committed this crime, I don't know why they would leave the ransom note. If their plan was to frame the parents then it would make them look less guilty had a dead body been sitting in their home for 2 days prior to ever calling the police. The police would have found Jonbenet in the home and the parents waiting days for a phone call from the kidnappers. So the body would have gone nowhere.

    Then you have, why the parents would leave the ransom note with the body still in the house? Simply to bide time to remove the body or an alternative plan. Now both of the parents could have been involved or one of the two.

    A. Isn't possible Patsy committed the crime and was having doubts about HER plan, that she called the police to ultimately take suspicion off of her?
    The letter was directed at John so she could have had John go out and get the money while she got rid of the body on her own. She could have had doubts about this after spending the entire night thinking about it and decided to call the police.
    B. John on the other hand was the one who didn't call the police so their is some suspicion there. His plan all along could have been to dispose of the body while he went out getting money and other things.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I doubt that Patsy could have come up with the phrase "law enforcement countermeasures and tactics" off the top of her head, by herself, under those circumstances.

    If you believe John and Patsy wrote the note together,1) why didn't either one of them think to remove the "start up practice page"? 2)how did John convince Patsy to use her notepad instead of his? 3)why would she make the effort to disguise her writing but include manuscript style letter a's rather than the more common cursive a's?

    It just makes more sense to me that John wrote that note.
    I think Doc makes a very good case for ruling John back in as the possible writer of the ransom note.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello, I do have something new (I hope). In efforts to address Mrs. D's excellent points to my BDI theory, I came across this very interesting posting on acandyrose regarding the garotte. According to the writer (who to me appears to use actual physics and science to explain his position) - the garotte was not used to strangulate JBR, it was only used as staging. The strangulation actually occurred from crossing the two pieces of string behind her neck.

    www.acandyrose.com%2F05262001delmaranalysis2.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFhEZM4wRaYM_4d68nZDadEMN-ySA

    I do still stick to my BDI but have found the excellent postings from Doc G, CC, Mrs D, Mike G and others supporting JDI worthy enough to continually reevaluate my own theory. Thank you for constantly making me think and rethink about how this could have happened.

    As a result, I couldn't explain why parents would use a viciously gruesome instrument like a garotte to finish off their own daughter (thanks Mrs D for pointing this out) after an accidental head blow. However, this acandyrose article helps. Burke hit her by mistake in the basement, waited and hoped she would wake, when she didnt, he prodded her with the train tracks.

    I think he got his dad for help and JR had a hard time finding a pulse. I explained in a previous posting from my time doing medical training that sometimes head trauma victims have a very faint pulse. In a panic, its hard to locate someones pulse anyways if you aren't trained and locating a faint pulse could have been even more challenging. So in realizing that she was possibly dead or even brain dead and hearing that BR hit her over the head, JR wanted to put JBR out of her misery or any pain so he cut off her breathing by using the rope. I think he used the rope so that his finger marks didnt show up on her neck. I think he only fashioned the garotte afterwards (as the article shows) to take suspicion away from anyone in the family (because we've all even said that a family member could never do something so gruesome to a beloved daughter) and point to an intruder/sex crime scenario. That also proves why the garotte had hair already in it - bc it was tied after she was dead.

    Then I stick by the thinking that John wrote the note in order to be able to take the body away under the guise of the kidnapping, while fooling Patsy. I believe John only planned to fool Patsy until he dumped the body bc I think he thought she would ruin his plan by not allowing her dear daughter's body to be dumped in the woods.

    Id be curious on everyones thoughts. Thank you for all your thoughtful comments always, I've always found everyone very civil!!
    E

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A true garrote has a stick on both ends, E, and was sometimes attached to piano wire to sever both jugular vein and carotid artery from behind. This one was nothing but an embellishment, intended, as I posted above, to further suggest a foreign faction. No reason in the world why she couldn't have been strangled just as you and acandyrose describe, with or without the half-garrote.

      Delete
    2. Thanks CC - wow piano wire, jeesh. So do you think its possible then that JBR could have been strangled just by the string on its own... then later the garotte was fashioned for purposes as you say of embellishment and of suggesting the foreign faction etc? Thank you CC as usual, E

      Delete
    3. Sorry CC - I just reread your response. Ok so definitely possible. Does that change anyone's views then on how it could be possible that BD did the head blow and then JR finished with just the simple strangulation? Thanks E

      Delete
    4. If you see John as the one who did the strangulation and you see John as the one who wrote the note, why are you assuming it was Burke who bludgeoned her? Because of his prints on a bowl of pineapple?

      Delete
    5. Good question. This is how I view the events of the night. Some of these are based on facts and some are not - bc as we all know, there is not enough evidence here so one has to 'fill in the blanks' with common sense. I openly admit that this is speculation on my part but this is just how I see the events happening that night.

      JBR's wet bed: Points that JBR likely got up in the middle of the night.
      JBR's pillow in the kitchen: JBR used to go to BR's bedroom when she wet the bed to sleep in his second bed. If she stayed there her pillow would have been there. She took it down to the kitchen bc he obv wasn't in his room and she went looking for him.
      BR admitting he snuck downstairs to fix his toy: This puts him downstairs
      Pineapple: his prints on the bowl and the contents of her stomach, points to them being together in the kitchen that night
      Ripped presents: The way they were ripped indicates children and not an adult. An adult peels back a corner, a piece of tape, esp someone who wrapped them in the first place. They prob snuck downstairs to find possible (more) presents
      BR's golf incident: shows precedence he was reckless around her
      Flashlight: wiped prints, fits the wound - indicates someone was sneaking around that night. BR could have used it initially to get downstairs to the kitchen or they both could have used it to go from kitchen to basement later.
      Train tracks: Only a kid would prod a body with an object as though scared, an adult would touch the skin, check for a pulse, shake the person.

      BR waits scared, hoping she wakes up. Either calls down JR or JR finds them. JR doesn't find a pulse (read above re faint pulses on head trauma victims) or doesn't want JBR to live her life with brain damage, so he finishes by strangling her just by crossing the cord in his hands. Not until later does he fashion the garotte and make staging.
      He wrote the note solely to fool Patsy until he removed the body. He only wanted to fool Patsy temporarily bc he likely knew she would not accept her beloved daughter to be dumped in the woods until she was 'found'. Of course, Patsy foiled JR's plan by not reading the note and calling 911.

      E

      Delete
    6. Also, I will add, that I think that BR could have been exploring with his sister and he had previously been caught. To me this explains the books grandma had sent "When Johnny doesn't know right from wrong" etc.
      In addition to making the staging look heinous so no member of the family would be suspected, I think the vaginal penetration with the paintbrush handle *could* be more than staging and an attempt to cover up any possible previous 'exploration' by BR of JBR. All the trips PR took JBR to the pediatrician made sense if you think PR wanted to make sure JBR was ok down there and nothing further was happening with BR.
      I personally think that digital penetration would have been more likely to have occurred from a curious almost 10 year old brother than a middle aged father. Thanks, E

      Delete
    7. Thanks, E, for your comprehensive BDI theory. Whilst I don't completely buy it, yours is the only one I've read here to date that is detailed, thorough and not littered with illogical assertions - always in "all caps", followed by a series of exclamation points, for added credibility, of course. I must agree with Doc, however, I just don't see how the addition of Burke is necessary, when the crime having been committed solely by John doesn't leave us with the loose ends that BDI ultimately leaves us with. But I do think Burke knows more than he's telling.....

      Delete
    8. And, for what it's worth, I've always been of the belief that it was a "standard" strangulation that was the cause of JonBenet's death - a cord being placed around her neck, crossed over and pulled tightly until breathing ceased - and that the "garrote" was merely an added flourish once John realized he was not going to have the opportunity to remove her body, thus he had to make it look like the work of a foreign faction, keeping the crime scene in line with the ransom note, which had now become quite a problem for him.

      Delete
    9. As I've said before, we can't technically rule out the possibility of Burke bludgeoning his sister, with John covering for him and Patsy out of the loop. There is no fact that enables us to dismiss such a theory. But it's very hard to see why John would have wanted to keep the truth from Patsy if this were the case.

      The strongest BDI argument stems from the assumption that both Patsy AND John were in on the coverup, because for many that's the only reason the two of them would be motivated to team up in such an extreme staging attempt: to cover for their son. The thought that the two of them might NOT have been working together on a coverup seems to have occurred to hardly anyone.

      Once we remove Patsy from the picture, that argument evaporates. The notion that John would have kept the truth from Patsy out of fear she might not have agreed to dumping the body strikes me as a huge stretch.

      If Burke had indeed assaulted his sister, and John discovered it, it's impossible for me to imagine that he would not have immediately awakened Patsy so the two of them together could decide what to do. And this does seem to be the premise behind all BDI theories.

      As Dr. Wecht realized, ALL the evidence points to an assault by a grown man, NOT a 9 year old child. Wecht is one of the most highly trained and experienced forensic specialists on the planet and, judging from his book there is no evidence that he even considered Burke as a possible suspect. Based on both the acute and chronic injuries to the vagina everything points to an adult male, NOT a frail 9 year old.

      Delete
    10. There's nothing gender or age specific about inflicting vaginal injuries.

      Delete
    11. John I, if the only time you're going to chime in is to attack the JDI argument, can you at least start offering one of your own? This, constant, defensive stance is becoming tiresome, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so. I mean, to date, you've given us nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The only time we see you is when you feel as though you have an opportunity to defend John Ramsey.

      Delete
    12. Is that just so you can shift the focus away from the inadequacies of your own theory? Anyone can make up a semi-plausible story. Providing evidence that it's true is another matter. If this wasn't such a JDI-centric blog, then you wouldn't be accusing me of just defending John. The fact that you have to use made up evidence and innuendo to support your story though is reason enough to reject it.

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

      Delete
    14. Thank you Doc G and Mrs D for considering my BDI theory. I think this is what is so great about this blog when people use it right. I initially proposed my theory, then Mrs D commented on a point that really gave me pause. Then I was forced to re-evaluate my own theory until I could come up with a good answer to the hole she pointed out in my theory.
      I'm glad both CC and Mrs D and I are on the same page that JBR could have just been strangled by just the string and that the garotte could have only been put on after as a flourish/stagging etc.

      I was also pleased to see Doc that you agreed that we can not rule out that BR could have done the initial head blow. I think that proves to all the people that complain on this blog that BDI's aren't welcome, that people who believe JDI are open minded!

      To answer your question Doc about why JR would want to keep PR out of the loop - you're right my theory is dicey at best.
      I still think that PR being religious and so doting on JBR, that JR just thought there would be no way that PR would allow JBR's body to be unceremoniously dumped in the woods until she was 'found'. JR may have also been worried that since JBR was clearly PR's favorite, that PR would be more concerned about JBR than protecting BR and may have wanted to take her to the hospital anyway, no matter what that did to BR's life?

      I wonder bc JR, as the CEO and head of the family, if he was just controlling and wanted to control the whole situation and take charge? I'm sure he knew PR would be an emotional wreck, but perhaps he knew he could keep it together to get all the things done that needed to be done, ransom note, taking her body out in the attache etc?

      Thanks, E

      Delete
    15. "I initially proposed my theory, then Mrs D commented on a point that really gave me pause. Then I was forced to re-evaluate my own theory until I could come up with a good answer to the hole she pointed out in my theory."

      It's great to see that you're open minded, E.....but which theory did you propose? I looked back over the last few threads and couldn't find one signed "E".

      Delete
    16. Sorry Mrs D sometimes I forget to put the E at the end. It was a few months ago where I basically outlined the same as above but I didn't have the info from acandyrose indicating the very real possibility that she was strangled only by crossing the string behind her neck and that the garotte was applied after.
      The question you posed to my theory was if BR hit her over the head and JR 'cleaned' up the accident to cover for him, why would he finish her with something so gruesome as a garotte?
      I think that was an excellent point. And that's what led me to research about the garotte and find that post indicating that it was most likely just the string and the garotte put after as flourish/staging and not actually used gruesomely to strangulate.
      Now I need to figure out all the other holes I'm not quite satisfied with yet!

      Thanks again,E

      Delete
    17. Thanks, E.....keep on sleuthing! :)

      Delete
    18. While the BDI seems to make sense up till after the blow, the rest falls apart for me with parents killing her and staging a kidnapping then screwing up their staging.

      But I could see how John could have aided Burke alone, if he had been molesting JB. This would have surely been discovered if they called 911 and attempted to save her, or if she died & they did an autopsy. If BDI, and John was molesting her, John could have attempted to cover it up, telling Burke he was trying to protect him, when he was really trying to protect himself.

      This would explain penetrating her with a paint brush (cover up his own abuse and make it look like a kidnapper did it).

      Makes me think of the 911 call, if it's true that Burke said 'What DID you find?' and John's 'We're not speaking to you!' Like, don't blow it now.

      Thinking of the video with Burke in the interview, his reaction when the guy showed him the bowl of pineapple & tea.

      Shudder.

      Delete
    19. I just can't accept that Burke wouldn't have slipped up when he was being interviewed by child psychologists or LE. A nine year old claiming that if he had a secret, "he wouldn't tell", is one thing, but one who actually knows how to fool authorities - people who are trained to spot deception - is another. This is one of the main reasons I don't buy Burke's involvement. Cops ruled him out as a suspect very early on, the Grand Jury clearly didn't believe he was involved, so the logical conclusion to draw is that nothing he said or did indicated he was guilty. If he was an adult, I could see him being able to lie efficiently to investigators - as John has been able to do successfully (though I think that is more due to his being "ruled out" as author of the ransom note rather than his knack for lying - his deception is rather transparent, in fact) - but at the tender age of nine, kids always give themselves away.
      If Burke committed this crime, you can be sure cops would have known it within half an hour.

      Delete
    20. That is a good point, but kids have fooled experts with lies before so I have to consider it's possible. Esp. if the kid has some kind of lack of empathy/emotion, and he knows he needs to clam up. All kids have secrets so I honestly didn't read as much into that, but his passiveness, and his hanging off the chair staring at the picture makes me wonder.

      But then I also can't image how he could have gone years without slipping in front of Patty or rousing her suspicions at least once.

      Like I said, it's so confusing, it's so crazy, so many red herrings, so many wild details, so much doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    21. John could have told Burke don't say anything, you know nothing you were asleep. But Burke has slipped up in several instances. He gives a theory of how his sister died, he thinks she may have been hit over the head before all of the autopsy results were revealed - and certainly doubtful they would have been revealed to Burke, if he didn't know - he has said he snuck downstairs, that he was up later, and that he handled the flashlight. While not an admission of murder by any means, he's told a few of his secrets. There was every attempt to not allow anyone to question him as well. It's as if he was in quarantine and even after he returned to school I'm sure the other students were told to let him alone.

      Delete
    22. You're not being completely honest here, Inq.....Burke proposed *two* theories as you how his sister might have been killed - one of them being completely wrong! He also never mentioned strangulation, which was actually the cause of her death.

      Delete
    23. Burke also mentioned a knife, which his swiss army knife was found not far away from the body, which he could have used in some capacity, not for stabbing but for threatening or cutting cord or tying knots. But you are right, he never brought up strangulation. And that even has been a bone of contention no matter what theory you believe right?

      Delete
  13. The piano wire version was popular with the French Resistance during WWII, to sneak up on and kill Nazis quickly and quietly in Occupied France, if that makes it any more palatable, E.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ironically JR called it a 'twister,' a euphemism describing a stick used to tighten the garrote. In some parts of the world a stick was attached to a rope and it was intended to constrict a limb (or neck.) However, in this case it was simply a stick attached to a ligature and meant to look foreign and cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I just can't, for a second agree with CC that this was premeditated. It just doesn't make sense. If it was premeditated this would be no head blow...simple as that. Plus the day (25/26th) makes no sense. And I'm sure John would have came up with a much better way of doing this with any serious thought. No, premeditation just isn't logical.

    The train marks on her body ARE train marks, in my opinion, because there is no other alternative ever put forward. And no I'm not including stun gun. Train track lining up is just too big a coincidence in my opinion. And the 45min-ish also indicates no premeditation and again points to Burke (as do the train track).

    I disagree with Doc on who wrote the RN, but as I've stated many times I think the majority of Docs theory aligns nicely with Burke delivering the head blow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The train marks on her body ARE train marks, in my opinion, because there is no other alternative ever put forward"

      Just because we're not *aware* of an alternative it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

      However - and, God knows, it pains me to say it - I tend to agree with you, Zed, when it comes to the issue of premeditation. I've always been undecided on the matter, but I tend to think that if John had been planning it for a week or more, the entire crime would have been executed more thoroughly, not leaving quite so much to chance, and no materials from the house would have been used. But, I reserve the right to change my opinion on that one, should anyone put forth a compelling argument.....CC has had me convinced before!

      Delete
    2. Premeditation seems very hard to compute because of the points you make above, MsD, and also because I would think John's behavior leading up to the night of the murder would likely have been very unusual. If you're going to plan on killing your 6 year old daughter to keep your secret safe, a head blow seems like an extremely odd and unncesseary method of choice.

      Delete
    3. doesn't anyone wonder at the many mishaps JB suffered for which she was taken to the Ped.? There was the chronic sinusitis, at age 3 and 4 of course, but there were also many misadventures that look very strange on paper - scar to face due to golf clubbing, falling down at the store, bruises from pulling a hamster cage down on herself (according to Nedra), having a fingernail pulled back, multiple cases of vaginitis and vaginal discharge. Reminds me of the battered wife syndrome where there is always a explanation such as slipping and falling.

      There were the odd sleeping arrangements in the house, moving her bedroom farther away from Burke's, there was a jealous brother who had friends but not the attention of either parent, his sister becoming more and more confident due to winning every pageant contest. Whatever he was doing it didn't start right away, but escalated - taunting, torture, culminating with a crude device made from mommy's paint supplies and some parachute camping cord, headblow then intentional but impact underestimated possibly as she tried to sit up or flip around having had her wrists tied and the slipknot becoming too tight as she tried to get up. Which parent tried to remove the slipknot accounting for the triangular bruise on her neck - mom or dad. But it was likely too late.

      Delete
    4. The length and complexity of the note and the very consistent and correct manner in which it was written, not to mention the possibility that it could have been traced or copied from a word processor text, leads me to suspect that it could have been prepared ahead of time.

      I initially ruled that out for the same reasons so many others have ruled it out, but on second thought I realize that I could have been wrong. If all had gone according to plan, John could have destroyed the notepad (with the "practice note") at roughly the same time he'd have dumped the body. He could also have planned on getting rid of the remainder of the paintbrush from which the "garrote" was fashioned. And come to think of it, he could have gotten rid of the "garrote" as well.

      He could have worked on the note while away from the house for a few hours on Xmas day, and since the stores would have been closed, he could have taken the note pad with him as a convenience (realizing he'd have been able to get rid of it the following night).

      I'm still on the fence about this, because John would have had plenty of time to compose that note after assaulting JonBenet. But the possibility of pre-planning cannot, in my view, be ruled out.

      Delete
    5. "There was a jealous brother who had friends but not the attention of either parent"

      Isn't that just speculation? How do we know Burke was, in fact, jealous of his sister? Who says he didn't receive adequate attention from his parents?

      "Having had her wrists tied and the slipknot becoming too tight as she tried to get up"

      The wrist bindings were loose, and there's no marks on her wrists that would indicate they were tight at some point and she struggled to break her hands free.....we can all only speculate about the garrote, but I think it's safe to assume that the wrist bindings were just staging.

      Delete
    6. "If you're going to plan on killing your 6 year old daughter to keep your secret safe, a head blow seems like an extremely odd and unncesseary method of choice."

      Strangulation was his method of choice, though.
      The head blow was possibly just to incapacitate her while he carried out the deed. A "mercy" blow perhaps, so that she would be unaware of what was happening, as CC has suggested.

      Delete
    7. And how would John know that the headblow would not cause any bleeding?? If, as you say, the whole premise was to get rid of the body to stage a kidnapping, he wouldn't want any blood in the house (not to mention blood on himself).

      Delete
    8. Yes, and Zed your earlier comment 1:39 - more than train track marks. Bruises on her shoulder, scrape marks on the back of her leg and a big black circular mark on her cheek. Did John do that too?

      Delete
    9. Zed, you have a tendency to recycle old questions over and over. PLEASE try to limit yourself to issues that have not already been covered.

      To repeat myself: Some blood on the floor would not have been inconsistent with a kidnapping. She might have struggled and the "kidnapper" might have struck or stabbed her. And John could easily have washed off anything that got on him.

      Delete
    10. Doc - it is an old question but one that has never been sufficiently answered.

      In response to your reply - why would blood be expected in a kidnapping? I doubt kidnappers would stab a victim. I personally think ANY blood would be inconsistent with a kidnapping. Especially the large amount of blood that could have been in place with the headblow that was delivered to JBR. A headblow is to the extreme and the amount of blood would tell straight away that JBR probably died.

      And again, washing off blood is a HUGE risk. An unnecssary risk.

      I know ruling out premeditation doesn't rule out your theory but surely with all the logic in place premeditation is far-fetched? I know you are on the fence and Ms D half-heartedly agreed with me also. Not sure if anyone other than CC truly believes in it?

      Everything about this case (regardless if it was John, Patsy or Burke) who delivered the headblow, points to something unexpected occurring that night and then a frantic effort and a confusing RN conducted to stage a failed kidnapping (remove the word failed if relevant to your theory).

      Delete
  16. There's a scene in the Simpsons where Homer is reading an ad saying "Gabbo is coming!" and tries really hard to figure out who or what Gabbo is. And Lisa points out "I don't think they're giving you enough information dad."

    That's this case in a nutshell.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I too find the "garrote" to be the only thing "foreign faction" like about this case. Due to the reference to beheading in the note as the only other thing like that, I've entertained the idea John wished to behead her if he had more time. The note references switching money from the "attache" to paper bags as if to avoid a tracking device, but it also gives him multiple compartments for body parts, as if for dismemberment. Also, could he have really planned the head blow to go so smoothly? How to get rid of the evidence for the head blow? Getting rid of the head seems the method. I wonder how much John was influenced by either of the Lindbergh case or Adam Walsh case. The former has the head blow, the latter beheading. The former is where my mind goes seeing Burke's room or talk of John's piloting.

    Now I'm not so sure about any of this, but I want to lend credence to CC's idea that John was applying "mind hunter". It seems to me also possible that Ms D and Doc are right, meaning the "garrote" was done AFTER the 911 call. That is, "Foreign faction" and "beheading" was never intended for anybody but Patsy, until Patsy called 911 and John had to make things look like a foreign faction, or obscure his prints on her throat, or both. The breaking of the paint brush for instance seem to me to imply a rushed John, not a premeditated-for-days like the ransom note.

    Somehow I am left more amazed at the cold-bloodedness of hurriedly strangling your daughter while your wife is awake in the house than I am by beheading your daughter in the woods a day after hitting her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I proposed a similar theory a couple of months back regarding the beheading and disposal of JB's body, Punisher, but it's not a popular one!

      Delete
    2. Im with doc on that one lol. Beheading is taking things to the extreme and adding in way too much blood, mess and evidence. Im glad this thought is not a popular one!!!

      Delete
    3. There was a shower in the basement where he could have dismembered JB's body and washed away all of the blood.
      How often do we see a perpetrator dismember the victim after a murder? It's not uncommon at all. He had all day to do so, and it sure would have made transportation easier, along with identification of the victim that much more difficult. Win/win.
      I feel the beheading, like everything else in John's ransom note, was included for a specific reason. The RN was a "blueprint", after all. The threat of decapitation was an unnecessary addition if it's purpose was merely to scare Patsy - the promise to kill JB no fewer than three times should the demands not be met was enough to do that.

      Delete
  18. Was John on his hands and knees in his underwear reading the note? Maybe he was. If a component of the crime occurred there, perhaps he was trying to account for hand, palm prints, or any other forensic evidence collected in that area that belonged to him.

    Not only does it seem an odd place to read the note, but also a detail that he wanted police to know. Even though it was his home it might be hard to explain hand prints on the kitchen floor. Sorry if this has been covered before.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a good point K. Why wouldn't either one of them pick up the ransom note, why weren't there any prints. John said he spread the note out to read it, what - did he use his elbows to spread out the note? Same with the flashlight. Why wouldn't your prints be on your own flashlight. This is one of the reasons I don't think the flashlight was the bludgeoning tool. Simply because we were SUPPOSED to think it was - i.e., staged.

      Delete
  19. I think it possibly was the weapon because of the lack of bleeding from her head. But, you may be right. Also, it may have been used to get around the house in the dark.

    Anyway, the reading of the note on the floor seems strange to me.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. K, the flaahlight WAS used to get around in the dark that night. This came from Burke himself on the Dr Phil show.

      Delete
    2. then why wipe it down and leave it on the kitchen counter where it doesn't belong, put it back in the drawer where it does belong.

      Delete
    3. "K, the flaahlight WAS used to get around in the dark that night. This came from Burke himself on the Dr Phil show."

      Oh, so now you take everything Burke Ramsey says as gospel truth?! Wow. What a switch coming from you, of all people, Zed.
      That's wonderful.....I'm going to hold you to that from now on, you can be sure of it!

      Delete
    4. I'm afraid I did have to stifle a giggle there MsD, that we must quote Burke as speaking truth. But since he threw John in there as handling the flashlight and walking him back up to bed - in fact I'm unclear which statement he made first - either one of them then would need the flashlight to walk back UP the stairs then, right? Then why is it so prominently displayed, back down in the kitchen? Sans fingerprints. My guess is Burke never handled the flashlight, John and or Patsy or both used it moving around downstairs since they knew where it was kept, wiped it down and staged it to indicate an intruder had been in their kitchen and elsewhere while they were unaware and sleeping but it was a mistake. AN intruder would bring his own flashlight, an intruder wouldn't leave his flashlight, an intruder wouldn't use the Ramsey flashlight and know where it belonged and an intruder wouldn't have any necessity to wipe down batteries (if he brought his own and took his own with him). It was amateur hour criminal staging on the Ramsey's part. As was believing that a desperate couple would not pick up the ransom note to read it making a rational explanation that their prints would be on the note. In this case it's the absence of evidence - the subtracting of evidence that is evidence.

      Delete
    5. Inq, I'm curious....what reason would John and Patsy have for deliberately not handling the ransom note?

      Delete
  20. E - I can go along with Jonbenet's pulse may have been undetectable at the time. When I had my dad at the family clinic this month both the dr and the nurse using a stethoscope on him had trouble detecting a pulse, and his bp was around 65/40, but he was alert and talking. He was very weak tho, and found out later he had septic shock.

    Petechial hemorrhages mentioned here a number of times. The ER dr told my husband this month that is what was on his legs due to his low blood platelet count. My hub thought it was a rash starting.

    John I - irrc one of the housekeepers told LE that John did tend to read books on the best seller list and what genre.
    And it is a known fact that one of Patsy's sisters did remove numerous items from the home before the funeral with police presence, so who knows if she grabbed a few books as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This brings me to an interesting point. We all know Patsy's sister took a car full of items from the house that day. Has she not been further interrogated on the suspicious nature of some of those items? For instance, if a book was taken, she had to have found it odd that either Patsy or John was requesting her to grab a book a day or so after JBR was murdered.

      Delete
    2. Even if JonBenet's pulse was completely undetectable and it appeared she was dead, there is just no way her parents would have had the presence of mind - or the inclination - to tie a garrote around her throat upon finding her lifeless. They would have been absolute basket cases and in shock. It would have taken a considerable amount of time to conjure up such a plan, more time to find the materials needed, and even more time to fashion this torture device to use on their (apparently) dead child whom they loved. This is not the action of two, shocked, grieving parents!

      Delete
    3. Agreed, Ms D. I do not believe that any normal parent would rely on their own assessment of their child's vital signs to definitively determine between life and death. I think parents would cling to hope until a medical doctor confirmed that there was none. Even then, some parents refuse to accept it. How many stories have you read of a child on life support who doctors say won't recover, yet the parent's refuse to pull the plug? Parents don't give up on their children that easily. No loving parent would decide to put a child out of their misery (as one comment above suggested.) She wasn't a dog. In fact, I couldn't even put my dog out of his misery, if faced with that situation. Hope, faith, denial--call it what you want--but a parent, in the face of tragedy, usually holds onto it pretty tightly.

      Delete
    4. I agree it's strange. But:
      A) Could this rich well to do family who was all about appearances not want to have a child who had to go thru life with brain damage/brain dead? She was knocked out for a while, 45 min, by the time the parent got to her, perhpas her unresponsiveness (again back to the no pulse) prob made them panic and they thought BR had already killed her?
      B) I think JR could have panicked because he had lost his first daughter, now his second daughter, was prob worried about losing his wife to cancer, and so no way was he going to lose his son to either jail or lose him to whatever psychological problems he would have on speculation that he killed his sister.

      I think JR came downstairs looking for BR, tried to wake up JBR, realized she was unresponsive, BR told him he hit her on the head by mistake, he had a hard time finding the pulse (back to the faintness from head trauma victims), and just assumed she was either already dead, close to dead, or would be so damaged that BR would still be in some sort of trouble. Also I don't put it past him to think of appearances and not want his beautiful beauty queen star to have to go thru life with some sort of serious brain damage and BR to have to live with knowing he did that to her.

      So back to my theory, that if she wasn't strangled by the garotte and was strangled just by crossing the strings, is not as gruesome and more believable that the parent could have put her out of her misery in that way (or to save BR).

      Gosh though, who knows! E

      Delete
    5. E, I'm curious why you feel that the R's were all about appearances? I mean, before the murder. Specifically, what makes you think that JR (in your scenario as an innocent parent who finds his daughter unresponsive) would value his image over his daughter's life?

      Yes, finding one's child unconscious would send most parents into a panic. I think the natural response would be to call 911 and attempt to save her, not just assume that nothing could be done for her. And certainly not to just finish her off by strangling her. As a parent with no medical training, I wouldn't rely on my ability to accurately assess my child's vital signs in that situation. Also, even in the event that a pulse was hard to detect, if alive, she would still be breathing, wouldn't she? Possibly shallow or irregular breaths, but breathing nonetheless.

      Not to sound like a jerk, because you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't really understand why you think JBR being strangled with a cord alone is any less gruesome than being strangled with a garrote. The effect is generally the same and the outcome is exactly the same.

      Delete
    6. "Parents don't give up on their children that easily. No loving parent would decide to put a child out of their misery (as one comment above suggested.)"

      Exactly....especially a parent who loves their children so much that they would go to such extraordinary lengths (commit capital murder and risk the death penalty) to save their son merely from being investigated. Ask yourself (something I don't believe BDIs have ever done, because they wouldn't like the answer), why would they go that far to spare one child, whilst just tossing aside the other like last night's leftovers? It just doesn't make sense....BDIs can't seem to decide whether the Ramseys are the parents of the century, or homicidal maniacs - their theory requires us to believe BOTH!

      "I don't put it past him to think of appearances and not want his beautiful beauty queen star to have to go thru life with some sort of serious brain damage and BR to have to live with knowing he did that to her."

      I doubt the "what ifs" or the "maybes" would have even crossed their minds in the minutes that followed finding their daughter unresponsive. When was the last time you heard of two parents saying to paramedics, "Don't bother reviving my child, she was under the ice for a while, just let the kid die in case there's brain damage." A parent does EVERYTHING in order to save their child, whatever the repercussions may be. To accept the BDI theory means one has to suspend all logic and common sense, this is why it just doesn't work once the minutiae of the entire scenario is examined. People who subscribe to BDI are only looking at one or two elements such as a bowl of pineapple and alleged train track marks found on her body......they're not looking at the big picture, and if you go back over the past few months of BDI posts, you will see they always avoid the discussion of motive on the part of the parents, and that is because they are painfully aware that an adequate one doesn't exist, and their theory falls apart without it. JDI certainly works better with the sexual abuse motive, but it holds up without it.....BDI doesn't.

      I have to agree with HKH. Strangling your child - whether one employs the use of a handle for the deed or not - is equally as gruesome, both are done for the sole purpose of cutting off the oxygen to the brain to cause death. Keep that in mind: the person who strangled her made absolutely certain she was dead, this was no half hearted attempt at staging by a loving parent - the garrote was embedded in her flesh. This was not a "cover up", it was committed with the sole intent to cause death.

      Delete
  21. Gumshoe...Patsy's sister, to this day, has never been questioned in regard to what she removed from the house.

    There was also a question of a doll that was ordered after JBR's death and delivered to Access Graphics.

    Inq..The RN is just one of many mysteries as to why it was without fingerprints and in such pristine condition. I think we had discussed that several threads ago. Like I said, my shopping list is more crinkled after a half hour of walking through the supermarket.


    And remember, we still don't know what came first. Only a teaspoon and a half of blood was removed from the brain. Very little for a skull fracture of that size. I think the garrote was first, just not sure under what circumstances.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also EG there was the apparent disinterest by either parent in thoroughly looking over the note when the police arrived (and their friends) to try and determine who may have written it and left it there.

      I think the slipknot first. Not complicated, youtube shows how to tie one. As you move or try and wriggle free it only gets tighter. Whether then the end of the cord was wrapped around Patsy's paint brush stick afterward was a part of the all in one deal or the rest of the cord was used for the garrotte afterward is unknown. Head blow then simultaneous to choking, blood circulation cut off causing wound to bleed inside and not out.

      Delete
    2. also other wounds suggest some kind of torture-play - bruises on shoulder/back area, scrape to back of leg and the hideous black round abrasion to cheek (as well as train track mark). I don't see John being good for that.

      Delete
    3. Inq...I agree. Something went on with the garrote first, whether a game, whether intended torture, whether sexual erotica, just not sure. However, I believe it happened first, followed by the head blow. And yes, she had additional bruising, indicating some sort of struggle.

      The behavior of the parents, in my opinion, is the biggest factor for me in determining guilt.

      "We didn't mean for this to happen" - PR was heard to have said that. For me, that statement says it all.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Yes, EG. Back when Kolar came out with his book he left it open, what happened after the headblow. So we were left with too many possibilities that just didn't add up. And I think he got it backwards. "We didn't mean for this to happen" is odd. Suggests they knew it could happen, there may have been indications something was going to happen, for them to hope it wouldn't happen. Quite frankly I think John was kept out of the day to day child rearing events, but they both say "we" when it suits their purposes.

      Delete
    5. She had fallen off her new bike on xmas morning, so it is possible some of the scrapes and bruises occurred then.

      Delete
    6. Could be MsD, could be. I took this from Dr. Beuf's notes and record of mishaps found on
      www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?830-The-Doctor-is-IN!page4:

      10/94 doctor notices scar on cheek, told she was hit accidentally by golf club in Charlevoix. Doctor told she's getting along well with older brothers and sister.

      5/8/95 Falls in food market lands on nose, not broken

      12/95 trips and hits head above left eye

      5/96 Bent nail back on fourth finger in another fall

      Might be nothing, might be something

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

      Delete
    8. Inq,

      You might have something there with the slipknot, just not sure how it occurred, but I believe that came first. Good find with the trips to the doctor. And that statement where the doctor was told she is getting along well with her brothers and sister. Does that strike you as strange? Perhaps the doctor suspected or knew something? I don't think the doctor ever asked any of my kids if they were getting along. Of course, they never hit each other with golf clubs or smeared feces on each other's belongings.

      EG

      Delete
    9. If JB was being physically abused, I doubt Patsy would be rushing her to the doctor's to be treated for injuries as minor as bending back nails etc. I would imagine most abusers don't seek medical attention for their victims due to fear of being exposed.

      Delete
    10. She did take her to Dr. Beuf for the bent nail she said she had gotten in a fall. She tripped again in the grocery store and didn't break her nose the Dr. put in his notes. Then she got a bruise over her eye in either a slip or another fall, then Dr. Beuf noticed the golf club scar that Patsy hadn't told him about and that prompted the question was she getting along with her older brothers and sister. If Patsy is telling her Pediatrician what he needs to know and nothing more than that he has no reason to suspect that these aren't just ordinary scrapes and bumps from an active child. Add to that the vaginitis and vaginal discharge and something is going on in that perfect house that isn't perfect.

      Delete
  22. Stephen A Diamond Ph.D
    Who killed JonBenet? part2:
    The Ransom Note.
    A forensic Psychologist considers a key piece of evidence in this perfect crime.
    (posted Feb 23/ 2017)

    ReplyDelete
  23. I read that Stephen A Diamond piece yesterday. Very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  24. also part three . Very interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting? The most interesting aspect of this doctor's assessment is that he uses the words "and hence" when writing about the case.

      He examines the RN as if it's a real RN. He even admits in part 2, that his assessment of the RN is done so out of context, rather than in consideration, of the known facts of the case. What's the point then? If someone is not going to examine something in the proper context, how can they possibly expect to draw an accurate conclusion?

      In part 3, he discusses the possibility of Santa Bill being the perp, even in light of the GJ indictments. Although he concedes the idea is ridiculous that the R's would cover for McReynolds (and possibly his wife,) he still goes on to list a full paragraph of reasons why they might.

      This doctor's assessment of the case is one of the most ridiculous, far-fetched analyses by a professional that I have ever read.

      Delete
  25. I don’t find it interesting. Respectfully, the article is codswallop. He comes across as a guy with some tremendous forensic psychology, yet to apply such psychology accurately, one needs to know the case. He doesn’t. He’s on a par with Dr. Phil rendering opinions.

    His most egregious assumption is that BR would have spilled the beans if he knew anything. Kids can lie as well as adults. Moreover, everyone has seen BR’s interviews. He flat out tells the one psychologist he may have secrets, but he would not tell her any of them. He refused to identify the pineapple as though he had been hammered about not acknowledging it. He told one person he saw JB walk up the stairs; he told Dr. Phil the last time he saw JB was in the car. On Dr. Phil he shares a brand new story that he went downstairs to play with a toy, about the time the kidnapper was supposed to be in the home enticing JB to the basement.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d believe BR has been so mind-washed that he’s like a person with Stockholm syndrome. Either that or he’s the kind of person Dr. Robert Hare discusses (psychopathic lies for the fun of it.)

    As to the pedophile slant this psychologist discusses, again, he doesn’t know the case. The experts in the FBI behavioral unit stated without equivocation, kidnappers with a motive of money and kidnappers with a motive for sexual assault, do not overlap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something seems so off about Burke... the interviews, and reports of him pooping in JB's room. If he knows anything about the murder or was involved in any way, it wouldn't completely surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if he had psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies.

      Delete
  26. None of us really know this case, and we can't be sure that what we've learned from LE and the news media is the absolute truth. Furthermore, when we express our theories as to who and what (strangulation or head trauma) caused JBR's death our theories are tainted with assumptions. But I agree with your assessment of BR's behavoir. BTW, I didn't say Diamond was convincing or had cracked the case. It was just an interesting read.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I've been reflecting on that faeces-smeared box of candy found in JBR's bedroom. Because the candy was a Christmas gift to JB, ostensibly the excrement had been applied recently. Faeces stained pajamas (too large to have been JB's)were also discovered in the room. Since the R's housekeeper stated that BR had painted a wall with excrement,it seems logical to assume that it was he who contaminated the candy box with poop and the pajamas belonged to him. Faeces smearing (scatolia) can be common in toddlers just discovering their bodies, but it is somewhat uncommon in an older child like BR. It's sometimes associated with psychological disorders such as autism, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and physical and /or sexual abuse. Did BR suffer from one or more of these mental disorders? Perhaps. When PR was away having treatment for cancer and was very ill, the children were taken care of by others. They may have overheard talk of their mother's possible impending death from ovarian cancer. If so, this would have been enough to cause the children to experience anxiety and depression which could manifest in anger issues they were too young to handle. Thus JB's resumption of bedwetting and BR's poop smearing. He may have directed his anger toward JB because she received more of his mother's attention or simply because it seemed safer to direct it at her rather than his parents or friends. If so, this does not prove he caused JB's death. It has been reported, however, that he was in counseling prior to and for two years after the death of his sister, and we know he had injured her with a golf club. So what is the point I'm trying to make? I'm trying to understand the significance of the faeces-smeared box of candy in JB's room. I suspect it was a pivotal part of whatever happened prior to the violence that ended JB's life. It may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
    LGE

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi LGE, nice post.

    Many on here question whose excrement it was..saying it is just as likely to be JonBenet as it is Burke's.

    Of course it COULD be JBR's (just like anything COULD have happened in this case), but I think you make very valid points as to we can safely assume it was Burke's excrement.

    Does this mean Burke delivered the headblow to his sister? No, of course not. But it does make you question the disorder/s Burke may have had...which you have promptly listed.

    Given it's a fact that he has struck his sister in the past (with the golf club), he's the only one in the house (that we know of) who has ever struck out at Jon Benet. Again, this doesn't mean he struck Jon Benet on the night of her death, but it does stop and make you think what Burke may have been capable of doing that night (headblow and maybe even more).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Zed, I read somewhere that JB was behind Burke when he swung the golf club and was accidentally hit. Regardless, my son who is 2 years older than my daughter has hit her before while being careless and rambunctious like boys can be. Unless there was a pattern of him striking her on purpose multiple times, I'm not going to assign a disorder to him (or to my now grown son who is a fine person). The feces smearing is another matter, though I suspect that both kids had potty issues due to absentee parenting. LE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous - that is John and Patys version of the golf club incident. A witness (friend of theirs) said Burke clobbered her on purpose. And yes, I agree kids will be kids. Ive even stated on here before that my son put a plastic bag over his sister once (both under 6) because he thought it was funny. Its possible that Burke could have put an already made garotte around his sister thinking it was funny. Lots of coulds, and lots of speculation...but thats what this case is. The feces smearing at that age though shows something is not right. My 3 year old would NEVER do that, let alone a 10 year old boy.

      Delete
    2. What friend said this? I've never read that. And burke was not 10 when he smeared the feces. Agree it's unusual but I can't stretch that to doing the things that were done to Jonbenet.

      Delete
    3. Pam Griffin, Patsy's pageant seamstress, related the story on the CBS show, but she was not in Charlevoix when it happened and was not a witness.

      Burke did the smearing once, when he was 6/7 and his mother was at the NIH for cancer treatment and his grandmother was babysitting. The poop on the candy box and in the PJ bottoms in JBR's room was not collected, never tested for DNA.

      Delete
  30. "Again, this doesn't mean he struck Jon Benet on the night of her death, but it does stop and make you think what Burke may have been capable of doing that night (headblow and maybe even more)."

    "Maybe more".
    Comments like this one are the reason I get so frustrated with BDI. There can be no "maybe", because it is a *fact* she had a garrote twisted around her neck, and her parents had no reason to commit such a gruesome act upon finding their beloved daughter unconscious. All I expect is for BDIs to commit entirely to their theory - if Burke delivered the head blow, he performed the strangulation also. Parents don't "finish off" a child they love, but they may cover for a child who has already strangled his sister to death. I don't believe this is what happened, but it is the only BDI scenario that is remotely plausible, and the only one BDIs should entertain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms D, honestly you get frustrated at anything and its becoming a real pain. Im not going to start a slinging content here because I know Doc does not want that. In my post I put things like "in my opinion", "COULD have happened", "no of course that doesnt mean he did it" etc. and still you whinge.

      Yes, there is a maybe!! No debate sorry. Just because YOU dont think parents could have staged for Burke does NOT mean it didn't happen. There is thousands of people around the world who believed this likely happened, including people more qualified than you and I both. Maybe Burke tightened the garotte. Maybe the parents tightened the garotte. Maybe it actually did tighten in a struggle between Burke and Jon Benet, maybe the parents thought this was needed because then no one would possibly suspect them (which has worked on you)...at the end of the day to say "there is no maybe" is a load of crap.

      Posts like this just make me frustrated.

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

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

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

      Delete
    5. I thought I made myself clear in the above post: "offensive posts, whether directed at fellow posters or at me personally WILL be deleted when and if I find them. I will also be deleting posts complaining about my policies, EVEN if the complaints seem reasonable. OK?"

      Sorry if I offended you, Ms. D., but I am trying very hard to fend off flame wars and your post added fuel to the fire, yes.

      Delete
  31. I can't speak for others MsD, but I gave the BDI scenario some time ago and it doesn't include having either parent strangle their daughter to "cover" for their son. Yes, I agree, commit all the way, and I have. What I'm unsure of now at this point is if Doug Stine was over there too, and pedaled home when he witnessed something he had no intention of being a part of. I continue to read about this possible scenario, but lacking any kind of "proof", it's difficult to go in that direction with any degree of certainty. He was swabbed for his DNA, however, which is odd - were they swabbing all of Burke's friends? Or just Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Zed, I get the frustration. At the heart of it is "they" got away with it. In trying to hold on to his fortunes John swept Patsy up into a massive coverup effort. After GE bought Access Graphics and John was out on his ass, with no job offers coming from Lockheed, he states "family was all that mattered, I now realized." Too little, way too late.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think I've made my theory pretty clear. BDI and the parents covered it up. I do not believe that the R's murdered her as an act of mercy after finding her half dead. I think they found her dead, and proceeded to cover it up.

    Inq...I mentioned the Stines in an earlier post and whether or not Doug was there, as bike tracks were found and I read where two bikes were purchased that Christmas (one for PR and one for JBR) but only one bike was at the house.

    The way the Stines took the R's in and then proceeded to leave their jobs and move to Atlanta with them raises questions. Susan Stine was like PR's pitbull and didn't let anyone near her. Also, SS was the one who answered the door on that 911 call three days prior. It doesn't prove anything, but it's odd.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not married to any theory in particular, but if Burke did it & parents were covering it up, why the ransom note and the dead body?

      Why not make it look like a murder & just leave the body, don't give any more evidence to analyze like a long note.

      Or why not write the note to buy time and hide the body and make it actually look like a kidnapping. Then why call police before removing the body from the house?

      If both parents are covering, why not one just leave the house to go dispose of the body? Then call police.

      If the enhanced 911 call is right, and someone (Burke prob.) said "What DID you find?" and John said "We're not speaking to you," why would that brief convo even take place if all 3 were in on it?

      Seems to me if BDI, one parent helped stage, to throw the other off, and it makes more sense the parent involved was John.

      Delete
    2. You are asking the right questions, MacKenzie. But why bring Burke into it? If he assaulted his sister, there would have been no need to stage a kidnapping. Oh, excuse me, a kidnapping PLUS a sexual assault.

      On the other hand, if John had been molesting her, then the sexual aspect would have been part of the assault, NOT the staging. And there would certainly have been a need to get the body, with all its potentially incriminating evidence, out of the house. What better way to do that than to stage a kidnapping?

      As far as I'm concerned, and pardon my French, as far as this case is concerned, Burke Ramsey is de trop.

      Delete
    3. Doc I don't know if Burke was involved, I'm just speculating on the BDI theory people were talking about. The two-parent cover up doesn't make any sense to me at all. As I mentioned before, the one thing I'm most convinced of is that John was involved somehow. The idea that both parents killed/covered makes the least sense to me though.

      Delete
  34. I agree with you EG on everything. If Doug suddenly went back home that night we have no way of knowing what was then said to the Stines as the December phone records of the Ramsey's are missing - or not published in any event.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I do think the Stine's may know something about what happened. They were the last ones to see the Ramsey's before the murder and Susan Stine was often called "the bulldog" or the "the guardian" as she was so protective of Patsy in the weeks/months after. And Patsy couldn't remember if Burke lef the car when they visited the Stine's on the night of the 25th.

    Do I think Doug Stine came home with the Ramsey's that night? Sure it is possible...especially since they are only 4 blocks away (they could have easily taken Doug home in the morning). But to be honest, no, I don't think Doug was there at all

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes, there isn't much there Zed, regarding Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I did read one absurd theory on websleuths how he was adamant it was Doug Stine's tutor, Nathan Inouye (a college student).

    It did make for a compelling read, but you can make up any compelling theory if you wanted to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then there are the theories that are not compelling.

      Delete
  38. Article on the Netflix movie
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/0/casting-jonbenet-controversial-new-netflix-movie-murder-case/

    (I'm not connected to this new movie,I don't even have Netflix, just posting this for anyone interested)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's airing now on Netflix Lil. Watching it. There is a possibility that it will be also on yesmovies.too - go to search bar, type Casting JonBenet in a day or two, if you don't have Netflix. It's a Sundance film

      Delete
    2. Thank you Inq for the other options to view it.

      Delete
    3. Lil, any word on progress with the CBS and Spitz lawsuit? I've searched, nothing. And still no word on the new DNA testing, should someone be writing Stan G. again to let us in on the test results?

      Delete
    4. None that I can find hon, and I keep googling every few days, with both BR's name and then just Spitz.
      It may still be awhile for the DNA too.
      I'm waiting to see what becomes of the bones found if it may be young Jaliek Rainwalker. (for any of our Cali readers, stay safe, just read an article of a crazy carjacker dude and female shooting at random people. Wild. And just earlier tonight I had to give my drivers license to get ammo at Academy. Hub left his wallet at home so now I'll show up on some gov't list)

      Delete
  39. If the sole purpose of staging a kidnapping is to buy time to move the body out of the house, why bind wrists and duck tape mouth? She was already incapacitated, if not dead.

    Cleaning I can see, to get rid of evidence, but why bind the body up if it was never meant to be seen again?

    Also don't understand why a garrote, an hour later, and so brutally yanked tight, too. Like why not just another blow, or cover mouth/nose to suffocate?

    So much doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the BPD investigators it looked as though the bindings and duck tape were staging. And, as I see it, this was most likely done AFTER the 911 call, during the period when Linda Arndt lost track of John.

      Delete
    2. The garotte may also have been put in place after the 911 call.

      Delete
    3. Just an aside: This "Duck Tape" must be a U.S thing....I used to think it must have been a mistake, but I've seen it mentioned here a lot. Here, we only refer to it as "Duct Tape".
      Continue on! :)

      Delete
    4. I think it's supposed to be "duct tape" MsD. Sounds like "duck" though. What we need over here are more words like "bollocks." Love that word!

      Delete
    5. Ms D. it's duct tape, but Duck Tape is a massive duct tape brand (I don't know if it's as popular where you are), its brand name seeped into the consciousness, lol. Like how many people still call a tissue a Kleenex or call a hot tub a Jacuzzi.

      DocG-- that would make sense actually. The plan to sneak the body out to dispose of it is shot to hell by then, so have to make the staged kidnapping even better.

      I used to wonder about the fact that they never found where the cord came from or the tape roll, but recently heard someone say they think it came off a new bundle of art supplies, that totally makes sense too.

      Delete
  40. One more very curious thing... why did no one notice the ransom note said they'll call tomorrow. They found the note the 26th, why did it not occur to police, "It says they'll call tomorrow... they probably mean the 27th".

    Really feel the note was more meant to buy time than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. Not only did it say "tomorrow" but there is no way the writer could have meant "today." Banks don't open before 8AM.

      And yes, it said "tomorrow" to buy John a full 24 hours to complete his staging and dump the body.

      Delete
    2. The word "tomorrow" was very ambiguous. If I was John or Patsy and received that RN I would be confused and would wonder if he meant the 26th or 27th. Yes, Doc MAY be right and tomorrow could well mean the 27th. However, that doesn't mean that at 10am on the 26th I wouldn't be hovering next to the phone shaking like a leaf and sweating more than a Sumo Wrestler in a sauna. NEITHER parent showed any kind of symptoms or even spoke about this when 10am came and past on the 26th. Another reason why both parents are guilty as hell "in my opinion".

      Delete
    3. Patsy was observed as withdrawn and an emotional wreck from the instant friends and police arrived at the house. She rarely moved or spoke to anyone. John was just the opposite; his radar was up, his movements were quick, his cooperation with LE explicit. A foreboding sense that someone you love is dead can cause some people to shake like a leaf, sweat like a sumo wrestler, or shut down entirely. On the other hand, sheer terror for the consequences of inaction, by activating the sympathetic nervous system, can initiate the fight or flight response, which in turn makes some people capable of performing tremendously difficult and/or stressful tasks, instantly or over a long period of time, and without shaking, and without showing an ounce sweat.

      Patsy went on to require psychiatric medications for the rest of her life. Meanwhile, the "ice man", to this day, shows no signs of melting.

      Mike G.

      Delete
    4. Id be on psychiatric medication for the rest of my life too, if I was involved in the death of my daughter :)

      Delete
    5. Before I was born my mother lost her young sister to polio. Irrc, she had both kinds, back when they put people in the iron lung. My aunt was even in the local paper, as she was the only patient in the ward she was quarantined in. She was 13 when she died. My grandma had a mental breakdown and had shock therapy. I guess that was horrible from what it did at the time to her mind.

      Delete
    6. Of course you would Zed, because it fits your theory.

      Mike G

      Delete
  41. Good morning!

    Anyone have any thoughts on PR's side of the bed not having been slept in?

    Just trying to apply that to my theory that JR was probably up in bed first. PR was still downstairs getting things together for the next day. The kids were probably having a snack, hence the pineapple. Perhaps went down the basement to play with toys they had gotten, complaining that they were out all day Christmas day and never got a chance to play with their Christmas presents, so could they stay up a little later. Not sure if Doug Stine was there or not, but odd how the Stines acted afterwards.

    Then shortly thereafter, it happened. I believe PR was up the entire night and never did get to sleep that night. She screamed for JR and he came down and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Just trying to picture how the night went in that house. Of course this is only my opinion, and not fact.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HUH resolved this months ago, and can probably still provide the quote from the LE interview. It was John's side of the bed that appeared made, not Patsy's.

      Delete
    2. "Anyone have any thoughts on PR's side of the bed not having been slept in?"

      They depend on who I substitute for Patsy, where Patsy is sleeping instead, and how much longer John will be downstairs staging a kidnapping. Who knows, I might be able to keep both Patsy and the intruder busy, while you keep John tied up in the kitchen until the police arrive.

      Mike G

      Delete
  42. I hadn't read that. But if that's true, the same thing still holds true. One of them never made it to bed that night.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, John pulled the covers up when he got out of bed, like my husband always does (in a half attempt at making the bed).

      Delete
  43. Watched "Casting JonBenet." It was interesting. Did you see it Zach? It was like a microcosm of what we have in here - different opinions based on (likely) our own experiences of the family dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just watched it. Didnt really enjoy it to be honest.

      Delete
    2. I thought the film did a good job of re enacting emotions that would normally go along with committing a crime, and showed, very briefly, how each could have had something to do with it. Unfortunately John's suing machine will sue anyone that directly indicates himself or Burke so they have to be vague.

      Delete
    3. Inq.

      I watched it and didn't like it at all. I guess for someone new to the case, it might be helpful but it brought nothing new to most of us.

      EG

      EG

      Delete
  44. have you guys viewed this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmTeOg6WUWk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey whatever, thanks for the link...I just watched this.

      The video doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. However, it is still a very, very good video...especially for people who maybe aren't as familiar on the case as we all are. He is very clear and articulates his points very well.

      He also demonstrates how crazy the intruder idea is...although that's where he kind of leaves it and doesn't really go into his exact theory (JDI, PDI, BDI, RDI etc.).

      Would recommend this video to anyone new to the case.

      Delete
  45. I just finished work and have to get some food/dinner on but i plan to sit down with some popcorn tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Part 1: Sorry if this was brought up before. I was just thinking about a chunk of human nature that is omitted from the evening JBR was found murdered. We go from a family coming home after a dinner party to a 911 call with a ransom note being found the following morning. So much could have happened in between that time but what strikes me as odd is the lack of explanation for human nature. Let me explain.

    I think it would be instinctual for any adult to contact 911 or a doctor to help if someone was hurt. I think it would instinctual for a child to seek help by an adult if someone was hurt. So, what then, would explain for that not happening in the home after JBR was hurt? To me, it would be to cover-up intent OR the fact that the injured person was found later and was already dead.

    Over time, we have all discussed several scenarios. The intruder theory, which doesn't hold much weight, I'm not even going to get into.

    If PR were washing JBR in the bathroom and she fell and hit her head, it would be more likely that human nature would kick in and PR would contact authorities. If JBR fell down (or was pushed) down the stairs by PR or anyone, human nature would kick in and authorities would be called. HOWEVER, if PR acted out in some fit of rage and struck JBR on the head, there would be less likely a desire to contact authorities due to explaining the situation, however I tend to think an adult would lie away an intentional act in order to save their child, ie. if she intentionally hurt JBR in an act of rage which resulted in JBR being hurt, I think PR would still call authorities but would make up a lie stating that it was an accident.

    If BR hit JBR on the head in anger and no one else was around (ie. PR and JR were upstairs asleep), do you think he would go and get help? If he did strike her and either parents were in the room, do you think the parent would contact authorities to help JBR? This is where things get murky. I think if there was some accident on BR's part (ie. he and JBR were messing around and he hit her by accident), he would potentially go get his parents once he realized JBR was seriously injured. I think any parent would contact authorities if their kids were messing around and one got hurt and there was a chance the child could be saved. HOWEVER, if the injured child were feared dead immediately, I think that things would be a little more complicated due to the intent. Was the act aggressive and in anger on the part of one child, resulting in a death? Fear might kick in. The thing is, though, that JBR did not bleed as a result of the head injury and JR nor PR are doctors and would not be able to tell if the child could be save or not if they found out right away about the accident between BR and JBR. If they feared her dead, though, and wanted to protect the intent of BR, they might not call for help in order to save BR. But...what if BR accidentally hit JBR but did not tell his parents until much later, such as the next morning due to fear of what had happened or him being not having the ability to see the severity of the situation? Would PR and JR contact authorities if they found out in the morning that BR had hit his sister the night before and she never woke up? Would they be able to explain that to authorities, that their child was dead in their house the entire night after an accident that happened between brother and sister?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Part 2: If JR accidentally killed JBR in a fit of rage during molestation, he would need to protect intent and would not contact authorities. He could come up with some kind of lie if he really tried, such as he came downstairs to find JBR looking for something to eat, she had some pineapple and then wanted to see her toys in the basement...he went downstairs with her but she fell and hit her head. Or, he heard a noise, came downstairs to find that JBR had fallen down the stairs and hit her head. None of this sounds very plausible though, does it. With JR, almost any situation would need to be covered up.

    In addition to the reason authorities were not called for the injured JBR, you have to look into the lack of cracking fascade within the Ramsey family. No one ever cracks. No one ever says...hey wait a minute, this doesn't add up or I am not so sure about this anymore...I have my suspicions. You have to realize, this is not just about three people in a family...you have two step children/half siblings, a step mother, family friends, neighbors, workers in the home. I don't think it is plausible that if one parent handled the entire situation from start to finish, that the other parent or anyone else in the family would ever not question them. I don't think JR would have such a hold over PR or vice versa. Their lives were never the same. They were all under intense scrutiny. If PR ever suspected JR, her not going to authorities would not be about lack of money or protecting their image or feeling a lack of support. BR eventually grew up and would have been able to read up on the facts of the case and come to his own conclusion. The fact that no one ever cracks, that the family unit stayed very close together is very telling. Add this on top of the lack of call for authorities the night JBR died, and you can piece things together as closely as possible.

    No ambulance was called because the intent was too difficult to explain and/or JBR was dead for hours when found. At that time, the Ramseys thought they could preserve their place in society.

    The family never cracks because no one secretly questions the other.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I think this is excellent Anonymous.

    I could be in the minority here but I think it's really possible that it was Patsy's idea to stage the scene when either Burke told her what he had accidentally done and was put back to bed, with medication, or she came on the scene herself. The note has a certain pageantry, flair, drama. Making things appear one way when they were, in reality, another. Then every minute the body was concealed from view the evidence gets more and more contaminated - the case then becomes stronger and more defensible. Your last line is profound "the family never cracks because no one secretly questions the other." Lie detector tests and questions framed for answers that do not show deception (the second time around). No one is really sure what REALLY happened. Very good point Anonymous! Now would be the time to add some initial after your post, this was good.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Not sure why so many folks on this blog claim that if Burke delivered the head blow, either parent would definitely have called for help upon discovering her while ALSO claiming that John molested JBR. Seems entirely possible to me that Burke delivered the head blow and John staged because he decided there was no way his molestation wasn't going to be revealed in the aftermath if JBR got the help she needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finishing off what Burke started isn't "staging" ; it's first degree murder. John knew the idea of Burke molesting JBR was so preposterous, he staged a kidnapping gone wrong then hired Zed, J, EG, and Inquisitive to float reverse psychology theories to direct suspicion away from him until after he died.

      Delete
  50. I was convinced that given John's lies and Patsy's embellishments both of them were in on the staging. But I'm not so sure now. One of the best interrogators around, Mike Kane questions John whether he had thought in the last year and a half if someone was trying to frame him for the crime. John answers that he wouldn't have handwritten a note, he would have done it on a word processor - "or on a - maybe I wouldn't have left a note at all." Is there some truth to his statement? Can we see his narcissism shining through his statements that HE wouldn't have left a note, he would have typed one if he were to leave a note. He would have done it DIFFERENTLY.

    ReplyDelete
  51. JR is the consummate salesman, even today as he still professes how the family was persecuted by the BPD. So, in that vein, anything he says should be taken in the context of “I’m innocent.” ‘I would have done it differently,’ ‘the sexual injury was probably staging’ (according to Jeffrey Shapiro in convo with JR), ‘I found her at 11,’ ‘he (the kidnapper) didn’t mean to kill her,’ etc. You get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Yes, I do. But Kane was trying to trip him up, getting him to profile the killer, and in that context John made some interesting comments regarding what kind of person the killer was, and also what kind of person would write the note. It was a reverse psychology tactic, intended to trap Ramsey into telling on himself, or Patsy. And I believe you are correct, when Ramsey says he found the body at 11, that was a lie he told his own son (John Andrew)among many.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. He would have "done it differently".

      Just like the innocent O.J would have (re:"IF I Did It")?

      Hmmm.....

      Delete
  53. Why is that stupid Anonymous? I'm still reading about this crime - there are many passages of questioning sourced from acandyrose that are written about in other books, in particular Kane's interrogation of John asking him whether he thought in the last year and a half someone was trying to frame him for the crime. Also if he had put any thought into what kind of person wrote the note. John says he thinks the note was written by a female, and/or someone not too intelligent. He says he wouldn't have handwritten a note, he would have done it on a word processor. Good analogy MsD, to O.J., "if he did it."

    ReplyDelete
  54. Kane: I don't know if I have asked this. Not in this context, but do you think or have you thought in the last year and a half that someone was trying to frame you for this?

    John: No. The thought crossed my mind, but I think - no, I don't think that's the - I didn't give him credit for being that clever.

    then -

    John: I think it's too much of a stretch. I mean what - if I were going to do that, I wouldn't have handwritten the note. I would have typed it out or you know, I mean, if they are really that clever to have done something like this, to not only hurt JonBenet, but hurt us but to frame us as the murderers, I think if you give them credit for being that clever, they would have done some other things that would have supported that theory more.

    Kane: what kind of things come to mind?
    John: Like I think I wouldn't have handwritten the note. I would have done it on a word processor or on a - maybe I wouldn't have left a note at all.

    *Exactly like "If I Did It" MsD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The thought crossed my mind, but... I didn't give him credit for being that clever."

      Hmmm..unlike Patsy, sounds like John remembered not to forget.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nheBN2UWAaM&list=RDnheBN2UWAaM

      Mike G

      Delete
  55. Inq - do you have the paperback version of Steve Thomas's book? I was reading that Steve did make some minor corrections, such as with the bats outside. He corrected it to one bat and one golf club. With the golf club having blonde hair on it.
    Perhaps this will be something additionally tested for DNA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ said to be on page 44 with the correction in the pb version.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Lil, for all your research and updates. I no longer have the Steve Thomas book - the old one. Or updates either, but thanks for the heads up.

      I did read several months ago from another book that the aluminum bat was Patsy's, from her "Mom's Gone Bad" (something like that) softball team, that was a Lockheed Martin organized team of moms. I also read the theory on how Patsy's bat would have been tossed outside that night and could account for the metal scraping on concrete sound.

      Golf club with blonde hair on it - interesting. Anyway, thank you.

      Delete
  56. New entry with pics over on the shakedown site.
    https://shakedowntitle.com/2017/05/01/burke-is-quite-the-sailor/

    ReplyDelete
  57. All right so do we all agree the intent had to be covered up so that is why 911
    was never called

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, of course not. Intelligent, rational parents do not commit first degree murder to "preserve their place in society".

      Why not arrange the body at the foot of the stairs and stage an accident rather than a failed kidnapping, much less a failed kidnapping-cum-sexual assault? Two crimes with very different motivations, by the way and, presumably, very different criminal profiles.

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

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

      Delete
  58. The reason it was covered up is because it couldn't be explained away easily
    Also I won't tell if you won't tell
    Patsy and John each had something on each other "hence" the coverup

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep john as a sex abuser and Patsy as a murderer

      Delete