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

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

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

Friday, April 21, 2017

Making Sense

No intruder theory makes sense. I think most posting here would agree.

BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the "ransom note." The logic goes as follows: if Patsy killed her daughter then it's impossible to believe John would have supported her in covering that up; similarly, if John was the one who did it, it's impossible to believe Patsy would have covered for him; thus BDI provides us with the ONLY "logical" explanation for the evidence suggesting that BOTH John and Patsy were collaborating to hide the truth. An attempt to protect their son from public disgrace, and their family name from utter humiliation, presents us with the only possible motive for both to agree on a cover-up. And, of course, sibling rivalry provides us with a convenient motive for murder.


I believe the above reasoning goes to the heart of the thinking behind the notorious CBS special that has convinced so many of Burke's guilt. In the light of this line of reasoning, BDI would appear to be the only interpretation of the case that makes sense in terms of motive. And, as seen by the CBS investigative team, it all works out quite nicely in the end: Burke struck his sister "by accident," not really meaning to fatally wound her; and her parents can be seen as selfless "heroes," willing to risk life imprisonment for the sake of their precious son.

There is only one problem. When we try to put all the pieces of any possible BDI scenario together, taking all the evidence into account, we wind up with a hopelessly improbable and in fact totally bizarre mess. The absurdity is nicely summarized in a recent comment by MHN:
If Burke did the head blow they would've tried to save her life, not finished her off in this obscene and sexual way. If Burke did the head blow, the sexual assault, and the garotte, there is no way on earth Patsy goes to her grave hated and reviled by all, just to draw suspicion away from the disturbed kid who has murdered her beloved daughter, her pride and joy, her vicarious second self, her princess. If you think they did what they did for the sake of their family reputation, well that worked out about as well as we might have predicted, no?
Or, to put in another way, as recently posted by Ms D:
Committing capital murder is not a "cover up", which is exactly what John and/or Patsy did if we're to accept BDI. She was alive when her parents made a decision to sacrifice her life for her brother's, and choked her to death - so let's stop with this whole "cover up" nonsense. A cover up is when, upon finding your daughter unconscious due to a blow to the head inflicted by her brother, you call 911 and say she fell down the stairs. Fashioning a torture device designed to kill is pre-meditated murder, pure and simple. This is why BDIs always stop short of defending their theory past the head blow, of course. The manner of death was asphyxiation, an inconvenient truth for BDIs, who would have us believe she died from an accidental blow to the head delivered by her nine year old brother.
If you want to argue that Burke did the garrote strangulation as well as the head blow, then you need to relinquish one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence pointing to Patsy: the presence of her fibers intertwined with the knotting of this disgusting device. You have to wonder also, what Burke was doing in the 45 minute or more interval between the head blow and the strangulation. Poking her with his train tracks?

And you have to wonder also at the reaction of his parents when they discovered a comatose JonBenet, bleeding from the vagina, with strands of ligature buried deep into her neck. I don't know how a raving lunatic might respond, but the response of any normal person would NOT be to sit down and write a phony ransom note, that's for sure. After trying my best to revive my daughter, I would either call 911 right away to report what happened, or call my lawyer to get some advice as to how to proceed. My thoughts would NOT be centered on covering up the truth, but in attempting to grasp the fact that I'd been harboring a little psychopath in my home and wondering how to cope with that. The thought that not only one, but both parents would agree to risk life imprisonment to cover for a child who had so horribly attacked and mutilated his own sister is simply beyond belief.

So. John would not have covered for Patsy, Patsy would not have covered for John -- AND both Patsy and John would not have covered for Burke. Where does that leave us? What have we failed to consider?

What's been left out of consideration by just about everyone following this case, from law enforcement to media people to the general public, is the possibility that John and Patsy were NOT "in it together" at all, but that one was keeping the truth from the other. If we accept BDI because it's the only theory that makes sense in view of the "fact" that John and Patsy were both involved in a cover-up, the same logic also makes it necessary to consider the possibility that the two parents were NOT both involved. If we have no choice but to rule out John doing it with Patsy's help or Patsy doing it with John's help or Burke doing it with the help of both parents, then, aside from the nonexistent intruder whom we've already ruled out, that's the only alternative left to us, no?

Which returns us to the FACT that Patsy is the one who called the police that morning, not John; that Patsy claimed at one point that the call was her idea, in spite of John's claim that it was his. As I've stressed so many times in the past, if Patsy were involved in a cover-up based on the staging of a kidnapping, she would never have called 911 at that time, with the victim's body still in the house.

The problem is that so many have accepted Patsy as being involved almost right from the start, or at least after John was "ruled out" and she was not. Patsy's involvement has become an article of faith and anything she ever said or did that seemed a little strange or possibly suspicious, no matter how trivial (i.e., peeking from between her fingers at a police officer, or failing to recall that a "santa bear" was a recent addition to JonBenet's toy stash, or hanging up on the operator after completing her 911 call, etc. etc.) has been seen as a sure sign of guilt. I recently covered a large number of these alleged lies or suspicious behaviors, demonstrating in case after case the role of confirmation bias in determining the public's reaction.

Ironically, it's the thinking behind BDI, the certainty that the parents would have been willing to conspire in a cover-up ONLY to protect their son, that opens to the door to a very different consideration of the case, based on the only sensible alternative: that both parents could NOT have been involved, that one must be guilty and the other innocent. The only alternatives involve the construction of scenarios that, when tested against ALL the evidence, simply go nowhere.

247 comments:

  1. I'm JDI but I think it's disadvantageous to psychoanalyze people we don't even know. To say Patsy wouldn't cover for John is a wild assumption. Sure it sounds illogical to us, but stranger occurrences have happened. Casey Anthony's father stayed with his wife who declares Casey's innocence even after he was accused of sexual abuse. He's estranged with Casey while his wife is still in contact with her. That sounds absolutely crazy, but dysfunctional dynamics exist. This doesn't change my stance, just pointing it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A wild assumption?" That a doting mother like Patsy, who did everything for JonBenet, would not be willing to help the murderer of her dearly beloved child get away with it? C'mon Zach. What you really mean is that we can't be completely sure she wouldn't, but hey, maybe she would. Because, after all, in the words of every defense lawyer desperate to establish reasonable doubt, anything is possible.

      Delete
  2. Unless there was never a plan to remove the body. The RN author spent a lot of space reinforcing that JB would be killed (beheaded even) if they called the police or talked to anybody about it. And what did Patsy do immediately? Call the police and talk to several friends about it, which could have provided an explanation for why JonBenet was killed with the note itself deflecting the suspicion on someone outside the home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, except the note is clearly intended to imply that she has been taken already, and is being watched over by certain people. Obviously that was never intended to imply that they had set-up permanent base in the Ramsey basement.

      I've said before, sometimes you don't have to read between the lines, you just have to read the lines honestly and intelligently. Your reading of the ransom note is preposterously convoluted.

      So your attempt to dispute the obvious reading of the note is that it was written in order to suggest that JB was abducted, then killed and dumped because Patsy called 911. And that was the plan all along?

      John, how are we going to cover up for Burke and explain away the garrotted daughter in the basement? Hmmmmm, good question Patsy; maybe we should write a ransom note that threatens to kill her and return her to our home dead if you call 911, and then you call 911!

      Wow.

      Back on planet earth, John I, it was a ransom note that stated she had had been taken and was alive. It was intended as part of the staging of a faked kidnapping.

      No need for the logic pretzels.

      Delete
    2. No less plausible than *your* made up "plan all along" of dumping the body but not actually trying to dump the body. And then hoping you can gaslight her mother into false memories, because dammit she called the police and ruined everything. Wow, indeed.

      And when did I ever say anyone was covering for Burke?

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

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

      Delete
    5. "No less plausible than *your* made up "plan all along" of dumping the body but not actually trying to dump the body."

      John I, you've been here long enough by this point to know that John would have dumped the body, had his plan not been foiled. You act as though, after some further thought, he made a conscious decision not to dump JB's body after all - you're creating a straw man version of the JDI theory, and you do it frequently, seemingly in order to make our position look weak. If you want to criticize our argument, can you at least do it honestly?

      "And then hoping you can gaslight her mother into false memories, because dammit she called the police and ruined everything."

      Firstly, "gaslighting" was never part of the plan - it didn't have to be if John's scheme had played out as intended. Secondly, you keep mocking the idea of gaslighting, but fail to offer an explanation as to why it isn't a plausible possibility. Thirdly, yes Patsy did ruin the plan by calling 911.....what's so insane about that?Plans are often ruined by others who aren't privy to the details. How is that at all illogical?

      Delete
    6. No, I actually don't know that John would have dumped the body -- that's *your* theory (and Doc's). I see no reason to assume that this had to have been the case. If he wanted to dump the body, he probably had all night to do it.

      Delete
    7. I find it implausible that Patsy ruined his plan by calling 911 for a couple of reasons. One is that if his entire plan depends on the police not being called, why is he happily taking a shower instead of either "finding" the note first or at least being there so he can manage Patsy's response? And why does he made no attempt to stop her from calling 911? This is in direct contrast to a person who supposedly is clever enough to forge a ransom note using Patsy's writing characteristics in a convincing enough way and clever enough to figure out that a staged window won't be convincing enough and to "unstage" it right under the police's noses.

      Delete
    8. John I - how do you know John made no attempt to stop her calling 911?

      How do you know that?

      What 'proof' do you have of that?

      And I note again your comedic grasp of logic and real life: to paraphrase - "if John was clever enough to get certain parts of his plan done then it would ineluctably follow that he could not possibly have failed to successfully accomplish *every* part of his plan, and because he failed, therefore he had no such plan."

      It's scarcely worth trying to reason with someone who operates at this banal binary level.

      Delete
  3. What did Burke do for 45mins+ after the head blow?. Who knows, but then what was John doing also in this time if he did it.? It's a big risk to sit and write a Rn when Patsy could easily have awoken. I have a question for Jdi. If Jdi, why did John write those "A,s in the RN with the added curve/stroke around the top, which we can clearly see looks like Patsy's "A"s?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What did Burke do for 45mins+ after the head blow?. Who knows, but then what was John doing also in this time if he did it.? It's a big risk to sit and write a Rn when Patsy could easily have awoken. I have a question for Jdi. If Jdi, why did John write those "A,s in the RN with the added curve/stroke around the top, which we can clearly see looks like most of Patsy's "A"s?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Standard procedure noted:

      "What did Burke do for 45mins+ after the head blow?. Who knows, but then what was John doing also in this time if he did it.?"

      So you have *no* suggestion why Burke waited 45 minutes before getting busy with the ligature, and therefore you throw the question back at JDI as a transparent avoidance of the question. Oh, except:

      "It's a big risk to sit and write a Rn when Patsy could easily have awoken."

      Ah, so you DO have a reasonable idea what *John* did with his 45 minute hiatus, but you rather weakly try to imply that it would've been "risky" to do what he probably did, and therefore he probably didn't. If he had just smashed his daughter's skull in, and would soon coldly silence her forever, I doubt that the writing of a note was the biggest risk on his mind.

      Delete
    2. No MHN, you think I'm implying that I'm Bdi by what I have written. I am simply asking what John may have been doing as I believe writing the note with Patsy in the house is risky. I have no idea if Bdi why there was 45 mins in between the head blow and strangulation. I have stated many times since I came to this blog years ago that I am on the fence. Not quite the tone I expected from a fellow countryman with our supposedly reserved nature.

      Delete
    3. MHN thinks that everyone who disputes a thing s/he says is a BDI.

      Delete
    4. But evej my point is, if John has struck JonBenet a catastrophic blow, if he is going to have to silence her permanently, or believes that he already has, the biggest risk he can take is to go to bed without leaving some evidence that an intruder has entered and carried out the murder. It makes no sense to say that writing the RN is risky. Of course it is! But so was killing JonBenet. Doing nothing is the bigger risk for John in that scenario.

      And he could've written the note hidden away in the darkest recesses of that maze-like basement. No offense, even to a countryman, but I just don't think the argument you made carries much weight. That's all. I don't care whether you're BDI or whatever, I was just responding to the questions you asked, only one of which you answered.

      Delete
    5. My first post was in reply to Docs opening statement at the top of this page. Doc said what was Burke doing for the 45 mins after the blow to head. I was stating that although I have no idea in that scenario, if Jdi what happened during his 45 min. Staging is one thing, writing a letter that long that night I just don't see it. There are some Jdi on this blog that believe the note was written before the murder. I struggle with that too because I have to ask why would he use the pen and pad from home. Then back to my other question of the manuscript "A" s in the note, not commonly used, used often by patsy as we can see, or was she being set up?

      Delete
    6. "I am simply asking what John may have been doing as I believe writing the note with Patsy in the house is risky."

      Indeed. But what choice did he have?
      He'd quite clearly already crossed the line from "safe" behaviour to "risky".

      Delete
    7. evej, I have to say, as someone who reads a lot ot true crime, If I had to compose a fake ransom letter, my procedure would be this. Compose the letter on Word, (not saving it, of course). Then write out an alphabet on a piece of paper, making sure that distinctive letters are formed not in the usual manner I form them. Then I start to write out by hand the ransom note I've composed on the laptop, but at every stage, referring to the alphabet I've got to one side, copying each letter at a time, to ensure I never lapse into my normal handwriting. Granted, this would be time-consuming, and I sure wouldn't want to write a two and a half note using that procedure, but that's what I'd do.

      The handwriting is clearly not Patsy's normal hand, nor John's. It's disguised. To think it beyond the wit of a man like John to change the way he formed certain letters is not quite fair I think.

      And you're also assuming Patsy was as dumb as a plank. Her pad, her pen, her brush, her handwriting? Really? She was THAT stupid?

      Delete
    8. I was actually thinking was she set up.

      Delete
  5. Why? Same reason he wrote the note to himself, using Patsy's pen, on Patsy's pad, and left Patsy to discover the note.

    Never was a woman more aptly named.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So this criminal mastermind was clever enough to forge his wife's handwriting well enough to fool multiple professional document examiners in order to implicate his wife, and yet never did or said anything else that would implicate her for the rest of her life and beyond. And yet he wasn't clever enough to figure out how to keep that same wife from calling 911 or clever enough to sweep the cobwebs away from his staged window break-in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If the note was never intended to reach LE, why the need to mimic Patsy's A,s when she was the only one supposed to read it?.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you please stop repeating this absolutely false implication that the world's top document examiners got together and stated that Patsy wrote the Ransom note?

    That. Never. Happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you stop strawmanning what I say?

      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
  9. John I: You have a lot of opinions for someone who doesn't even have a theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's easy to have a theory. Defending it with evidence is another thing entirely. At this point I'd settle for people discussing the case honestly, not stating speculation as fact, and not posturing when one of their sacred cows is challenged.

      Delete
    2. Yet you don't have a theory to defend. The users on this site for the most part discuss this case honestly so I don't know what you're talking about. There isn't conclusive evidence that anyone committed this case, so speculation is obvious.

      Delete
    3. No, I don't actually believe stuff to be true unless I have a good reason to think that it's true. Making up a "theory" and then hunting for something to support it is exactly backwards. As for dishonesty. Here are just a few things that are regularly reported here as fact:

      - John was "missing" for 90 minutes on 12/26
      - JonBenet was definitely sexually abused
      - Sexual abuse necessarily implies an adult male
      - Fibers in JonBenet's underwear matched John's shirt
      - The size 12-14 Bloomies came straight out of a package

      Delete
    4. These are not JDI inventions, all can be sourced.

      -This was reported by Detective Linda Arndt, who was on the scene.

      -This was the conclusion of the medical experts who saw the autopsy material. It was reported by Steve Thomas, Jim Kolar, and most recently, Police Chief Mark Beckner in his 2014 Reddit AMA.

      -No one fails to admit that It's possible the abuse was committed by a 9-year old, but the adult male in the home is statistically and logically more likely.

      - The shirt fibers were part of a question asked of John by Mike Kane and Bruce Levine in John's 2000 interview. Lin Wood would not permit John to answer.

      - This information came from Patsy in her 2000 interview.

      If you have other, better, contrary sources, please share.

      Delete
    5. - No, it was actually never reported by Linda Arndt that John was missing for 90 minutes

      - No, their conclusion was prior vaginal trauma. And other experts disagreed.

      - Please cite evidence that "the adult male in the home is statistically and logically more likely." More likely than what?

      - How does this constitute evidence that fibers in JonBenet's underwear actually matched John's shirt?

      - False. She said she put them in the panty drawer for JonBenet to help herself.

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

      Delete
    7. - Miss B and HKH cited the Arndt deposition wherein she said John was missing for approximately 90 minutes.

      - No medical experts who saw the autopsy photos, slides and tissue samples dissented. None. Dr Spitz, who voiced a contrary opinion in the CBS show, saw a redacted autopsy report and no other material. If you insist on continuing to make this argument, please name names and give sources.

      - Answered, ably, by Miss B, below.

      - Prosecutors Kane and Levine made reference to a forensic analysis report regarding the shirt fibers. Police officers may lie to get results, attorneys are ethically bound to be truthful in any court-related proceeding.

      - She described the clear plastic tube the underwear was packaged in, and in her next sentence said she put them in JBR's underwear drawer. Draw whatever conclusion you like, but iirc in another interview she also made reference to the packaging, with the clear implication that was how they were stored. Again, if you have better, contrary information, please post your source.

      Delete
    8. - I already posted Arndt's exact word in her deposition. If you think she ever said John was missing for approximately 90 minutes, then cite her exact words that say that. In fact she exactly said that wasn't rue and that she was misinterpreted.

      - Have you seen the full report of this panel or are you relying on unsourced summaries by Thomas and Kolar? Vaginal trauma does not necessarily mean sexual abuse by another person. "Consistent with" is weasel words -- it just means that something can't be ruled out. You're a lawyer, you know that.

      As for the dissenting opinions, you know who they are. The pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Meyer never mentions it. Her pediatrician, Dr. Beuf said there were no signs of sexual abuse. Dr. Gardner said there could be other causes for inflammation. The conclusion in Judge Carnes' summary of the Wolf lawsuit was that there was no evidence that JonBenet was the victim of chronic sexual abuse.

      - There are no posts by Miss B below this one.

      - Here are the exact words:
      Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is our belief based on forensic evidence that there are hairs that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter's underpants, and I wondered if you --
      A. Bullshit. I don't believe that.

      What does "our belief, based on forensic evidence" mean exactly? Let's see the evidence.

      - Patsy's exact words:
      "I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on.
      . . .
      "Well, obviously we, you know, the package had been opened, we made the decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and use them because, you know, we weren't going to give them to Jenny after all, I guess, so.
      ...
      "They were just in her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all of her clean panties in a drawer and she can help herself to whatever is in there."

      How do you get from that to the bloomies on Jon Benet's body were straight out of a package?

      Delete
    9. CC wrote:
      "Dr Spitz, who voiced a contrary opinion in the CBS show, saw a redacted autopsy report and no other material."

      No other material? Schiller disagrees with you:

      "Spitz examined the four slides of tissue taken from JonBenét’s vaginal area and discussed with Weinheimer and Faure what the coroner had observed about the head injury, strangulation, and vaginal cavity. After viewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenét’s vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death—not earlier"

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

      Delete
  10. The parents seemed to protect themselves in interviews with lawyers more than their son (if he had done it). Patsy and John would be crazy to allow Burke to be interviewed alone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "BDI does seem to make sense" - Doc

    I stopped reading after this. Glad you came around Doc ;-)

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  12. So has anyone put themselves in the scenario of the family?

    You walk downstairs on Dec 26 and you see that note, what do YOU do?

    I would have possibly found a way to get in contact with the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An innocent John would definitely have known enough to contact the FBI or at least call his lawyer before inviting uniformed police to his house by calling 911.

      A guilty John would not have wanted anyone from law enforcement called until the body of his victim had been removed.

      Delete
    2. PR was a doting mother, who lived through her daughter and JR already lost a daughter in a terrible car accident. Do you honestly think he would've killed a second one? Talk about improbable. Neither one of these people strike me as parents who would want to kill their children.

      I would believe the IDI theory before I'd believe either one of those people would have intentionally killed that child. There is also no evidence that JR was a pedophile, and wasn't likely that he became one in his late forties. The JDI theory is based on him having been molesting JBR for some time, and so I just can't make that leap with no evidence. Just because he liked women who competed in pageants, doesn't mean he liked 6 year olds who did.

      On the other hand:

      1. BR had anger issues and had swung a golf club at JBR and that's just the one time we know about.
      2. BR skipped and smiled his way through the funeral of his sister
      3. Other children in Boulder were petrified of this intruder and yet BR was not afraid at all
      4. BR left her out of a family picture shortly after the murder.
      5. BR went on Dr Phil and pretty much smiled his way through the interview
      6. BR is a loner, works from home, and spoke out on the 20th anniversary of his sister's death when he knew CBS was coming out with their theory. Coincidence? I don't think so.
      I won't go into the bedwetting and feces spreading, as we all know about those.


      As far as what I would have done. First off, searched that house from top to bottom, insisted that the FBI was on the case immediately, put up road blocks, and secured the area, got out an APB, and did their job. I would've cooperated fully and not worried about lawyers, etc. I would not have bothered to run a comb through my hair or put an ounce of make up on to do a television show. I would have merely existed and would have spent the rest of my natural life looking for the killer. In other words, I would've still been breathing, but I would've died that day.
      The one and only thing that would have kept me going, would have been my one remaining child. I would've said exactly what PR said, "if anything happens to Burke, I wouldn't be able to go on", or something like that.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Assertion, then: the headblow was intentional but it's impact was underestimated, and the garrotte was an unintentional side-effect of playing with a SLIPKNOT that couldn't be loosened once tightened. The bludgeoning and the strangulation occurred almost simultaneously. Someone struggled to remove the garrotte and someone pushed his or her knuckles into the neck/chest cavity causing the inverted triangular shaped bruise on her neck. If JB screamed the scream would have been cut off immediately (what the neighbor heard) by pulling on the garrotte first, then the head blow.

      That still doesn't answer Doc's question then, why would two parents choose to fashion an elaborate ruse of a coverup and not make the first call be to professional help of some sort, rather than to LE. Could the idea of a note, the pageantry of the staging, the wrapping the body in her favorite blanket, and the wiping down of the body and changing of the clothes, belong to only one parent. Patsy?

      Delete
    4. Welcome back, Inq!

      Good to see you posting again. Sure, PR could've done it alone, or JR...but as I posted, I don't think that's the case. What reason would they have to do that?

      EG

      Delete
    5. Pretty weak "On the other hand[s]."

      1. This one drives me particularly crazy. One incident, accident or not, is not evidence of "anger issues." I purposely pushed my sister into a wall once. It was an isolated incident. I was 10 at the time.

      2. My friend passed away suddenly last year. She had two small children. Her daughter, who was 7 at the time, skipped through the funeral holding a rose she would later throw onto her mother's casket. Granted, she was younger than BR, but my point is that children react differently to tragedy and don't always behave in a way we might expect.

      3. Proof?

      4. If BR had drawn himself bludgeoning JBR, you might have a point.

      5. People do smile when they are nervous. Some even laugh.

      6. How do you know BR is a loner? Also, plenty of people work from home. That doesn't mean they're murders. BR agreeing to the Dr. Phil interview before the CBS special aired was not a coincidence, as explained in the Complaint filed against CBS Et Al on his behalf.

      Delete
    6. HKH...

      Separating they may look weak, but put them all together and it spells troubled with a capital T.

      EG

      Delete
    7. OOOPs....separately....darn spellcheck!

      EG

      Delete
    8. "I would believe the IDI theory before I'd believe either one of those people would have intentionally killed that child."

      And yet there was a garrote twisted so tightly, it embedded itself into JB's flesh....this required premeditation and intent. Nothing accidental about her murder. So, it looks as though you'll have to go with IDI after all, which makes your BDI "evidence" moot.
      And, as far as your six points of "evidence" goes, those are things that amateurs use - I honestly was surprised when I saw your initials at the end of the post, as I presumed it was a comment from a newbie. The incidents you listed have been covered, ad nauseam, so it boggles the mind you listed these particular incidences as suspicious, when you're well aware of the logical explanation behind every, single, one of them. It is the repetition of these kinds of non-issues that Doc has tried (unsuccessfully, it would seem) to address in his most recent posts, and yet here we go again.....chasing our tails.....around and around we go.

      Delete
    9. With a slipknot, such as that tied around her neck, any kind of movement, wriggling, twisting tightens the knot. The rest of the cord was wrapped around the broken paintbrush handle, tied tight enough to stay put so that when the handle was turned the air would effectively be strangled out of a small girl. Anyone attempting to remove the cord bearing down with one's knuckle for leverage would have only made the slipknot pull tighter. Was she near death when an attempt was made to take the cord away from her neck so that if a question was asked of a polygrapher "did you kill JB" the answer could be "no" and not show deception? Not knowing who really killed her? The bludgeoning weapon found nearby but no head wound seen? Or possibly even mentioned? If both parents knew there was nothing more to be done for her as Doc asked, what possible motive could be present to want to cover this up. I can think of a big one: Lockheed Martin. But I don't necessarily know that it's big enough. Certainly John would not want to give up any future monies to be made with his company which was on the road to doubling in riches in the next year or so. Is it enough, however. Or did Patsy think this was the best possible thing to do when her son ran to tell her what had happened and didn't consult John. Which parent would be thinking about the money he had worked so hard to make, and which parent would be concerned about her other child and the image and life she had presented to the world starting in her own pageant days.

      The den, or John's study lies at the opposite end of the house to the wine cellar and the stairs to the basement. It is located at the rear of the house facing the alley, south west side of the residence so that a small table light would not be visible necessarily to other residents. Good place to sit and write a note.

      Delete
    10. Nice to see you back, Inq! :)

      Delete
    11. I always think fondly of you MsD. If we could just pin this on Jacques how much simpler life would be :)

      Delete
    12. As do I, Ms Inq, even though we don't always see eye to eye.

      Indeed it would....alas, I think the four legged, fluff ball was thoroughly investigated, and his alibi checked out ;)

      Delete
  13. Wow, so he was asked about the fibers and he didn't answer!!!! If he were so innocent, why didn't he answer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did answer. He said, "bullshit, I don't believe it". And did they then show him the evidence?

      Delete
    2. That interview was held in Atlanta; presumably they didn't bring the entire case file. Who's to say they didn't mail Wood a copy later? Wood certainly wouldn't volunteer that information, and LE never interviewed either Ramsey again.

      Delete
    3. Conclusion: there is no publicly known evidence or any basis for claiming that "fibers in JonBenet's underwear matched John's shirt". Which is what I said.

      Delete
  14. To John I: (not that it will really matter, I'm sure) But- yes, Linda Arndt DID report and later state in a deposition that she lost sight of John from 10:40 to noon on Dec. 26th. (She stated this in her deposition given in her lawsuit against the city of Boulder and police chiefs Beckner and Koby in March and April of 2000.) Reported in The Daily Camera, May 13, 2001.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dang, MissB. You beat me to it. ;)

      Delete
    2. Sorry, HKH! :-) I'm not sure our friend is that interested in the facts, though. Others here have been so patient in responding to him, I thought I'd jump in and give them a break.

      Delete
    3. I don't think he's terribly interested either, MissB.
      He only responds when it is to (rather zealously, I might add) defend John Ramsey, and thus far, I have not seen him even attempt to offer any alternative theory of his own. He demands evidence, is presented with said evidence, then denies it......then asks for it again two days later, and so the cycle goes.....

      Delete
    4. No true. I already posted this, but:

      Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a
      period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?

      A. No.

      Q. You didn't see him during that period of time; is that correct?

      A. No.

      Q. It's not correct?

      A. That is not correct.

      Q. Didn't you report - all right. You said sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 he went out to pick up the mail.

      A. No.

      Q. What did you say?

      A. I believe I worded it in my report rather vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in the media are not the same. I said something during that time frame I saw John reading his mail.

      I don't know how much clearer she could be about this. I'm not *denying* the evidence -- you all are misrepresenting it.

      Delete
    5. John I - tell us, are you John Ramsey or an agent of Lin Wood? Thou protests too much.

      Delete
    6. Linda Arndt sued the BPD, Chiefs Koby and Beckner, for failing to defend her actions on the 26th and leaving her open to widespread criticism in the media; hence the deposition, taken by their attorney. Of course she was defensive about her handling of the scene that day, equivocated and hedged. Three lines after those you quote above she said "I did not watch John Ramsey the entire time".

      Her lawsuit was thrown out.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, how many times am I going to be asked this? No and no.

      CC - that doesn't change the fact that Arndt never said that John was missing from 10:40 to 12:00. That's just plain false.

      Delete
    8. John I., As CC already pointed out, throughout that deposition, Arndt was trying to defend her actions the morning of the 26th as well as her behavior during the investigation thereafter. IMO, it was like pulling teeth, trying to get a straight answer from her on many of these points. Later in the deposition, she says this:

      21 Q. (BY MR. HALABY) Are you stating that you

      22 never lost track of him during that period?

      23 A. I think I just told you that I personally

      24 couldn't account for every minute.

      25 Does that mean that you lost track of him

      Page 130

      ________________________________________

      1 then?

      2 A. You could interpret it that way.

      3 Q. All right. And during that period that you

      4 lost track of him, did you later conclude what he had

      5 done during that period in terms of going to pick up

      6 the mail?

      7 A. When I didn't personally monitor him the

      8 whole time, what was the other half?

      9 Q. Did you conclude that during that period

      10 you'd lost track of him that he had gone out to pick up

      11 the mail?

      12 A. When I didn't personally monitor him, I

      13 didn't know how he had gotten his mail.

      14 Q. And did you then put two and two together

      15 and believe that he had gone out to get the mail?

      16 A. I thought he had gotten mail by stepping

      17 outside.

      18 Q. You didn't believe somebody else had picked

      19 up the mail and delivered it to him inside the house?

      20 A. I didn't know.

      21 Q. But what you had concluded was that he had

      22 gone out to get the mail, correct?

      23 A. I thought he had got - yes.

      This completely contradicts what she said earlier (the part you quoted.) First she says that no, she did not say JR went out to pick up the mail. Then later she says, yes, she thought JR had gotten his mail by stepping outside. IMO, it's a matter of semantics, when it comes to much of what Arndt is willing to confirm or tries to deny.

      Whether she lost track of him for 90 minutes or 30 minutes, the point is, she concedes she did not know where he was for a period of time. JR himself admits to Kane that he was in the basement (sometime after 10 am, according to JR.)

      Delete
  15. And, John, I know it can be difficult, but please do try and keep up with the information posted on this blog. CC and Doc have covered the experts' opinions on the prior vaginal trauma at great length. (I mean the experts who actually viewed the original slides, etc.) I myself posted statistics of sexual abusers of children a few days back. (Mostly male, religious, married or were married, holding jobs, etc. And I cited my sources, these weren't just characteristics that I "really, really, felt almost 100% certain were probably true.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't been able to find your post with the statistics, but statistics aren't evidence. Let's go with that though for the purposes of discussion. Was John even the only male, religious, married, job-holding guy with access to JonBenet?

      Delete
    2. Ok, I found your post at https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2017/04/what-else.html?showComment=1491515263104#c3633073284395556938

      Then I followed the references to the original study, which was the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study. And guess what? They only surveyed *male* admitted child molesters. So of course they were mostly male!

      Delete
    3. "Was John even the only male, religious, married, job-holding guy with access to JonBenet?"

      At the time she was murdered, yes.

      Delete
  16. Was John ruled out as the writer of the ransom note? Yes he was.

    There was no intruder. Burke didn't write it. Who does that leave? The Easter Bunny?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and Burke was ruled out as a suspect as well.

      Delete
    2. Yes he was; a simple yet eloquent point, Zed. We're still waiting for:

      "Burke Ruled-In: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case".
      by Zed

      Delete
  17. Have you read any of Doc's posts from 2012? Try reading "Epiphany" and "Ruled Out". They were eye-opening for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, MissB, for both of your above comments.
      The sexual abuse has been covered at length, as has the author of the ransom note. I don't think many posters here have actually read Doc's blog, despite their claims. If they have, they're simply being willfully dishonest in order to create antagonism within the JDI community here. Offering a rebuttal to the claims is one thing, pretending they haven't been covered - in great detail, in fact - is another.

      Delete
  18. Ill repeat my post just because I feel like it.

    Was John ruled out as the writer of the ransom note? Yes he was. (And yes I have read all of Docs speculative posts on the RN...none of which even remotely made me consider that handwriting experts don't know what they are talking about).

    There was no intruder. Burke didn't write it. Who does that leave? The Easter Bunny?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that wascally wabbit has been known to get up to some shenanigans, so who knows?!?!

      Delete
    2. Those same "experts" concluded it was unlikely that Patsy wrote it. So where does that leave you? Do you think Burke wrote it?

      Delete
  19. Ms D, here you go again being all whingy again because handwriting experts dont agree with your flawed logic. John didnt write the damn RN...you're simply being willfully dishonest in order to create antagonism within the community here. Offering a rebuttal to the claims is one thing, pretending they haven't been covered - in great detail, in fact - is another.

    I think I'll agree with the experts on this one :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. From Doc's first line of this post:

    "BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the 'ransom note.'"

    Question for Doc: Why do you persist in dismissing the Burke theory on the premise that the parents (plural) would not have covered up for the son?

    Your entire theory derives from John being up that night and Patsy being asleep upstairs and not involved.

    There was one parent up, who wrote the note, whom I believe to have been John, just like Doc believes. So with the Burke theory, take it from there and stop going around in circles with "the parents would not have covered for their son." That is logical but a non-sequitur for this blog.

    There was ONE parent who had at least one reason to cover for Burke if Burke did it, and it is the identical reason that forms the basis for John Ramsey's motive for intentionally killing his daughter according to Doc.

    From Ann Louise Bardach's Vanity Fair article (October 1997): “Dr. Cyril Wecht, a well-known forensic pathologist, has no doubt that the 45-pound child was molested. ‘If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, the father would have been arrested,’ he has said. The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. ‘The genital injuries indicate penetration,’ he says, ‘but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation.’”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wecht is being dramatic. You have to have probable cause to arrest somebody. Simply being somebody's father is not probable cause. Also a lot is made of her vaginal opening being "twice the normal size", but we're talking about a difference of 4 mm here, and not everyone is average.

      Just a thought here. "Probably not by a penis" is presupposing an adult penis. What about a 9-year-old's penis?

      Delete
    2. Note that Wecht, one of the world's most noted and experienced forensic pathologists, refers to "the father," and not "the brother." I don't think it even occurred to him that Burke could have been responsible for those injuries.

      And yes, there have been cases where parents have covered for a son or daughter, but never in the bizarre manner alleged in this case.

      Delete
  21. Mike Kane was the special prosecutor hired by Alex Hunter in 1997-98. Kane conducted every grand jury session, presented the witnesses and the evidence. In June of 1999, in response to a "Burke Did It!" story in the tabloid Star, Kane gave an interview that CLEARED BURKE UNEQUIVOCALLY, saying he had no involvement in his sister's death. Hunter himself did so as well a few days later in a separate interview, as did Police Chief Mark Beckner.

    They heard all the testimony, saw all the evidence.

    Zed, J, EG, anyone? Care to explain How you can continue to insist on Burke's guilt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't know that CC. Mike Kane's questions to the Ramseys' during interviews, depositions, or what not, are the best I've read. What I'd give to meet him and learn all he knows.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Smart guy, good lawyer.

      Doc and I are looking for a free private chat room for our project. I googled that phrase and came up with Google Hangouts, but I am not tech savvy, so if you have any thoughts, drop him a line, willya?

      Again, anyone interested in helping us prepare a mock lawsuit against JR is welcome to pitch in.

      Delete
    3. As will have become embarrassingly obvious to you already CC, my knowledge of law in the colonies (forgive me!) is not exactly watertight. But it sounds fascinating and I hope it is worthwhile.

      Delete
    4. And I think you're fascinating and worthwhile. Our law comes from yours - no surprise - and I doubt you'd put a foot wrong. Please join us.

      Ms D and HKH, too - critical thinkers both.

      Delete
    5. Happy to, CC. Thank you.

      Delete
    6. Doc has suggested we hash it out and make our case on this forum. As an admittedly wily attorney, I balk at airing my thought processes and those of my co-conspirators (which I hope will include M, H, D and anyone else who cares to participate) in public. I need a war room. I need a white board.

      Any ideas? If it helps, my blind e-mail is oceanview2519@gmail.com.
      We need a place to plot and scheme.

      Delete
    7. Didn't mean to exclude You, Miss B. Aside from your hat, which I still admire, You're plucky and show great promise (and sly humor). Want to be a lawyer for a while, help make a case you clearly care about?

      Delete
    8. Thanks for the words of encouragement, CC! I am utterly clueless when it comes to matters of law, especially U.S law, so I never even entertained the notion of joining in on the discussion.....but, sure, I'll give it a go! I *do* love to plot and scheme!

      Delete
    9. I'm flattered, CC. Thank you. I'm not sure I'd have as much to offer as the other people you mention, but I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.

      Delete
    10. Good. I posted a blind e-mail address ^ yesterday. Drop me a line, please. You too, Mike. Doc and I are looking for a free chat room in which we can "plot and scheme". Suggestions would be most welcome.

      Delete
  22. Postscript to Zed: You value experts, so highly; here are three who heard and saw it all.

    Postscript to EG: You mention Burke's "anger issues" but fail to document them. Other than the isolated incident with the golf club, what are your sources?

    Post-Postscript to EG: Social Anxiety, a documented condition from which I believe Burke suffers, causes uncontrollable and inappropriate smiling. Google "inappropriate smiling". I did, and was surprised at the number of hits, links, and comments from other sufferers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. While waiting for Doc's answer to my question to him above, I'll interpose a preliminary response to CC's challenge just above:

    From Kolar's book "Foreign Faction" Part 2 (from which the CBS special was launched in which a panel of "experts" unanimously opined that Burke was involved with if not directly responsible for the head blow):

    "On October 11, 2000, Ramsey attorney Lin Wood sent a Confidential Facsimile Transmission to Bill Wise at the Boulder County District Attorney’s office. The correspondence included a 4-page attachment of an Affidavit that Wood had prepared for Alex Hunter’s consideration. The Affidavit essentially declared that the Boulder District Attorney’s office didn’t consider Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in the murder of his sister.

    Wood suggested in the cover letter of the fax that, 'While there are no guarantees, hopefully this Affidavit will minimize or negate any further appearances by Alex or a representative of the D.A.’ s office in the Burke Ramsey litigation.'

    Wood had filed a libel/slander lawsuit against the Star tabloid on the behalf of Burke Ramsey at the time of this request, and apparently thought he could benefit from a sworn declaration of this type. Hunter reportedly reviewed the draft Affidavit provided by Wood, and after striking some of the language contained therein, signed off on the edited document.

    Documents obtained from the lawsuit indicated that Hunter struck the following language, as drafted and proposed for his consideration by Lin Wood, from two paragraphs before signing off on the final version of the Affidavit. The deleted language reads as follows and a copy of the original affidavit with the changes, and handwritten notes in the margin may be viewed in the appendix.

    "All questions related to Burke Ramsey’s possible involvement in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister."

    Handwritten notes in the margin next to paragraph 6 appeared to modify Wood’s proposed language to the following:

    "From December 26, 1996, to the date of this affidavit…"

    When combined with the remaining language of Wood’s affidavit, paragraph 6 read as follows:

    "From December 26, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey’s status from that of witness to Suspect.”

    Paragraph 9 appeared to be struck in its entirety.

    9. “From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey.”

    Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

    In passing, we should all be reminded that successor D.A. Mary Keenan-Lacy later UNEQUIVOCALLY absolved ALL of the Ramseys at Wood's purported urging, so presumably ALL theories of anyone in the Ramsey family should be shut down, and this blog should thus be considered one giant waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary Lacy, always a Ramsey apologist and IDI proponent, erroneously based her blanket exoneration on DNA evidence that did not meet the then-minimum number of matching alleles (13?), and has been widely criticized by, among others, Stan Garnett for her reckless letter.

      The stricken language in Wood's Affidavit seems to me to be basic lawyerly conservatism in an unsolved case and open investigation, and indicated that Hunter believed, as many of us do, that Burke may have seen or heard something that night or morning which he did not reveal, and thereby had some involvement.


      Delete
    2. CC, didn't Doc mention something about Lin Wood threatening Lacey with a lawsuit if she didn't exonerate the Ramsey family after she got those weak DNA results back? He seemed to think that Lacey was covering her behind and afraid of being sued. What's your take on her, as a fellow attorney? It sounds mean, but in her televised appearances (interviews) she doesn't come across as the sharpest tool in the shed. And when she hurried to fly JM Karr back from Thailand, I think even the most inexperienced sleuths thought he was just catching a free ride out of the jackpot he'd made for himself there.

      Delete
    3. Yup, Wood bragged about threatening Lacy in the Dr Phil interviews with Burke.

      I don't know her personally, but she was a Hunter protege who believed from the beginning that John and Patsy could not have done this and it must be an intruder. I think your take on Karr is exactly right.

      Lacy must have seen him as a gift from the gods. What she did was enormously inappropriate, under any circumstances.

      I caught your remark yesterday, btw . . .thanks for the break!

      Delete
  24. CC...I have little use for anything AH conducted, as his actions were criminal. Not only did he allow the R's attorneys access to the questions they'd be asked at the interviews, he didn't follow through with those GJ findings and failed to indict.
    Therefore anything he has done or took part in means absolutely nothing to me. He is inept at best, and corrupt at worst. I'd add Mary Lacy to that as well, as she exonerated the R's based on DNA evidence that was also inconclusive and yet claimed it was.

    As far as anger issues...hitting your sister with a golf club, smearing feces on items belonging to her, as well as well as all over the bathroom walls, together with grandparents buying. "Why Johnny can't tell right from wrong",I'd say yea, that kid had anger issues.

    I'll buy the social anxiety condition and I'll even give him a pass on that one, even though skipping out of the funeral mass and smiling was a bit strange to me.

    The findings regarding sexual abuse were inconclusive, because they are contradictory and for every pathologist who says YES, there is one that says NO. So, being that the JDI theory is based on him being the predator and pedophile and it can't be proven conclusively, I'd say there goes the motive, and not far behind that, the theory.

    In a court of law, as a juror, if I was presented with those conflicting findings, with JR having no prior history of pedophilia, and having his daughter testify that he was a wonderful father and had never laid an inappropriate hand on her, I'd discount the pathologists testimony entirely.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're going to have to name the medical experts who "said no". Spitz didn't see the autopsy material. Of the three "dissenters" most people name, the Arapahoe County ME said he needed more information, a second utterly misunderstood the definition of child sexual abuse, and the third disagreed because he felt there should be bruising on her thighs, evidence she had been forced, which was never a contention.

      The poopy candy box and PJ bottoms were never collected or tested. No proof the poop was Burke's. The smeared bathroom happened while Patsy was at the NIH being treated for cancer, an anxiety-producing event for any child.

      So far you're just making a lot of unsubstantiated allegations we've heard many, many times before.

      Delete
    2. EG, I'd call it "sexual interference." Definitely present. And, given that Dr. Wecht said she had probably been interfered with "two or three days" prior, or that the interference was two or three days old, something could have happened the night of the Ramsey's Christmas party Dec. 23, where a 911 call was place around 7:09 p.m., which Fleet took credit for but whatever happened the guests all left around 8 p.m. Bit early to end a Christmas party. That was the night JB was crying and saying she didn't feel pretty. Burke was seen laughing. This case can be solved by choosing the correct system of logic, then applying it in a logically intuitive way, by looking at the family dynamics - Burke wasn't just jealous, he was shut out by both parents. Neglected - both children having bed wetting and scatological issues long after the diapers would have come off.

      I suspect this was the family secret. That he was becoming increasingly more disturbed and acting out in ways that were inappropriate or showed anger toward his sister. This would be something Patsy would have been in denial about, trying to give him equal time but failing in that, with a husband who was primarily focused on his business.

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

      Delete
    4. Wecht did not see the photos, slides and tissue samples from the autopsy either.

      Delete
    5. By all means, CC, please provide the proper definition of child sexual abuse along with a source. In particular, I'd like to know how (or if) you distinguish vaginal trauma from sexual abuse.

      Delete
    6. I make no such distinction in child sexual abuse cases.

      You'll have to ask Dr Richard Krugman, Dean of CU Medical Services, what he meant by his remark.

      Delete
    7. Krugman's not here, but I'm asking *you* what your basis is for asserting that Krugman "misunderstood the definition of child sexual abuse".

      Delete
    8. I made no such assertion, merely quoted a forensic pathologist who did.

      Delete
    9. Really? What forensic pathologist said that Krugman "misunderstood the definition of child sexual abuse"

      Delete
    10. Don't have my notes with me, and don't remember off the top of my head. In the meantime, I'm still waiting for your names of "other experts who disagreed".

      Delete
    11. Not sure why you would be waiting for something I already posted. In fact you've actually already made responses to it.

      Delete
    12. How many do you need? By the way, it hasn't escaped my notice that you've never cited where you got the information that McCann, Jones, Kirschner, Monteleone, and Rau were shown the autopsy report, photographs and tissue samples. Neither Schiller, Thomas, or the Bonita papers say that.

      Delete
    13. Really? I thought both Thomas and Schiller (who got a lot of information from Thomas, though to be fair, there wasn't anyone in Boulder who wasn't talking to him on the down low) made reference to it. Maybe try the JBR Case Encyclopedia - it's not a primary source, but sometimes it names them.

      As I said, I'm out of town, away from my notes, spending the weekend judging moot court competition at one of the State law schools (deadly boring; these kids need to learn to be succinct) and tapping out messages to you on my phone under the table.

      Delete
    14. Inq...

      That could very well be. They never did say what that 911 call was about. I think I had read that Fleet White was dialing his druggist and hit the wrong numbers, or something like that....not sure.

      EG

      Delete
    15. Almost, EG. He intended to call 411, information, to get the number of his mother's nursing home, to check on her medication.

      Delete
    16. "Burke wasn't just jealous, he was shut out by both parents. Neglected"

      I agree. And to me that hardly sounds like a child *so* treasured that both his parents would stage a child sex murder in their own home in order to protect him from any fall-out over his hitting his sister on the head with a torch; let-alone stage a kidnapping gone wrong to protect him from the consequences of actually molesting and strangling their daughter to death himself.

      Delete
    17. And I don't think that's what they did. So I agree with you MHN.

      Delete
    18. That's pretty much what Fleet said, EG. But I think it's a piece of the puzzle, leading up to Dec. 25. Just found it odd that the call was made 7:09 p.m. Dec. 23 to 911. Susan Stine doesn't open the door to LE. By 8 p.m. everyone leaves. Fleet knows more than he's telling too. Maybe it's nothing, but to me everything counts. If it was just a misdial, why not just open the door, explain it to LE and be done with it.

      Delete
    19. I have always found the call to 911 on the 23rd very suspicious, and I believe that whatever occurred that evening might be a valuable, missing, piece of the puzzle that would go a long way in helping to solve the murder. A misdial is, of course, completely plausible, especially when we consider that the number Fleet allegedly attempted to dial was almost identical to 911 (though the "4" is not located anywhere near the "9" on a touch phone, or rotary phone).....but couple that with the fact Susan wouldn't allow the officers to come inside, and JonBenet was found murdered two days later.....it does seem very possible that whatever happened that night may have been the precursor to the events that occurred on Christmas night.

      Delete
    20. Good, then, our sleuthing is in sync Ms D. It was the Ramsey's home, it's baffling that Mrs. Stine would choose to be the pitbull at that time, days before she would choose to be the pitbull again. The Ramsey house had many rooms where something could have occurred there that night and interesting that the friends would maintain a wall of secrecy of those events that night, and also serve as a buffer on Dec. 26.

      Delete
    21. I've no idea what you're implying, but then I seldom do. Fleet White was and is the last person who would lie or cover up for a Ramsey misdeed, nor has he maintained a wall of secrecy. He, sensibly, had no use for Hunter's office or the media, but Beckner says he's spoken with White "many, many times".

      Delete
    22. In fact, of the five people called to 15th Street on the morning of the 26th, Fleet and Priscilla White and Barbara Fernie severed all ties with the Rs shortly thereafter, Barbara too was outspokenly critical of them, and her husband's interview is available on acandyrose. So much for your wall of secrecy.

      Delete
  25. We who have followed this case are well aware of the false foundation for Lacy's exoneration, and evidence is being "developed" to this day, as we write, regarding the unidentifiable DNA left on and around the victim.

    Further "developments" are not new in this case as to anyone it appears, and the modified and stricken paragraphs in the Hunter affidavit allow an inference to be drawn that Hunter was not wanting to swear to something that would lead the reader to conclude that he was precluding the possibility that further evidence, or later conclusions to be drawn from theretofore uncovered evidence, or both, could in theory be "developed" regarding Burke's involvement either as a suspect or witness. In particular, the word "suspect" was used in the stricken paragraph 9, not "witness."

    Mark Beckner was acknowledged in Kolar's book as providing assistance or oversight to some degree. Presumably he read the book in allowing his name to be cited as a reference. From Kolar's Acknowledgment:

    "To name but a few, I would like to thank the following people for their assistance, and contribution to my work in this investigation: Rick French, Tom Wickman, Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo, Mark Beckner, Kurt Weiler, Ron Gosage, Greg Testa, and Shelley Hisey."

    Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.


    ReplyDelete
  26. Re: EG just above:

    "The findings regarding sexual abuse were inconclusive, because they are contradictory and for every pathologist who says YES, there is one that says NO..."

    That is not true. Please see CC's guest post from Sunday 9/25/16, which is sourced. It is corroborated in numerous publications and books.

    ReplyDelete
  27. From CC's guest post of Sunday 9/25/16:

    "In September of 1997 a panel of medical experts was shown the autopsy report, photographs and tissue samples. This panel consisted of:

    John McCann, MD - Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, UC Davis, acknowledged to be the foremost expert on child sexual abuse in the country;

    David Jones, MD - Professor of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, UC Boulder;

    Robert Kirschner, MD - University of Chicago Department of Pathology;

    James Monteleone, MD - Professor of Pediatrics at St Louis University School of Medicine and Director of Child Protection at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital;

    Ronald Wright, MD - former Medical Examiner, Cook County, Illinois; and

    Virginia Rau, MD - Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner.

    They observed, among other chronic injuries, a hymen that had been eroded over time and a vaginal opening twice normal size for a six year old. All stated they observed "evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse". Dr Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, in a separate assessment, concurred."

    Question for CC regarding his statement at 1:55PM above that: "Wecht did not see the photos, slides and tissue samples from the autopsy either."

    What did Wecht "assess" in concurring with the other experts when you touted him in your guest post of Sunday 9/15/16 excerpted above as concurring with the experts?

    Still waiting for Doc to answer the question posed at 9:56AM above. Thanks in advance. Done for the day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't tout him, merely mentioned his concurrence in deference to Doc, who is a fan of Wecht's. I am not.

      Delete
    2. Further from the CC guest post of Sunday 9/25/16:

      "Dr Michael Doberson, Arapahoe County, Colorado coroner, said only he would need more information before coming to a conclusion. Dr Richard Krugman, Dean of University of Colorado Health Services, has not denied evidence of prior sexual abuse, but said "Jonbenet was not a sexually abused child. I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone", to which Cyril Wecht responded "What is Krugman talking about?"


      Ok you didn't tout him, rather cited him in support of your helpful post for Doc--twice.

      I'm seriously looking for an answer to what it was that Wecht had made an assessment of that led him to concur with the other experts if he saw none of "the photos, slides or tissue samples from the autopsy" as you say.

      Ann Bardach apparently believed in Wecht's credibility per her article in Vanity Fair back in the fall of 1997, and as she stated similarly to Rose (available on You Tube) in her interview with Charlie Rose at the time, stating what she wrote in the article. She cited the esteemed Dr. Kirschner as well it appeared, all around the time of the assessments made by the listed experts in September 1997 to whom you refer in the guest post of Sunday 9/25/16.

      Can you answer the question please? What had Wecht "assessed?" No offense, just trying to piece things together.

      Delete
    3. None taken, and good for you.

      I don't know what he assessed, but he wasn't on the list of experts cited by Schiller, Thomas or Kolar, those consulted by the DA and shown the autopsy material, nor was Spitz.

      Delete
    4. I think Wecht just read the redacted autopsy report and looked at the photos published in the Globe tabloid.

      Delete
    5. I think you're right, John. That's what he'd been paid by The Globe to do.

      Delete
    6. What is your source for stating that Wecht made "a separate assessment" in your guest post of Sunday 9/25/16? Had you seen an assessment by him, or a statement from him that he had made an assessment, or a statement from anyone that he had made an assessment?

      Perhaps you are deducing that he had made an "assessment" based on Ms. Bardach's Vanity Fair article, or based on Wecht's own book?

      If so, fine. I haven't read all of Wecht's book, but I have seen interviews with him. He believes from forensic evidence of a detailed sort, apparently bereft of any first hand knowledge of "photos, slides and tissue samples from the autopsy" per your statement, that the victim was first strangled to death or very near death, and then struck on the head, based on, among others, the lack of bleeding in the skull from the blow, and rear brain bruising on both sides, insofar as I recall correctly.

      Delete
    7. The book, and a discussion about it on this blog some time ago; it had been years since I read the Vanity Fair article, and had forgotten Wecht was quoted until you just mentioned it.

      He also blathers on about erotic asphyxiation, like that might have been at play in the murder of a six year old.

      Delete
  28. In answer to John I upstream: Dr
    Meyer's autopsy report was redacted, impossible to say what was omitted or by whom, but most believe it's the sexual abuse, as Meyer consulted with Dr Sirontak of Denver Children's Hospital on that subject before filing his final report.

    Dr Beuf never performed an internal exam, without which it's impossible to determine sexual abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't say it's impossible. There are other signs of sexual abuse beyond just anatomical. And an internal exam is not necessary to see the hymen or the size of the vaginal opening.

      Delete
    2. I take your point. On the other hand, I would nevet have prosecuted a case for rape or sexual abuse without the results of a pelvic exam.

      Delete
  29. As I said, the "experts'" findings were contradictory. Krugman and Spitz, not to mention the FBI findings. Add Melinda Ramsey stating her father never abused her in any way nor any proof or evidence of JR every abusing ANY child sexually. No pornographic material uncovered anywhere, etc.

    Even if he DID sexually abuse her, HOW do you prove it based on what the experts said? Simple answer: you can't.

    And I am not saying she wasn't sexually abused. I think she was, honestly. However, connecting the dots and coming up with JR as a pedophile, just doesn't work. You cannot convict someone on the basis of him being the only adult male in the house. Or can you?...I am not a lawyer but geez, it's scary if being an adult and a certain gender qualifies you as a pedophile without a shred of evidence to prove it.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think CC is trying to make a point that they would have to have seen all the things the 6 on her list did to be able to tell for sure and Spitz and Wecht might just have had the reduced autopsy report.

      Delete
    2. If so, anon, then Wecht's concurrence isn't worth much is it, that is, if he didn't see what they saw? What is it he is "concurring with?" Their reputations?

      CC said Wecht made a separate assessment of something, enabling him to concur with the experts. Yet he purportedly didn't see "the photos, slides or tissue samples from the autopsy" (source CC?).

      CC said he cited Wecht in support of Doc but appears to be impeaching his own witness (Wecht) in later posts. I do not understand that.

      Delete
    3. Ya got me, Anon. I can see why it would be confusing if you don't know the history.

      Wecht was hired by The Globe, as John I just pointed out, to look at the autopsy report and the photos they'd obtained and published and make an assessment. His conclusion was that she'd been sexually molested, strangled for purposes of erotic asphyxiation, then hit on the head. The autopsy report states she died of ligature strangulation, borne out by petechial hemmorhage. Wecht got it wrong.

      Doc and Wecht are from the same hometown, and have exchanged e-mails about the JBR Case. Doc holds him in high esteem. I do not, and have frequently been critical of him in these pages, for being a hack for hire, for being sued for fraud, for misusing his position when he was ME.

      Obviously, my criticisms of him are harsh, and though Doc never rebuked me for them, I felt badly, particularly when Doc offered to let me write a guest post on chronic sexual abuse last September.

      So I included Cyril Wecht, as I said, in deference to Doc.

      Sorry for the confusion.





      Delete
    4. Not sure where you got the idea that the Globe *hired* Wecht though...

      Wecht said that the small amount of blood in her skull was an indication that she was killed by strangling before the head blow. Which is completely consistent with death by asphyxiation.

      Delete
    5. Wecht doesn't work for free.

      Delete
    6. For the record (and repeating myself now for the umpteenth time): this case is not a child abuse case, it's a murder case. It's murder that needs to be proved, not sexual abuse. The clear signs of abuse and the likelihood that such abuse was far more likely to have been perpetrated by an adult male would go a long way in establishing motive in a circumstantial case. No need to prove it.

      Delete
    7. Actually, in a circumstantial case it's critically important to prove every circumstance, every link in the chain that leads incontrovertibly to only one conclusion.

      Motive isn't necessary in an evidentiary case; it's vitally important in a circumstantial one.

      Delete
    8. Correct CC. And while still awaiting Doc's answer to my question as to why he persists with the "both parents wouldn't have covered their son's whacking of his sister by killing her, garrotting her" and so on, let me clarify where I'm coming from on this thing, leaving all self-importance aside...

      As Doc says, there is no direct evidence John killed is daughter or else the case would have been solved long ago, and there is no direct evidence that Burke struck his sister.

      By process of elimination however, including by way of Doc's excellent work, neither Patsy nor an intruder committed the crime.

      That leaves only two, either or both of whom could have struck the head blow, before or after strangulation (by the way CC, sexual asphyxia gets some guys off, regardless of the female's enjoyment or not). And interestingly, Kolar leaves open the possibility that Burke and John could both have been involved. Unlike the CBS tv special, he does not reveal what took place on the tv special, and the third episode of that special was not aired. He made his case to Lacy and she mocked him. We don't know what his case was.

      The photographic EVIDENCE of the victim's skull indicates a blow from the right side, contrary to Doc's theory that John struck her from behind in an act of committing a quick merciful kill.

      The triangular mark on the victim's neck was, according to Spitz, inflicted by the scrunching of her collar in a frontal strangulation in the course of which she turned her head and received the blow. That would involve a right handed strangulation hold, with a left hand blow with the mag light. Whatever.

      He believes the fingernail marks on her neck were from that live struggle, along with the blown out capillaries in the eyeballs. There could have been a final strangulation after the head blow with that same scrunching of the collar after the writing of the note, with Ramsey essentially abusing a corpse with the later desperate sadistic add-ons, post-Patsy 911 call.

      Or Burke in a fit might have come up from behind or the side and struck the victim, then the final strangulation by twisting the collar may have come after that.

      Regardless, John's pederasty, if any, with his daughter does not translate to the next massive step of intending to murder his daughter in hopes of a successful sales job on his wife and pulling off the most difficult fake kidnapping the world has ever seen. No, he was just doing his thing before embarking on a trip that would have limited his opportunity to do it while out of town with the extended family for two weeks. Something went horribly wrong, and he devised a desperate plan that in a twisted way, got him time enough to escape incarceration for any involvement of whatever degree.

      Patsy's innocence that night is sacrosanct in my opinion, and what she did to abet a cover-up can be boiled down to one sentence uttered to her from her husband (not that it was needed): "Honey, they are coming after all of us, even Burke." Her mama grizzly instincts took over from there.

      Delete
    9. "he was just doing his thing before embarking on a trip that would have limited his opportunity to do it while out of town with the extended family for two weeks."

      Oooh. Nice stuff, anon. Is that your own idea or have you come across that somewhere else?

      (Couldn't you initial or fakename yourself so we can know it's you again next time?)

      Delete
    10. Correction on your long tome above Anonymous:

      "...and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shaped bruise located on the side of her throat" (discussion of injuries by Dr. Werner Spitz, Kolar, pp. 65-66)

      Delete
    11. "Motive isn't necessary in an evidentiary case; it's vitally important in a circumstantial one."

      That may well be true, but how on earth is it possible to prove motive -- in ANY case? Will we ever know the real motive behind Halbach's murder? Was it lust? revenge for some slight or insult on the part of the victim? revenge on the justice system that wrongfully prosecuted him in the earlier case? resentment against women generally?

      To prove motive one would need to get inside the head of the perpetrator, and how does one do that? I think it sufficient to prove that a certain motive was both possible and likely, given the circumstances. That, combined with proof of guilt, circumstantial or otherwise, should be sufficient.

      Delete
    12. The evidence revealed that the blow landed on the right portion of her skull, NOT that it was delivered from the right side. It could certainly have been delivered from behind.

      And there were NO scratch marks found on her neck, they were described as petechial hemorrhages.

      Spitz's interpretation of the evidence is suspect, since he also claimed there was no sign of a sexual assault, which is obviously wrong. It's easy to make assumptions regarding the details of what happened during the assault, and it's just as easy to dismiss them -- as nothing more than assumptions.

      Delete
    13. Dear Doc:

      Spitz's expert opinion would be admissible as evidence in any court in the land, once his lengthy qualifications were brought forth on direct examination to lay the foundation for his expert testimony. Take it for what it is.

      As to the head blow: If the blow were administered from behind, the rectangular cavity from the presumed mag light would have been perpendicular to, and not parallel with, the length of the skull.

      Regardless, you for some reason will not answer my good faith question as to why you believe the Burke theory (which simply is an open question) is ludicrous because of the notion that "no two parents (plural, though Patsy was not involved that night) would go to such great lengths, that night, to cover for their son." I'm seeking intellectual honesty here, consistent with the bedrock of this blog. You have done yeoman's work. I am trying to figure out what I'm missing when you rebuke the Zeds of the world with the seemingly inconsistent response.

      And to answer your question of why one would "insert the further complication of Burke" into the mix, it is because people such as myself cannot fathom a man putting everything, including his freedom or life (depending on the punishment for murder in the State of Colorado), on the line to cover for the much lesser crime of incest being possibly later discovered when returning from the two week vacation, relying on pulling off a miracle to get away with intentional murder. Ramsey was a guy whose everyday language referred to percentages of success as you have pointed out in this blog and in your Kindle book. He likely wouldn't have thought his percentage of success, if planned in advance, for pulling off the most audacious crime and cover-up in history, was much more than 30%. They must have been looking at him that afternoon between 1:10pm and 1:40pm like the mouse at an owl picnic, which is why he tried to flee to Atlanta at 1:40pm.

      And no doubt it didn't surprise him at that point, and it was eminently foreseeable by any sane man that such would be the case were Patsy not to fall for the sales job in the ransom note.

      Not to mention the difficulty of picturing a man purposely and viciously crushing his daughter's skull with malice aforethought only hours after a delightful Christmas with her. I can't get there myself.

      That feeling of revulsion at the thought of intentional murder actually makes Spitz's scenario more likely in explaining John doing it without Burke's involvement.

      The Babbler

      Delete
    14. Clearly you are either a latecomer to this blog or not paying attention, Babbler. There is nothing really new in your post, and your questions have been raised and answered several times, by myself and others. I don't have time to get into all that again, you'll just have to look for it. Your posts are filled with opinions and unjustified assumptions. Sorry, but that's the best I can do.

      Delete
    15. I've paid rapt attention Doc, which is obvious from my accurate recollections and references to your logical positions taken in this blog and in your Kindle book, which I have read more than once and gone back to from time to time.

      I asked only one question of you, not "questions."

      In not answering my question, you did not have to recast my question and commentary into things they aren't. On second thought, maybe you did need to.

      It is disappointing.

      Regards,

      Baba Ghanoush

      Delete
    16. This is harassment plain and simple, "Baba" and I refuse to go along with it. Future attempts on your part to waste my time and that of others will be deleted. So learn to live with it. Either I am unable to meet your challenge or I have already done so over and over. Suit yourself. But stop already with the empty rhetoric and harassment.

      If you've been reading here you already know the answer. And so does every other regular on this blog.

      Delete
    17. Doc: I had read your post too fast. You have not deterred from the separateness of the parents. I was worried that you had, but in re-reading it more carefully, you haven't. I am relieved. I humbly apologize and retract.

      BaBa Black Sheep

      Delete
    18. Baba:

      John's "lesser" crime was not incest; it was sexual assault and abuse of a minor; in this case, his six year old daughter. Also risking life and limb to preserve wealth reputation has been a motive for murder since man first started walking the earth.

      Mike G

      Delete
    19. I have a weakness for manifestations of creativity, BaBa, no matter how they manifest themselves. Your creative and amusing choice of pseudonyms makes it much easier for me to accept your apology and welcome you into our midst. Or should I say "mist"?

      Delete
  30. I've basically laid it down, MHN, and I don't cop others' work. I rely on it to draw my own conclusions.

    I'd be happy to name myself. How about CC Rider for my harassment of CC today, or Babble-on, in honor of Inquisitive. Sorry Inq-y. I am just not knowledgeable enough of the list of choices from the profile list to pick the one that lends the most privacy while picking a sobriquet. Help me out. Vaya con Dios Amigo.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Correction on your long tome above Anonymous"

    That seals it. I'm going with Babble-on. Somebody tell me how to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As an example of how Inq for some reason likes to throw sand in the gears without a fuller explanation, please see the full quote from Kolar's book re the Inq post above:

    "He [Spitz] offered an opinion on the sequencing of injuries that had been inflicted upon JonBenét during her murder: This first injury sustained by JonBenét was believed to have been the constriction marks on the sides and front of her throat. He believed that her assailant had grabbed her shirt from the front and twisted the collar in their fist. The cloth from the edge of the collar had created the discolored, striated bruising and abrasions on the sides of her neck, and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shaped bruise located on the front side of her throat."

    Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 914-917). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

    Thanks Inq for the technical correction. The cloth caused the striated marks on the sides of the neck, and the knuckles that caused the scrunching of the cloth in turn also caused the bruise on the front of the throat.

    My points still stand. And when Ramsey saw the bruise having formed on her throat (he was in deep thought when observed that morning), he decided he needed to cover it with the garroting of the corpse, or the near corpse.

    The sadism inflicted between 10:40AM and noon on the 26th with people in the house, including a detective in the personage of Det. Linda Arndt, is chilling to contemplate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just wanted it clear that the triangular bruise mark, which baffled me for years, fits very perfectly with someone attempting to loosen a slipknot with the knuckles of the second and third fingers - and that it could be from a he or a she. I have Spitz's quote from another source as well who believed it was caused from trying to pull away or loosen the slipknot tied around her neck. The book I read has that fact illustrate a more important point.Finding her close to death but not certain, pulling on the chord from the front would only have tightened it further thus having an unintended effect of cutting off her air sharply.

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

      Delete
    3. Nobody pays any attention to Inq, who has promised to leave here 5 or 6 times at least but never does really.

      Delete
  33. I'm prepared to. Inq, care to elaborate? You seem to have absorbed / formed a fairly detailed and elaborate picture of the actual crime. What do you think happened, then? Who did what to whom, and when?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Doc, I have read elsewhere that blood was present on the pink barbie nightgown either "stuck" to the white blanket or placed there. If the nightgown was washed makes no difference, technology would still pick up traces of blood. I tried to verify this by searching acandyrose and see a discussion with Thomas where he states there was no blood on the nightgown, but reading further down it was stated that there was. There was also blood on her pillow case, Patsy states JB never had nosebleeds but that she might "pick at" her nose. I also have a crime photo where it looks like blood is present on the nightgown. Do you have any information on this, and if blood is present, what does it suggest to you? It suggests to me that she may have been changed into that barbie nightgown for bed, then redressed in the longjohns and big panties later. Please comment. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only blood I'm sure of is the blood found on her panties. As for the rest, it would help if you could be more specific regarding your sources.

      Delete
    2. "...if blood is present, what does it suggest to you? It suggests to me that she may have been changed into that barbie nightgown for bed, then redressed in the longjohns and big panties later."

      Inquisitive:

      Why would Doc speculate on anything, let alone something hypothetical to begin with, in this case?

      Mike G.

      "Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that arose from the plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire,"

      "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich, for this is a righteous war..."

      "What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

      "Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

      "Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

      ---Cervantes

      Delete
  35. MHN, I read elsewhere on this crime. But I think it's a pitfall to spell out a detailed theory, in here. You can see what happens when one does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inq, welcome back.

      If John was in fact sexually abusing JBR, is it reasonable to conclude he's capable of murder? They seem like two very different crimes that don't exactly go together. Have there been other cases where the father murders his sexually abused daughter as a means to ensure the truth does not get out?

      If this was premeditated, the manner of death seems unusually violent. Seems like there could have been a more humane way to do this if he had to kill her.

      Delete
    2. "MHN, I read elsewhere on this crime. But I think it's a pitfall to spell out a detailed theory, in here. You can see what happens when one does."

      Yes. It gets held up to analysis and peer-review, and you have to be prepared to defend it. Nightmare, isn't it! ;p

      Delete
    3. Gumsh:

      "Have there been other cases where the father murders his sexually abused daughter as a means to ensure the truth does not get out?"

      I would be wary of evaluating a scenario by appealing to precedent. Firstly, statistics prove nothing in a particular case, and secondly, which scenario proposed in this case has a precedent?

      Delete
  36. true MHN. And you can cite all of the references there are to be cited and still skepticism will reign supreme. Also you can become boxed in to a particular theory, so that if there are aspects of it that no longer make sense, you end up defending yourself even if you have lost faith in your theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHN/INquistive:

      Whenever you feel yourselves losing faith, go back and reread "Just the facts ma'am." It's the only cure without confirmation bias as nasty side effect.

      Mike G



      Mike G

      Delete
  37. If JonBenet went to bed wearing her Barbie nightgown, why would the killer need to redress her into the same longjohns she had worn the previous evening? I could understand that reasoning if the killer disposed of the nightgown to ensure no trace of himself would be left behind. The nightgown, however, was left in the wine cellar to easily be discovered. Besides that, JR stated that the Barbie nightgown in the crime scene photos did not look like the one JonBenet wore to bed. He thought it belonged to one of her Barbie dolls. So why was there blood on it?

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
  38. SOURCES = First of all I'd like to nail down whether there was blood on the Barbie nightgown or not. It was the nightgown found on the white blanket, not a doll-sized Barbie nightgown, but one of JB's nightgowns (Barbie doll print). I have three reports, two of which conflict. The following:

    "JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown" (from Case Encyclopedia)

    Steve Thomas deposition 9-21-2001 Chris Wolf vs. Ramsey Civil Case "Thomas says no blood evidence that he's aware of was on nightgown."

    The Bonita Papers 1999 re: Barbie Nightgown: there was "blood found on the long-sleeved white top, the 'Wednesday' underwear, the blanket and nightgown found in the wine cellar, and the duct tape" (tested by Co. Bureau of Investigations).

    Patsy said the pink Barbie nightgown on top of white blanket in wine cellar room from crime scene photos shouldn't be there. So 1) was there blood on it; 2) if so, why - how did it get there; 3) when did it get there.

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

    ReplyDelete
  40. And one more, but likely where Case Encyclopedia got it, Carnes Summary Judgment Wolf v. Ramsey "JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown." (SMF 150 PSMP 150)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Children get scrapes and cuts; they bleed. Since there is no testimony JBR wore the nightgown the night of the 25th, and no testimony as to when she last wore it (though it was not the night of the 24th, obviously), and since her body had no bleeding wounds other than to the vagina, with a corresponding bloodstain in her underwear:

    4) what does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gumshoe, you are spot on with one of your posts above. If this was premeditated, events would NOT have occured the way they did. Anyone who believes this was premeditated is delusional.

    If John was responsible, it was NOT premeditated.

    However, given Patsys 911 call though (and the obvious signs of acting within this call) and the fact that experts believed that Patsy was much more likely to have written the note than John, Patsy obviously played a big part in the events on that fateful night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. . . .and Patsy did this to protect her son? The one who couldn't be prosecuted under any circumstances? Burke Ramsey? The one who was publicly cleared by prosecutors Mike Kane and Alex Hunter, and by Police Chief Beckner?

      And you call me delusional?

      Delete
    3. CC...

      He may not have been able to be prosecuted, but he sure would've been persecuted in the public eye. He would've been labeled for life as a murderer.

      Read her Christmas letters. Her family was perfect in every way. Couldn't very well add that to the Christmas letter could she?

      "Merry Christmas Everyone, Well, this year Burke killed JonBenet in a jealous rage, but that's okay. He couldn't be prosecuted anyway so well yes, life does goes on".

      Come on, try to think outside of the Prosecutor's box, okay?

      EG

      EG

      Delete
    4. Not going to abandon reason, logic and good sense - not to mention the opinions of the three who heard all the evidence put before the grand jury AND EXONERATED THE KID!!! - just to indulge your supposedly creative thinking.

      Delete
    5. Well you can put your reason, logic and good sense with a Prosecutor's office that was inept and corrupt. The same prosecutors office that refused to indict and possibly get to the truth of the matter.

      I trust my own judgment before any of one of those three.

      EG

      Delete
    6. Mike Kane was above reproach, as was Mark Beckner.

      By all means, you do that. . .and you've seen how much of the evidence? Heard how much of the testimony?

      Delete
    7. Well then they should've made sure justice was served instead of going along with AH KNOWING what the GJ's decision was. Instead they're all guilty of allowing the public to believe the GJ didn't vote to indict.

      And yes, they did hear all the evidence and yes, they did hear all the testimony as did the GJ. STILL, no indictment.

      And then, there's Mary Lacy. Oh yes, I have confidence in the Boulder Prosecutor's office. NOT!

      EG

      Delete
    8. CC, I honestly don't give a crap they exonerated the kid. As EG said, anything involved in this case you can take with a grain of salt. And the law is dodgey at the best of times...three people exonerated Burke, wow he must be completely innocent.

      But if you want to play that game, those three also indicted Patsy. So heck, I guess she 100% must be involved. There goes the JDI theory out the window...

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

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

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

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

      Delete
  43. Well gee, Zed, I must actually be extremely stupid. Ignorant. In fact, a complete moron - or maybe, as you so nicely describe those with a theory differing from your own, delusional. (You don't get to complain about name-calling from this point on, btw!) - because, see, I don't hear 'obvious signs of acting' in the 911 call.

    Even when I was new to the case and I thought Patsy had a hand in the crime I still listened to it and was struck by how absolutely convincing she was.

    Mind you, that was before I started studying the theories of the BDI crowd, and realised that Patsy was the first person ever to say "What?" in the course of a frantic 911 call, and that this was evidence of her fakery.

    So yeah, maybe I'm profoundly stupid. Tell me again, what are these 'obvious signs' of fakery?

    In fact, don't bother. I've heard it all before. It's a pile of steaming nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, M, how they all blame Patsy's fakery rather than Archuleta's inept performance as a 911 operator, supposedly trained to obtain maximum information in minimal time, is it not?

      She never asks for the child's description (though Patsy had the wit to begin to give it "she's blond . . ." before being cut off), NEVER tells her to stay on the phone (but no, that's Patsy's fault too, and another clear sign of deception); NOT ONCE. And then fantasized a "change of tone" in words Patsy never spoke.

      Amazing example of confirmation bias.

      Delete
    2. Quite so, CC. It gives me no pleasure to say it, because she probably went into that job with really good intentions and is more than likely a decent human being, but Archuleta's role in the CBS show left me thinking that she's someone who is actually not too bright.

      Also, it struck me at the time: the show obtained her interview, included her comments, and none of these investigative geniuses actually had the honesty or the integrity to draw viewers' attention to the fact that her comments were completely and irrefutably contradicted by the tape.

      The show's credibility nose-dived irrevocably for me at that point.

      Delete
    3. You're so right: she never tells Patsy to stay on the line. She never asks for a description.

      And also, yes, I think it was Doc who pointed out, why blame Patsy for the distinct coldness between herself and John that morning? Isn't it a husband's job to comfort and protect his wife in that situation?

      Everything gets turned against Patsy.

      Confirmation bias everywhere.

      Delete
    4. I was initially puzzled by Patsy's calling her friends that morning, but came to believe she knew she'd get no emotional support from John, and so got it wherever she could.

      And just as you say, that gets turned against her too.

      Delete
  44. Get a room you two.

    Patsy put on her best pageant performance to give that phone call. I award her a 7 out of 10.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think you are being stingy Zed. I give her a 10 out of 10, but the asking God to raise her from the dead as She did Lazarus, was more like a 7 out of 10. All sarcasm aside, if I had known nothing I would have expressed extreme shock and awe that for some 7 hours she was really lying dead in a cold basement room while my friends and I and my husband tromped around just above where she lay. I would have not had my other child a short distance away with a kidnapper who likely targeted my family in some "inside job" on the loose, I would have been extremely worried that all of the people I had called over would make it so the kidnapper would not call, including the early morning arrival of two police officers and a detective, and I wouldn't be wringing my hands and throwing up, I would be exploring every square inch of my house to see if there could be any clues to my daughter's disappearance. But hey, that's just me.

    ReplyDelete